Introduction Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs provide a format for multidisciplinary care and has been shown to predictably improve short term outcomes associated with surgical procedures. Esophagectomy has historically been associated with significant levels of morbidity and mortality and as a result routine application and audit of ERAS guidelines specifically designed for esophageal resection has significant potential to improve outcomes associated with this complex procedure. Methods A team of international experts in the surgical management of esophageal cancer was assembled and the existing literature was identified and reviewed prior to the production of the guidelines. Well established procedure specific components of ERAS were reviewed and updated with changes relevant to esophagectomy. Procedure specific, operative and technical sections were produced utilizing the best current level of evidence. All sections were rated regarding the level of evidence and overall recommendation according to the evaluation (GRADE) system. Results Thirty-nine sections were ultimately produced and assessed for quality of evidence and recommendations. Some sections were completely new to ERAS programs due to the fact that esophagectomy is the first guideline with a thoracic component to the procedure. Conclusions The current ERAS society guidelines should be reviewed and applied in all centers looking to improve outcomes and quality associated with esophageal resection.

Background:In patients treated for oesophageal cancer the importance of lymphovascular and perineural invasion (PNI) after neoadjuvant therapy has yet to be established. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and prognostic significance of these factors in a consecutive series of patients with cancer of the oesophagus or gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) who underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by oesophagectomy.Methods:Clinical and pathology results from patients with potentially curable adenocarcinoma, or squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus or GOJ were reviewed. Patients were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation followed by transthoracic oesophagectomy and two-field lymphadenectomy. The presence of venous invasion (VI), lymph vessel invasion (LI) and perineural invasion (PNI) were correlated with clinical outcomes.Results:A total of 396 patients underwent oesophagectomy after neoadjuvant therapy for oesophageal cancer. Venous invasion was identified in 150 (38%) of patients, LI in 203 (51%) patients and PNI in 204 (52%) patients. In all, 123 (31%) patients had no evidence of either VI, LI or PNI. A total of 96 (24%) had a combination of two factors and 94 (24%) had all three factors. The presence of VI, LI and PNI was significantly related to tumour stage (P=0.001). Median overall survival was 170.8 months when all three factors were absent, 44.0 months when one factor was present, 27.1 months when two factors were present and 16.0 months when all were present. Multivariate analyses revealed VI, LI and PNI or a combination of these factors were independent predictors of prognosis.Conclusions:In oesophageal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy followed by oesophagectomy the presence of VI, LI and PNI has an important prognostic impact and may identify patients at high risk of recurrence who would benefit from adjuvant therapies.

At short-term follow-up, the TIF procedure is associated with an excessive early symptomatic failure rate, and a high surgical re-intervention rate. This procedure should not be performed outside of a clinical trial.

Background. Esophagectomy is a technically demanding procedure associated with high levels of morbidity. Anastomotic leak (AL) is a common complication with potentially major ramifications for patients. It has also been associated with poorer long-term overall survival (OS) and disease recurrence. Objective. The aim of this study was to determine whether AL contributes to poor OS and recurrence-free survival (RFS) for patients with esophageal cancer. Methods. Consecutive patients undergoing a two-stage, two-field transthoracic esophagectomy from a single highvolume unit between 1997 and 2016 were evaluated. Clinicopathologic characteristics, along with oncological and postoperative outcomes, were stratified by no AL versus non-severe leak (NSL) versus severe esophageal AL (SEAL). SEAL was defined as ALs associated with Clavien-Dindo grade III/IV complications. Results. This study included 1063 patients, of whom 8% (87/1063) developed AL; 45% of those who developed AL were SEALs (39/87). SEAL was associated with a prolonged critical care stay (median 8 vs. 3 vs. 2 days; p \ 0.001) and prolonged hospital stay (median 43 vs. 27 vs. 15 days; p \ 0.001) compared with NSL or no AL. There were no significant differences in number of lymph nodes harvested and rates of R1 resection between groups. OS and RFS were not affected by either NSL or SEAL, and Cox multivariate regression showed NSL and SEAL were not independently associated with OS and RFS. Sensitivity analysis in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy followed by esophagectomy demonstrated similar findings. Conclusion. These results demonstrate that AL leads to prolonged critical care and in-hospital length of stay; however, contrary to previous reports, our results do not compromise long-term outcomes and are unlikely to have a detrimental oncological impact. Esophagectomy remains a key component of treatment for patients with potentially curable esophageal cancer. While mortality levels from the procedure have fallen dramatically over the last 30 years, esophagectomy is still associated with high levels of morbidity. 1-3 Anastomotic leak (AL) is a commonly seen complication that has historically been associated with high mortality rates. 4 The Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) defined AL as a full-thickness defect involving the esophagus, anastomosis, staple line or conduit, irrespective of the presentation or method of identification. 5 The classification further divided leaks into the management strategy employed: type I, those that require no change in treatment; type II, leaks that require intervention, but not surgery; and type III, leaks that require surgical intervention. The incidence of AL has been reported at between 3 and 30%. 6,7 This can result in a prolonged hospital stay, a need for reoperation, anastomotic stricturing that requires repeated dilations, and potentially poorer long-term survival. 8,9 A French multicenter study, which defined severe