The following, from the 12th OESO World Conference: Cancers of the Esophagus, includes commentaries on the role of the nurse in preparation of esophageal resection (ER); the management of patients who develop high-grade dysplasia after having undergone Nissen fundoplication; the trajectory of care for the patient with esophageal cancer; the influence of the site of tumor in the choice of treatment; the best location for esophagogastrostomy; management of chylous leak after esophagectomy; the optimal approach to manage thoracic esophageal leak after esophagectomy; the choice for operational approach in surgery of cardioesophageal crossing; the advantages of robot esophagectomy; the place of open esophagectomy; the advantages of esophagectomy compared to definitive chemoradiotherapy; the pathologist report in the resected specimen; the best way to manage patients with unsuspected positive microscopic margin after ER; enhanced recovery after surgery for ER: expedited care protocols; and long-term quality of life in patients following esophagectomy.

Background. This study compares neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) with perioperative chemotherapy (pCT) for patients with resectable esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma in terms of toxicity, postoperative complications, pathologic response, and survival. Methods. This study retrospectively analyzed and compared 313 patients with resectable esophageal or GEJ adenocarcinoma treated with either nCRT (carboplatin/paclitaxel 41.4 Gy, n = 176) or pCT (epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine, n = 137).

No abstract

For patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or GEJ, six cycles of ECC-based perioperative chemotherapy is associated with a relatively high number of adverse events. Although this toxicity did not affect the esophageal resectability rate, this regimen should be used with caution in this patient population.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic caused disruption of regular healthcare leading to reduced hospital attendances, repurposing of surgical facilities, and cancellation of cancer screening programmes. This study aimed to determine the impact of COVID-19 on surgical care in the Netherlands. Methods A nationwide study was conducted in collaboration with the Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing. Eight surgical audits were expanded with items regarding alterations in scheduling and treatment plans. Data on procedures performed in 2020 were compared with those from a historical cohort (2018–2019). Endpoints included total numbers of procedures performed and altered treatment plans. Secondary endpoints included complication, readmission, and mortality rates. Results Some 12 154 procedures were performed in participating hospitals in 2020, representing a decrease of 13.6 per cent compared with 2018–2019. The largest reduction (29.2 per cent) was for non-cancer procedures during the first COVID-19 wave. Surgical treatment was postponed for 9.6 per cent of patients. Alterations in surgical treatment plans were observed in 1.7 per cent. Time from diagnosis to surgery decreased (to 28 days in 2020, from 34 days in 2019 and 36 days in 2018; P < 0.001). For cancer-related procedures, duration of hospital stay decreased (5 versus 6 days; P < 0.001). Audit-specific complications, readmission, and mortality rates were unchanged, but ICU admissions decreased (16.5 versus 16.8 per cent; P < 0.001). Conclusion The reduction in the number of surgical operations was greatest for those without cancer. Where surgery was undertaken, it appeared to be delivered safely, with similar complication and mortality rates, fewer admissions to ICU, and a shorter hospital stay.