Objective:This study evaluated the nationwide trends in care and accompanied postoperative outcomes for patients with distal esophageal and gastro-esophageal junction cancer. Summary of Background... Show moreObjective:This study evaluated the nationwide trends in care and accompanied postoperative outcomes for patients with distal esophageal and gastro-esophageal junction cancer. Summary of Background Data:The introduction of transthoracic esophagectomy, minimally invasive surgery, and neo-adjuvant chemo(radio)therapy changed care for patients with esophageal cancer. Methods:Patients after elective transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomy for distal esophageal or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma in the Netherlands between 2007-2016 were included. The primary aim was to evaluate trends in both care and postoperative outcomes for the included patients. Additionally, postoperative outcomes after transthoracic and tran-shiatal esophagectomy were compared, stratified by time periods. Results:Among 4712 patients included, 74% had distal esophageal tumors and 87% had adenocarcinomas. Between 2007 and 2016, the proportion of transthoracic esophagectomy increased from 41% to 81%, and neo-adjuvant treatment and minimally invasive esophagectomy increased from 31% to 96%, and from 7% to 80%, respectively. Over this 10-year period, postoperative outcomes improved: postoperative morbidity decreased from 66.6% to 61.8% (P = 0.001), R0 resection rate increased from 90.0% to 96.5% (P <0.001), median lymph node harvest increased from 15 to 19 (P <0.001), and median survival increased from 35 to 41 months (P = 0.027). Conclusion:In this nationwide cohort, a transition towards more neo-adju-vant treatment, transthoracic esophagectomy and minimally invasive surgery was observed over a 10-year period, accompanied by decreased postoperative morbidity, improved surgical radicality and lymph node harvest, and improved survival. Show less
Background and study aims Training in endoscopy is a key objective of gastroenterology residency. There is currently no standardized or systematic training approach. This study evaluated and... Show moreBackground and study aims Training in endoscopy is a key objective of gastroenterology residency. There is currently no standardized or systematic training approach. This study evaluated and compared the current status of gastrointestinal endoscopy training programs in all teaching hospitals in the Netherlands from a resident perspective.Materials and methods A national online survey with open and closed questions on gastrointestinal endoscopy training was administered to all gastroenterology residents (N = 180) in the eight educational regions in the Netherlands.Results One hundred residents who had already started endoscopy training were included in the analyses. Sixty-five residents (65 %) were satisfied with their endoscopy training program. Participation in a preclinical endoscopy course was mandatory in seven of eight educational regions. Residents from the region without a mandatory endoscopy training course were significantly less likely to be satisfied with their endoscopy training program (32 %, P = .011). Criteria used to determine the level of supervision differed greatly between teaching hospitals (e. g. assessed endoscopy competence, predefined period of time or number of procedures). Only 26 residents (26 %) reported uniformity in teaching methods and styles between different supervising gastroenterologists in their teaching hospital.Conclusions Although most gastroenterology residents were satisfied with the endoscopy training program and endoscopy supervision in their teaching hospital, this study identified considerable local and regional variability. Future studies should be conducted to evaluate the trainers’ perspective and trainers’ behavior during endoscopy training sessions, which might eventually lead to the development of best practices regarding endoscopy training, including standardization of training programs and supervision methods. Show less
Objective: This study investigated the patterns, predictors, and survival of recurrent disease following esophageal cancer surgery. Background: Survival of recurrent esophageal cancer is usually... Show moreObjective: This study investigated the patterns, predictors, and survival of recurrent disease following esophageal cancer surgery. Background: Survival of recurrent esophageal cancer is usually poor, with limited prospects of remission. Methods: This nationwide cohort study included patients with distal esophageal and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma after curatively intended esophagectomy in 2007 to 2016 (follow-up until January 2020). Patients with distant metastases detected during surgery were excluded. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were used to identify predictors of recurrent disease. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine the association of recurrence site and treatment intent with postrecurrence survival. Results: Among 4626 patients, 45.1% developed recurrent disease a median of 11 months postoperative, of whom most had solely distant metastases (59.8%). Disease recurrences were most frequently hepatic (26.2%) or pulmonary (25.1%). Factors significantly associated with disease recurrence included young age (<= 65 y), male sex, adenocarcinoma, open surgery, transthoracic esophagectomy, nonradical resection, higher T-stage, and tumor positive lymph nodes. Overall, median postrecurrence survival was 4 months [95% confidence interval (95% CI): 3.6-4.4]. After curatively intended recurrence treatment, median survival was 20 months (95% CI: 16.4-23.7). Survival was more favorable after locoregional compared with distant recurrence (hazard ratio: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.65-0.84). Conclusions: This study provides important prognostic information assisting in the surveillance and counseling of patients after curatively intended esophageal cancer surgery. Nearly half the patients developed recurrent disease, with limited prospects of survival. The risk of recurrence was higher in patients with a higher tumor stage, nonradical resection and positive lymph node harvest. Show less
Eyck, B.; Wilk, B.J. van der; Noordman, B.J.; Wijnhoven, B.P.L.; Lagarde, S.M.; Hartgrink, H.H.; ... ; SANO Study Grp 2021
Background: The Surgery As Needed for Oesophageal cancer (SANO) trial compares active surveillance with standard oesophagectomy for patients with a clinically complete response (cCR) to neoadjuvant... Show moreBackground: The Surgery As Needed for Oesophageal cancer (SANO) trial compares active surveillance with standard oesophagectomy for patients with a clinically complete response (cCR) to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The last patient with a clinically complete response is expected to be included in May 2021. The purpose of this update is to present all amendments to the SANO trial protocol as approved by the Institutional Research Board (IRB) before accrual is completed.Design: The SANO trial protocol has been published (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4034-1). In this ongoing, phase-III, non-inferiority, stepped-wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial, patients with cCR (i.e. after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy no evidence of residual disease in two consecutive clinical response evaluations [CREs]) undergo either active surveillance or standard oesophagectomy. In the active surveillance arm, CREs are repeated every 3 months in the first year, every 4 months in the second year, every 6months in the third year, and yearly in the fourth and fifth year. In this arm, oesophagectomy is offered only to patients in whom locoregional regrowth is highly suspected or proven, without distant metastases. The primary endpoint is overall survival.Update: Amendments to the study design involve the first cluster in the stepped-wedge design being partially randomised as well and continued accrual of patients at baseline until the predetermined number of patients with cCR is reached. Eligibility criteria have been amended, stating that patients who underwent endoscopic treatment prior to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy cannot be included and that patients who have highly suspected residual tumour without histological proof can be included. Amendments to the study procedures include that patients proceed to the second CRE if at the first CRE the outcome of the pathological assessment is uncertain and that patients with a non-passable stenosis at endoscopy are not considered cCR. The sample size was recalculated following new insights on response rates (34% instead of 50%) and survival (expected 2-year overall survival of 75% calculated from the moment of reaching cCR instead of 3-year overall survival of 67% calculated from diagnosis). This reduced the number of required patients with cCR from 264 to 224, but increased the required inclusions from 480 to approximately 740 patients at baseline.Conclusion: Substantial amendments were made prior to closure of enrolment of the SANO trial. These amendments do not affect the outcomes of the trial compared to the original protocol. The first results are expected late 2023. If active surveillance plus surgery as needed after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer leads to non-inferior overall survival compared to standard oesophagectomy, active surveillance can be implemented as a standard of care. Show less
