No abstract

Background: Oesophagectomy is a demanding operation that can be performed by different approaches including open surgery or a combination of minimal access techniques. This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of open, minimally invasive and robotic oesophagectomy techniques for oesophageal cancer. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted for studies reporting open oesophagectomy, laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO), thoracoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (TAO), totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (MIO) or robotic MIO (RAMIO) for oesophagectomy. A network meta-analysis of intraoperative (operating time, blood loss), postoperative (overall complications, anastomotic leaks, chyle leak, duration of hospital stay) and oncological (R0 resection, lymphadenectomy) outcomes, and survival was performed. Results: Ninety-eight studies involving 32 315 patients were included in the network meta-analysis (open 17 824, 55⋅2 per cent; LAO 1576, 4⋅9 per cent; TAO 2421 7⋅5 per cent; MIO 9558, 29⋅6 per cent; RAMIO 917, 2⋅8 per cent). Compared with open oesophagectomy, both MIO and RAMIO were associated with less blood loss, significantly lower rates of pulmonary complications, shorter duration of stay and higher lymph node yield. There were no significant differences between surgical techniques in surgical-site infections, chyle leak, and 30-and 90-day mortality. MIO and RAMIO had better 1-and 5-year survival rates respectively compared with open surgery. Conclusion: Minimally invasive and robotic techniques for oesophagectomy are associated with reduced perioperative morbidity and duration of hospital stay, with no compromise of oncological outcomes but no improvement in perioperative mortality.

Background The Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA) is an international collaborative group set up to study anastomotic leak outcomes after oesophagectomy for cancer. This Delphi study aimed to prioritize future research areas of unmet clinical need in RCTs to reduce anastomotic leaks. Methods A modified Delphi process was overseen by the OGAA committee, national leads, and engaged clinicians from high-income countries (HICs) and low/middle-income countries (LMICs). A three-stage iterative process was used to prioritize research topics, including a scoping systematic review (stage 1), and two rounds of anonymous electronic voting (stages 2 and 3) addressing research priority and ability to recruit. Stratified analyses were performed by country income. Results In stage 1, the steering committee proposed research topics across six domains: preoperative optimization, surgical oncology, technical approach, anastomotic technique, enhanced recovery and nutrition, and management of leaks. In stages 2 and stage 3, 192 and 171 respondents respectively participated in online voting. Prioritized research topics include prehabilitation, anastomotic technique, and timing of surgery after neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy. Stratified analyses by country income demonstrated no significant differences in research priorities between HICs and LMICs. However, for ability to recruit, there were significant differences between LMICs and HICs for themes related to the technical approach (minimally invasive, width of gastric tube, ischaemic preconditioning) and location of the anastomosis. Conclusion Several areas of research priority are consistent across LMICs and HICs, but discrepancies in ability to recruit by country income will inform future study design.

Background Textbook outcome has been proposed as a tool for the assessment of oncological surgical care. However, an international assessment in patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer has not been reported. This study aimed to assess textbook outcome in an international setting. Methods Patients undergoing curative resection for oesophageal cancer were identified from the international Oesophagogastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA) from April 2018 to December 2018. Textbook outcome was defined as the percentage of patients who underwent a complete tumour resection with at least 15 lymph nodes in the resected specimen and an uneventful postoperative course, without hospital readmission. A multivariable binary logistic regression model was used to identify factors independently associated with textbook outcome, and results are presented as odds ratio (OR) and 95 per cent confidence intervals (95 per cent c.i.). Results Of 2159 patients with oesophageal cancer, 39.7 per cent achieved a textbook outcome. The outcome parameter ‘no major postoperative complication’ had the greatest negative impact on a textbook outcome for patients with oesophageal cancer, compared to other textbook outcome parameters. Multivariable analysis identified male gender and increasing Charlson comorbidity index with a significantly lower likelihood of textbook outcome. Presence of 24-hour on-call rota for oesophageal surgeons (OR 2.05, 95 per cent c.i. 1.30 to 3.22; P = 0.002) and radiology (OR 1.54, 95 per cent c.i. 1.05 to 2.24; P = 0.027), total minimally invasive oesophagectomies (OR 1.63, 95 per cent c.i. 1.27 to 2.08; P < 0.001), and chest anastomosis above azygous (OR 2.17, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 2.98; P < 0.001) were independently associated with a significantly increased likelihood of textbook outcome. Conclusion Textbook outcome is achieved in less than 40 per cent of patients having oesophagectomy for cancer. Improvements in centralization, hospital resources, access to minimal access surgery, and adoption of newer techniques for improving lymph node yield could improve textbook outcome.

Background The Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) have set standards in reporting outcomes after oesophagectomy. Reporting outcomes from selected high-volume centres or centralized national cancer programmes may not, however, be reflective of the true global prevalence of complications. This study aimed to compare complication rates after oesophagectomy from these existing sources with those of an unselected international cohort from the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA). Methods The OGAA was a prospective multicentre cohort study coordinated by the West Midlands Research Collaborative, and included patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April and December 2018, with 90 days of follow-up. Results The OGAA study included 2247 oesophagectomies across 137 hospitals in 41 countries. Comparisons with the ECCG and DUCA found differences in baseline demographics between the three cohorts, including age, ASA grade, and rates of chronic pulmonary disease. The OGAA had the lowest rates of neoadjuvant treatment (OGAA 75.1 per cent, ECCG 78.9 per cent, DUCA 93.5 per cent; P < 0.001). DUCA exhibited the highest rates of minimally invasive surgery (OGAA 57.2 per cent, ECCG 47.9 per cent, DUCA 85.8 per cent; P < 0.001). Overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts (OGAA 63.6 per cent, ECCG 59.0 per cent, DUCA 62.2 per cent), with no statistically significant difference in Clavien–Dindo grades (P = 0.752). However, a significant difference in 30-day mortality was observed, with DUCA reporting the lowest rate (OGAA 3.2 per cent, ECCG 2.4 per cent, DUCA 1.7 per cent; P = 0.013). Conclusion Despite differences in rates of co-morbidities, oncological treatment strategies, and access to minimal-access surgery, overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts.