Cargando…

Efficacy and safety of esophagectomy via left thoracic approach versus via right thoracic approach for middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer: a multicenter randomized clinical trial (NST1501)

BACKGROUND: Left thoracic approach (LTA) has been a favorable selection in surgical treatment for esophageal cancer (EC) patients in China before minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is popular. This study aimed to demonstrate whether right thoracic approach (RTA) is superior to LTA in the surgica...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mao, You-Sheng, Gao, Shu-Geng, Li, Yin, Hao, An-Lin, Liu, Jun-Feng, Li, Xiao-Fei, Rong, Tie-Hua, Fu, Jian-Hua, Ma, Jian-Qun, Xu, Mei-Qing, Zhang, Ren-Quan, Xiao, Gao-Ming, Fu, Xiang-Ning, Chen, Ke-Neng, Mao, Wei-Min, Liu, Yong-Yu, Liu, Hong-Xu, Zhang, Zhi-Rong, Fang, Yan, Fu, Dong-Hong, Wei, Xu-Dong, Yuan, Li-Gong, Muhammad, Shan, Wei, Wen-Qiang, Chiu, Philip Wai-Yan, Lloyd, Shane, Schlottmann, Francisco, Meredith, Kenneth, Pimiento, Jose M., Gao, Yi-Bo, He, Jie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9469177/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36111056
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-22-3810
_version_ 1784788583508344832
author Mao, You-Sheng
Gao, Shu-Geng
Li, Yin
Hao, An-Lin
Liu, Jun-Feng
Li, Xiao-Fei
Rong, Tie-Hua
Fu, Jian-Hua
Ma, Jian-Qun
Xu, Mei-Qing
Zhang, Ren-Quan
Xiao, Gao-Ming
Fu, Xiang-Ning
Chen, Ke-Neng
Mao, Wei-Min
Liu, Yong-Yu
Liu, Hong-Xu
Zhang, Zhi-Rong
Fang, Yan
Fu, Dong-Hong
Wei, Xu-Dong
Yuan, Li-Gong
Muhammad, Shan
Wei, Wen-Qiang
Chiu, Philip Wai-Yan
Lloyd, Shane
Schlottmann, Francisco
Meredith, Kenneth
Pimiento, Jose M.
Gao, Yi-Bo
He, Jie
author_facet Mao, You-Sheng
Gao, Shu-Geng
Li, Yin
Hao, An-Lin
Liu, Jun-Feng
Li, Xiao-Fei
Rong, Tie-Hua
Fu, Jian-Hua
Ma, Jian-Qun
Xu, Mei-Qing
Zhang, Ren-Quan
Xiao, Gao-Ming
Fu, Xiang-Ning
Chen, Ke-Neng
Mao, Wei-Min
Liu, Yong-Yu
Liu, Hong-Xu
Zhang, Zhi-Rong
Fang, Yan
Fu, Dong-Hong
Wei, Xu-Dong
Yuan, Li-Gong
Muhammad, Shan
Wei, Wen-Qiang
Chiu, Philip Wai-Yan
Lloyd, Shane
Schlottmann, Francisco
Meredith, Kenneth
Pimiento, Jose M.
Gao, Yi-Bo
He, Jie
author_sort Mao, You-Sheng
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Left thoracic approach (LTA) has been a favorable selection in surgical treatment for esophageal cancer (EC) patients in China before minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is popular. This study aimed to demonstrate whether right thoracic approach (RTA) is superior to LTA in the surgical treatment of middle and lower thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (TESCC). METHODS: Superiority clinical trial design was used for this multicenter randomized controlled two-parallel group study. Between April 2015 and December 2018, cT1b-3N0-1M0 TESCC patients from 14 centers were recruited and randomized by a central stratified block randomization program into LTA or RTA groups. All enrolled patients were followed up every three months after surgery. The software SPSS 20.0 and R 3.6.2. were used for statistical analysis. Efficacy and safety outcomes, 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were calculated and compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test. RESULTS: A total of 861 patients without suspected upper mediastinal lymph nodes (umLN) were finally enrolled in the study after 95 ineligible patients were excluded. 833 cases (98.7%) were successfully followed up until June 1, 2020. Esophagectomies were performed via LTA in 453 cases, and via RTA in 408 cases. Compared with the LTA group, the RTA group required longer operating time (274.48±78.92 vs. 205.34±51.47 min, P<0.001); had more complications (33.8% vs. 26.3% P=0.016); harvested more lymph nodes (LNs) (23.61±10.09 vs. 21.92±10.26, P=0.015); achieved a significantly improved OS in stage IIIa patients (67.8% vs. 51.8%, P=0.022). The 3-year OS and DFS were 68.7% and 64.3% in LTA arm versus 71.3% and 63.7% in RTA arm (P=0.20; P=0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Esophagectomies via both LTA and RTA can achieve similar outcomes in middle or lower TESCC patients without suspected umLN. RTA is superior to LTA and recommended for the surgical treatment of more advanced stage TESCC due to more complete lymphadenectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02448979.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9469177
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94691772022-09-14 Efficacy and safety of esophagectomy via left thoracic approach versus via right thoracic approach for middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer: a multicenter randomized clinical trial (NST1501) Mao, You-Sheng Gao, Shu-Geng Li, Yin Hao, An-Lin Liu, Jun-Feng Li, Xiao-Fei Rong, Tie-Hua Fu, Jian-Hua Ma, Jian-Qun Xu, Mei-Qing Zhang, Ren-Quan Xiao, Gao-Ming Fu, Xiang-Ning Chen, Ke-Neng Mao, Wei-Min Liu, Yong-Yu Liu, Hong-Xu Zhang, Zhi-Rong Fang, Yan Fu, Dong-Hong Wei, Xu-Dong Yuan, Li-Gong Muhammad, Shan Wei, Wen-Qiang Chiu, Philip Wai-Yan Lloyd, Shane Schlottmann, Francisco Meredith, Kenneth Pimiento, Jose M. Gao, Yi-Bo He, Jie Ann Transl Med Original Article BACKGROUND: Left thoracic approach (LTA) has been a favorable selection in surgical treatment for esophageal cancer (EC) patients in China before minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is popular. This study aimed to demonstrate whether right thoracic approach (RTA) is superior to LTA in the surgical treatment of middle and lower thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (TESCC). METHODS: Superiority clinical trial design was used for this multicenter randomized controlled two-parallel group study. Between April 2015 and December 2018, cT1b-3N0-1M0 TESCC patients from 14 centers were recruited and randomized by a central stratified block randomization program into LTA or RTA groups. All enrolled patients were followed up every three months after surgery. The software SPSS 20.0 and R 3.6.2. were used for statistical analysis. Efficacy and safety outcomes, 3-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were calculated and compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test. RESULTS: A total of 861 patients without suspected upper mediastinal lymph nodes (umLN) were finally enrolled in the study after 95 ineligible patients were excluded. 