Cargando…

Comparisons of minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy in lymph node metastasis/dissection for thoracic esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to clarify the characteristics of lymph node metastasis (LNM) and to compare the oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with open esophagectomy (OE) in terms of lymph node dissection (LND) in thoracic esophageal cancer patients. METHODS: The data fro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Zhenhua, Gai, Chunyue, Zhang, Yuefeng, Wen, Shiwang, Lv, Huilai, Xu, Yanzhao, Huang, Chao, Zhao, Bo, Tian, Ziqiang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9944355/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36507705
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000002342
_version_ 1784891897246908416
author Li, Zhenhua
Gai, Chunyue
Zhang, Yuefeng
Wen, Shiwang
Lv, Huilai
Xu, Yanzhao
Huang, Chao
Zhao, Bo
Tian, Ziqiang
author_facet Li, Zhenhua
Gai, Chunyue
Zhang, Yuefeng
Wen, Shiwang
Lv, Huilai
Xu, Yanzhao
Huang, Chao
Zhao, Bo
Tian, Ziqiang
author_sort Li, Zhenhua
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The study aimed to clarify the characteristics of lymph node metastasis (LNM) and to compare the oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with open esophagectomy (OE) in terms of lymph node dissection (LND) in thoracic esophageal cancer patients. METHODS: The data from esophageal cancer patients who underwent MIE or OE from January 2016 to January 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The characteristics of LNM in thoracic esophageal cancer were discussed, and the differences in numbers of LND, LND rate, and LNM rate/degree of upper mediastinum between MIE and OE were compared. RESULTS: For overall characteristics of LNM in 249 included patients, the highest rate of LNM was found in upper mediastinum, while LNM rate in middle and lower mediastinum, and abdomen increased with the tumor site moving down. The patients were divided into MIE (n = 204) and OE groups (n = 45). In terms of number of LND, there were significant differences in upper mediastinum between MIE and OE groups (8 [5, 11] vs. 5 [3, 8], P < 0.001). The comparative analysis of regional lymph node showed there was no significant difference except the subgroup of upper mediastinal 2L and 4L group (3 [1, 5] vs. 0 [0, 2], P < 0.001 and 0 [0, 2] vs. 0, P = 0.012, respectively). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in terms of LND rate except 2L (89.7% [183/204] vs. 71.1% [32/45], P = 0.001) and 4L (41.2% [84/204] vs. 22.2% [10/45], P = 0.018) groups. For LNM rate of T3 stage, there was no significant difference between MIE and OE groups, and the comparative analysis of regional lymph node showed that there was no significant difference except 2L group (11.1% [5/45] vs. 38.1% [8/21], P = 0.025). The LNM degree of OE group was significantly higher than that of MIE group (27.2% [47/173] vs. 7.6% [32/419], P < 0.001), and the comparative analysis of regional LNM degree showed that there was no significant difference except 2L (34.7% [17/49] vs. 7.7% [13/169], P < 0.001) and 4L (23.8% [5/21] vs. 3.9% [2/51], P = 0.031) subgroups. CONCLUSION: MIE may have an advantage in LND of upper mediastinum 2L and 4L groups, while it was similar to OE in other stations of LND.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9944355
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99443552023-02-23 Comparisons of minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy in lymph node metastasis/dissection for thoracic esophageal cancer Li, Zhenhua Gai, Chunyue Zhang, Yuefeng Wen, Shiwang Lv, Huilai Xu, Yanzhao Huang, Chao Zhao, Bo Tian, Ziqiang Chin Med J (Engl) Original Articles BACKGROUND: The study aimed to clarify the characteristics of lymph node metastasis (LNM) and to compare the oncologic outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) with open esophagectomy (OE) in terms of lymph node dissection (LND) in thoracic esophageal cancer patients. METHODS: The data from esophageal cancer patients who underwent MIE or OE from January 2016 to January 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The characteristics of LNM in thoracic esophageal cancer were discussed, and the differences in numbers of LND, LND rate, and LNM rate/degree of upper mediastinum between MIE and OE were compared. RESULTS: For overall characteristics of LNM in 249 included patients, the highest rate of LNM was found in upper mediastinum, while LNM rate in middle and lower mediastinum, and abdomen increased with the tumor site moving down. The patients were divided into MIE (n = 204) and OE groups (n = 45). In terms of number of LND, there were significant differences in upper mediastinum between MIE and OE groups (8 [5, 11] vs. 5 [3, 8], P < 0.001). The comparative analysis of regional lymph node showed there was no significant difference except the subgroup of upper mediastinal 2L and 4L group (3 [1, 5] vs. 0 [0, 2], P < 0.001 and 0 [0, 2] vs. 0, P = 0.012, respectively). