4.6 Article

Does Timing of Surgical Procedure After Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Affect Outcomes in Esophageal Cancer?

Journal

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 97, Issue 4, Pages 1181-1190

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2013.12.026

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. To date, for esophageal cancer (EC), the optimal timing of surgical procedures after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) is not well defined. Data in rectal cancer suggest that a prolonged interval between treatment and operation may improve tumoral pathologic response, R0 resection rate, and survival. The aims of this study were to evaluate whether delaying operation after nCRT in EC increases pathologic response and has an impact on oncologic outcome or postoperative course. Methods. A total of 257 consecutive EC patients (n = 161 squamous cell carcinomas and n = 96 adenocarcinomas) undergoing nCRT followed by operation between 1997 and 2011 were retrospectively analyzed by the use of prospectively collected data. The patients were divided into two groups according to the median delay between nCRT and operation (<7 weeks, n = 122; >= 7 weeks, n = 135). The impact of surgical delay on outcomes was studied through univariable and multivariable analyses. Results. The groups were comparable regarding patient and tumor characteristics (p >= 0.074). The ypT0 and R0 resection rates were similar between the two groups, as were postoperative course, median survivals, and incidence and patterns of recurrence (p >= 0.332). Multivariable analysis failed to identify any impact of the surgical delay on the endpoints. Subgroup analysis according to the histologic type found similar results. Conclusions. After nCRT for EC, delaying operation does not affect the ypT0 rate, postoperative course, or oncologic outcome and cannot therefore be justified by these aims. (C) 2014 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available