833 cases (98.7%) were successfully followed up until June 1, 2020. Esophagectomies were performed via LTA in 453 cases, and via RTA in 408 cases. Compared with the LTA group, the RTA group required longer operating time (274.48±78.92 vs. 205.34±51.47 min, P<0.001); had more complications (33.8% vs. 26.3% P=0.016); harvested more lymph nodes (LNs) (23.61±10.09 vs. 21.92±10.26, P=0.015); achieved a significantly improved OS in stage IIIa patients (67.8% vs. 51.8%, P=0.022). The 3-year OS and DFS were 68.7% and 64.3% in LTA arm versus 71.3% and 63.7% in RTA arm (P=0.20; P=0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Esophagectomies via both LTA and RTA can achieve similar outcomes in middle or lower TESCC patients without suspected umLN. RTA is superior to LTA and recommended for the surgical treatment of more advanced stage TESCC due to more complete lymphadenectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02448979. AME Publishing Company 2022-08 /pmc/articles/PMC9469177/ /pubmed/36111056 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-22-3810 Text en 2022 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Mao, You-Sheng
Gao, Shu-Geng
Li, Yin
Hao, An-Lin
Liu, Jun-Feng
Li, Xiao-Fei
Rong, Tie-Hua
Fu, Jian-Hua
Ma, Jian-Qun
Xu, Mei-Qing
Zhang, Ren-Quan
Xiao, Gao-Ming
Fu, Xiang-Ning
Chen, Ke-Neng
Mao, Wei-Min
Liu, Yong-Yu
Liu, Hong-Xu
Zhang, Zhi-Rong
Fang, Yan
Fu, Dong-Hong
Wei, Xu-Dong
Yuan, Li-Gong
Muhammad, Shan
Wei, Wen-Qiang
Chiu, Philip Wai-Yan
Lloyd, Shane
Schlottmann, Francisco
Meredith, Kenneth
Pimiento, Jose M.
Gao, Yi-Bo
He, Jie
Efficacy and safety of esophagectomy via left thoracic approach versus via right thoracic approach for middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer: a multicenter randomized clinical trial (NST1501)
title Efficacy and safety of esophagectomy via left thoracic approach versus via right thoracic approach for middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer: a multicenter randomized clinical trial (NST1501)
title_full Efficacy and safety of esophagectomy via left thoracic approach versus via right thoracic approach for middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer: a multicenter randomized clinical trial (NST1501)
title_fullStr Efficacy and safety of esophagectomy via left thoracic approach versus via right thoracic approach for middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer: a multicenter randomized clinical trial (NST1501)
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy and safety of esophagectomy via left thoracic approach versus via right thoracic approach for middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer: a multicenter randomized clinical trial (NST1501)
title_short Efficacy and safety of esophagectomy via left thoracic approach versus via right thoracic approach for middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer: a multicenter randomized clinical trial (NST1501)
title_sort efficacy and safety of esophagectomy via left thoracic approach versus via right thoracic approach for middle and lower thoracic esophageal cancer: a multicenter randomized clinical trial (nst1501)
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9469177/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36111056
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-22-3810
work_keys_str_mv AT maoyousheng efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT gaoshugeng efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT liyin efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT haoanlin efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT liujunfeng efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT lixiaofei efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT rongtiehua efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT fujianhua efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT majianqun efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT xumeiqing efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT zhangrenquan efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT xiaogaoming efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT fuxiangning efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT chenkeneng efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT maoweimin efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT liuyongyu efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT liuhongxu efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT zhangzhirong efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT fangyan efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT fudonghong efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT weixudong efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT yuanligong efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT muhammadshan efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT weiwenqiang efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT chiuphilipwaiyan efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT lloydshane efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT schlottmannfrancisco efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT meredithkenneth efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT pimientojosem efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT gaoyibo efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501
AT hejie efficacyandsafetyofesophagectomyvialeftthoracicapproachversusviarightthoracicapproachformiddleandlowerthoracicesophagealcanceramulticenterrandomizedclinicaltrialnst1501