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in terms of LND rate except 2L (89.7% [183/204] vs. 71.1% [32/45], P = 0.001) and 4L (41.2% [84/204] vs. 22.2% [10/45], P = 0.018) groups. For LNM rate of T3 stage, there was no significant difference between MIE and OE groups, and the comparative analysis of regional lymph node showed that there was no significant difference except 2L group (11.1% [5/45] vs. 38.1% [8/21], P = 0.025). The LNM degree of OE group was significantly higher than that of MIE group (27.2% [47/173] vs. 7.6% [32/419], P < 0.001), and the comparative analysis of regional LNM degree showed that there was no significant difference except 2L (34.7% [17/49] vs. 7.7% [13/169], P < 0.001) and 4L (23.8% [5/21] vs. 3.9% [2/51], P = 0.031) subgroups. CONCLUSION: MIE may have an advantage in LND of upper mediastinum 2L and 4L groups, while it was similar to OE in other stations of LND. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2022-10-20 2022-12-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9944355/ /pubmed/36507705 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000002342 Text en Copyright © 2022 The Chinese Medical Association, produced by Wolters Kluwer, Inc. under the CC-BY-NC-ND license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially without permission from the journal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
spellingShingle Original Articles
Li, Zhenhua
Gai, Chunyue
Zhang, Yuefeng
Wen, Shiwang
Lv, Huilai
Xu, Yanzhao
Huang, Chao
Zhao, Bo
Tian, Ziqiang
Comparisons of minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy in lymph node metastasis/dissection for thoracic esophageal cancer
title Comparisons of minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy in lymph node metastasis/dissection for thoracic esophageal cancer
title_full Comparisons of minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy in lymph node metastasis/dissection for thoracic esophageal cancer
title_fullStr Comparisons of minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy in lymph node metastasis/dissection for thoracic esophageal cancer
title_full_unstemmed Comparisons of minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy in lymph node metastasis/dissection for thoracic esophageal cancer
title_short Comparisons of minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy in lymph node metastasis/dissection for thoracic esophageal cancer
title_sort comparisons of minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy in lymph node metastasis/dissection for thoracic esophageal cancer
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9944355/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36507705
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000002342
work_keys_str_mv AT lizhenhua comparisonsofminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyandopenesophagectomyinlymphnodemetastasisdissectionforthoracicesophagealcancer
AT gaichunyue comparisonsofminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyandopenesophagectomyinlymphnodemetastasisdissectionforthoracicesophagealcancer
AT zhangyuefeng comparisonsofminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyandopenesophagectomyinlymphnodemetastasisdissectionforthoracicesophagealcancer
AT wenshiwang comparisonsofminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyandopenesophagectomyinlymphnodemetastasisdissectionforthoracicesophagealcancer
AT lvhuilai comparisonsofminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyandopenesophagectomyinlymphnodemetastasisdissectionforthoracicesophagealcancer
AT xuyanzhao comparisonsofminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyandopenesophagectomyinlymphnodemetastasisdissectionforthoracicesophagealcancer
AT huangchao comparisonsofminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyandopenesophagectomyinlymphnodemetastasisdissectionforthoracicesophagealcancer
AT zhaobo comparisonsofminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyandopenesophagectomyinlymphnodemetastasisdissectionforthoracicesophagealcancer
AT tianziqiang comparisonsofminimallyinvasiveesophagectomyandopenesophagectomyinlymphnodemetastasisdissectionforthoracicesophagealcancer