Factors influencing quality of lymphadenectomy in minimally invasive esophagectomy: a US-based analysis

被引:0
|
作者
Odetoyinbo, Kolade [1 ]
Bachman, Katelynn [1 ]
Worrell, Stephanie [1 ]
Gray, Kelsey [1 ]
Linden, Philip [1 ]
Towe, Christopher [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Cleveland, Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Cleveland, OH 44106 USA
关键词
esophageal cancer; esophagectomy; lymphadenectomy; minimally invasive; NCCN; LYMPH-NODE STATUS; CANCER; IMPACT; RESECTION; SURVIVAL; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1093/dote/doab093
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
NCCN guidelines suggest that at least 15 lymph nodes (LN) should be evaluated at the time of esophagectomy to consider the lymphadenectomy 'adequate'. Despite these guidelines, this may not always be achieved in practice. The purpose of this study was to determine factors associated with adequate lymphadenectomy among patients receiving minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). Patients receiving MIE in the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2016 were identified. Patients with metastatic disease were excluded. The primary endpoint was adequate lymphadenectomy, defined as >15 or greater LN evaluated. Factors associated with adequate lymphadenectomy and overall survival were evaluated in univariable and multivariable analyses. Categorical variables were assessed using chi-squared, and continuous variables were assessed with rank-sum test. Survival was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A total of 6,539 patients underwent MIE between 2010 and 2016 (5,024 thoracoscopic-laparoscopic MIE and 1,515 robotic-assisted MIE). A total of 3,527 patients (53.9%) received adequate lymphadenectomy. Receiving MIE at an academic center (odds ratio [OR] 1.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-1.63, P < 0.001), institutional volume of MIE (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.008-1.011, P < 0.001), and presence of clinical nodal disease (OR 1.17, 95%CI 1.02-1.33, P = 0.025) were associated with adequate lymphadenectomy. Patients with >15 LN removed had increased overall survival (46.6 vs. 41.5 months, P < 0.001). Adequate lymphadenectomy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77, 95%CI 0.71-0.85, P < 0.001), receiving surgery at an academic center (HR 0.87, 95%CI 0.78-0.96, P = 0.007) and private insurance status (HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.81-0.98, P = 0.02) were independently associated with improved survival. Nearly half of patients receiving MIE do not receive adequate lymphadenectomy as defined by NCCN guidelines. Receiving MIE at an academic center with high procedural volume and the presence of nodal disease were independently associated with adequate lymphadenectomy. Adequate lymphadenectomy was associated with improved survival. These findings suggest that providers performing esophagectomy should follow guideline-based recommendations for lymphadenectomy.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Propensity Score-Matched Analysis Comparing Minimally Invasive Ivor Lewis Versus Minimally Invasive Mckeown Esophagectomy
    van Workum, Frans
    Slaman, Annelijn E.
    Henegouwen, Mark I. van Berge
    Gisbertz, Suzanne S.
    Kouwenhoven, Ewout A.
    van Det, Marc J.
    van den Wildenberg, Frits J. H.
    Polat, Fatih
    Luyer, Misha D. P.
    Nieuwenhuijzen, Grard A. P.
    Rosman, Camiel
    ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2020, 271 (01) : 128 - 133
  • [32] Subcarinal lymphadenectomy during minimally invasive esophagectomy with 2 anomalous pulmonary veins
    Chen, Xiankai
    Li, Yin
    Zhang, Ruixiang
    Xu, Lei
    Luo, Peng
    JTCVS TECHNIQUES, 2023, 20 : 173 - 175
  • [33] Defining Benchmarks for Transthoracic Esophagectomy A Multicenter Analysis of Total Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in Low Risk Patients
    Schmidt, Henner M.
    Gisbertz, Susanne S.
    Moons, Johnny
    Rouvelas, Ioannis
    Kauppi, Juha
    Brown, Andrew
    Asti, Emanuele
    Luyer, Misha
    Lagarde, Sjoerd M.
    Berlth, Felix
    Philippron, Annouck
    Bruns, Christiane
    Holscher, Arnulf
    Schneider, Paul M.
    Raptis, Dimitri A.
    Henegouwen, Mark I. van Berge
    Nafteux, Philippe
    Nilsson, Magnus
    Rasanen, Jari
    Palazzo, Francesco
    Rosato, Ernest
    Mercer, Stuart
    Bonavina, Luigi
    Nieuwenhuijzen, Grard
    Wijnhoven, Bas P. L.
    Schroeder, Wolfgang
    Pattyn, Piet
    Grimminger, Peter P.
    Gutschow, Christian A.
    ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2017, 266 (05) : 814 - 821
  • [34] A novel technique for lymphadenectomy along the left recurrent laryngeal nerve during minimally invasive esophagectomy: a retrospective cohort study
    Guo, Dongming
    Jiang, Yuequan
    Zhang, Qi
    Xing, Huajie
    Wang, Zhiqiang
    BMC SURGERY, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [35] Risk Factors for Failure of Direct Oral Feeding Following a Totally Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy
    Janssen, Henricus J. B.
    Gantxegi, Amaia
    Fransen, Laura F. C.
    Nieuwenhuijzen, Grard A. P.
    Luyer, Misha D. P.
    NUTRIENTS, 2021, 13 (10)
  • [36] Perioperative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy Versus Open Esophagectomy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
    Memon, Muhammed A.
    Yunus, Rossita M.
    SURGICAL LAPAROSCOPY ENDOSCOPY & PERCUTANEOUS TECHNIQUES, 2021, 31 (01) : 85 - 95
  • [37] Comparative study of acute and chronic pain after inflatable videoasisted MediastinoscopicTranshiatal esophagectomy and minimally invasive McKeown Esophagectomy:A propensity score matching analysis
    Wang, Gaoxiang
    Tao, Shanming
    Sun, Xiaohui
    Wang, Jun
    Li, Tian
    Chen, Zhengwei
    Liu, Changqing
    Xie, Mingran
    HELIYON, 2024, 10 (13)
  • [38] Review of different approaches of the left recurrent laryngeal nerve area for lymphadenectomy during minimally invasive esophagectomy
    Cuesta, Miguel A.
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC DISEASE, 2019, 11 : S766 - S770
  • [39] Quality of oncological resection criteria in minimally invasive esophagectomy
    Nicole Faermark
    David Fuks
    Alexandra Nassar
    Jean-Marc Ferraz
    Christian Lamer
    Marine Lefevre
    Brice Gayet
    Stéphane Bonnet
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2022, 36 : 3940 - 3946
  • [40] Minimally Invasive Transcervical Esophagectomy With Mediastinal Lymphadenectomy for Cancer. A Comparison With Standardized Techniques
    Davakis, Spyridon
    Charalabopoulos, Alexandros
    Kyros, Eleandros
    Sakarellos, Panagiotis
    Tsourouflis, Gerasimos
    Dimitroulis, Dimitrios
    Nikiteas, Nikolaos
    ANTICANCER RESEARCH, 2022, 42 (02) : 675 - 680