Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32940794›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021

It's not always too late: a case for minimally invasive salvage esophagectomy.

Ryan C Broderick, Arielle M Lee, Rachel R Blitzer, Beiqun Zhao, Jenny Lam, Joslin N Cheverie, Bryan J Sandler, Garth R Jacobsen, Mark W Onaitis, Kaitlyn J Kelly and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ryan C BroderickDepartment of Surgery, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, UC San Diego School of Medicine, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
Arielle M LeeDepartment of Surgery, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, UC San Diego School of Medicine, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA. aml133@health.ucsd.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4475-7673
Rachel R BlitzerDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Beiqun ZhaoDepartment of Surgery, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, UC San Diego School of Medicine, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
Jenny LamDepartment of Surgery, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, UC San Diego School of Medicine, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
Joslin N CheverieDepartment of Surgery, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, UC San Diego School of Medicine, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
Bryan J SandlerDepartment of Surgery, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, UC San Diego School of Medicine, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
Garth R JacobsenDepartment of Surgery, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, UC San Diego School of Medicine, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
Mark W OnaitisDivision of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Kaitlyn J KellyDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Michael BouvetDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Santiago HorganDepartment of Surgery, Division of Minimally Invasive Surgery, UC San Diego School of Medicine, MET Building, Lower Level, 9500 Gilman Drive MC 0740, La Jolla, CA, 92093-0740, USA.
University of California San Diego · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionStandard of care for locally advanced esophageal carcinoma is neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) and surgical resection 4-8 weeks after completion of nCRT. It is recommended that the CRT to surgery interval not exceed 90 days. Many patients do not undergo surgery within this timeframe due to patient/physician preference, complete clinical response, or poor performance status. Select patients are offered salvage esophagectomy (SE), defined in two ways: resection for recurrent/persistent disease after complete response to definitive CRT (dCRT) or esophagectomy performed > 90 days after completion of nCRT. Salvage esophagectomy reportedly has higher postoperative morbidity and poor survival outcomes. In this study, we assessed outcomes, overall, and disease-free survival of patients undergoing salvage esophagectomy by both definitions (recurrent/persistent disease after dCRT and/or > 90 days), compared to planned (resection after nCRT/within 90 days) esophagectomy (PE). MATERIALS AND

methodsRetrospective review of a prospectively maintained database identified patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy at a single institution from 2009 to 2019. Esophagectomy for benign disease and patients who did not receive nCRT were excluded. Outcomes included postoperative complications, length of stay (LOS), disease-free survival, and overall survival.

results97 patients underwent minimally invasive esophageal resection for esophageal carcinoma. 89.7% of patients were male. Mean age was 64.9 years (range 36-85 years). 94.8% of patients had adenocarcinoma, with 16 transthoracic and 81 transhiatal approaches. On comparing planned esophagectomy (n = 87) to esophagectomy after dCRT failure (n = 10), no significant differences were identified in overall survival (p = 0.73), disease-free survival (p = 0.32), 30-day or major complication rate, anastomotic leak, or LOS. Similarly, when comparing esophagectomy < 90 days after CRT (n = 62) to > 90 days after CRT completion (n = 35), no significant differences were identified in overall survival (p = 0.39), disease-free survival (p = 0.71), 30-day or major complication rate, LOS, or anastomotic leak rate between groups. In this comparison, local recurrence was noted to be elevated with SE as compared to PE (64.3% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.04).

conclusionOverall survival and disease-free survival were equivalent between SE and PE. Local recurrence was noted to be increased with SE, though this did not appear to affect survival. Although planned esophagectomy remains the standard of care, salvage esophagectomy has comparable outcomes and is appropriate for selected patients.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsEsophagectomyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChemoradiotherapyHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoadjuvant TherapyNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalRetrospective StudiesSalvage TherapyTreatment OutcomeEsophageal cancerMinimally invasive surgeryRobotic surgerySalvage esophagectomy

Identifiers

PMID32940794
OpenAlexW3087524323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.