Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Editorial Policies
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
    • Special Issues 2025
  • Journal Metrics
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleClinical Studies

Influence of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on Short-term Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer

DAICHI NOMOTO, NAOYA YOSHIDA, TAKAHIKO AKIYAMA, YUKI KIYOZUMI, KOJIRO ETO, YUKIHARU HIYOSHI, YOHEI NAGAI, MASAAKI IWATSUKI, SHIRO IWAGAMI, YOSHIFUMI BABA, YUJI MIYAMOTO and HIDEO BABA
Anticancer Research January 2019, 39 (1) 471-475; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.13136
DAICHI NOMOTO
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
NAOYA YOSHIDA
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TAKAHIKO AKIYAMA
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
YUKI KIYOZUMI
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
KOJIRO ETO
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
YUKIHARU HIYOSHI
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
YOHEI NAGAI
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MASAAKI IWATSUKI
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
SHIRO IWAGAMI
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
YOSHIFUMI BABA
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
YUJI MIYAMOTO
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
HIDEO BABA
Department of Gastroenterological Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: hdobaba@kumamoto-u.ac.jp
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: The safety of minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for esophageal cancer has not been adequately confirmed. Patients and Methods: Two hundred and twelve patients who underwent MIE for esophageal cancer at the Kumamoto University Hospital between May 2011 and June 2018 were enrolled. A total of 46 patients received NAC and underwent subsequent MIE. The control group comprised 166 patients who underwent MIE without any preoperative treatments. We retrospectively investigated the patient-related, tumor-related, and surgery-related factors, as well as the short-term outcomes, between the two groups. Results: Preoperative lymphocyte counts and hemoglobin and albumin levels were significantly lower in the NAC plus MIE group than in the MIE alone group. Preoperative nutritional status, as measured by the prognostic nutrition index and controlling nutritional status, was also poorer in the NAC plus MIE group (p<0.001). However, short-term outcomes such as operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and incidence of postoperative complications were statistically equivalent between the groups. Conclusion: Although administration of NAC was associated with a poorer preoperative condition, it did not worsen the short-term outcomes after MIE.

  • Esophageal cancer
  • esophagectomy
  • minimally invasive esophagectomy
  • neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Esophagectomy, the main treatment for esophageal cancer, is highly invasive, and the incidences of postoperative morbidity and mortality of esophagectomy are higher than those of surgery for other gastrointestinal cancers. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is considered less invasive than open esophagectomy. Hence, MIE is increasingly being performed, and is expected to improve short-term outcomes after surgery.

However, it is not clear whether MIE can truly reduce postoperative morbidity and mortality. Thus far, one randomized controlled trial suggested that MIE can contribute to reducing postoperative pulmonary infections (1). However, several retrospective studies with large real-world cohorts showed no advantages of MIE in terms of short-term outcomes (2-5).

Neoadjuvant therapy followed by esophagectomy has become a standard therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer. In Japan, neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is commonly administered as neoadjuvant therapy since the results of the JCOG9907 were published in 2012 (6). Although MIE after NAC is increasingly performed, the safety of MIE in this situation has not been adequately verified. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify whether MIE can be safely performed after NAC.

Patients and Methods

Patients. Between May 2011 and June 2018, 232 patients underwent three-incisional MIE accompanying two- or three-field lymphadenectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) at Kumamoto University (Kumamoto, Japan). Sixteen patients who underwent preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 4 patients who underwent two-stage MIE without digestive reconstruction were excluded. Consequently, 46 patients who received NAC and subsequent MIE and 166 patients who underwent MIE alone without any preoperative treatment were suitable for this study.

The patient-, tumor-, and surgery-related factors, and short-term outcomes between the groups were retrospectively investigated. In this study, we classified the clinical tumor stage according to the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) TNM classification of malignant tumors, 7th edition (7).

The Institutional Ethics Committee at Kumamoto University approved this study.

Treatment strategy. Esophagectomy alone was performed for patients with clinical stage 0 and IA. NAC was administered to patients with clinical stage IB, II, and III. MIE was defined as complete thoracoscopic esophagectomy, irrespective of laparoscopy use. The extent of lymphadenectomy was determined according to the 2012 guidelines of the Japan Esophageal Society (8). Three-field lymphadenectomy was mainly conducted for the upper-thoracic and middle-thoracic ESCC. Cervical lymphadenectomy was excluded for T1 ESCC in the lower-thoracic.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy. We adopted two regimens of NAC during this study period. The FP regimen consisted of cisplatin (80 mg/m2, day 1) and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) (800 mg/m2, days 1-5) delivered intravenously. The DCF regimen consisted of docetaxel (60 mg/m2, day 1), cisplatin (6 mg/m2, days 1-5), and 5-FU (350 mg/m2, days 1-5) delivered intravenously. Selection of the two current regimens was determined chiefly owing to a historical reason: the DCF regimen was predominantly administered between 2011 and 2015 and the FP regimen was dominant between 2016 and 2018. Each regimen was administered every 3 to 4 weeks and principally repeated for two cycles. MIE was performed 4 weeks after the last cycle of NAC was completed.

Definition of morbidities. Postoperative morbidities were defined according to the definitions advocated by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (9). Morbidity details are also available elsewhere. Any complication and any severe complication were defined as a state where the Clavien-Dindo classification was ≥II and ≥IV, respectively (10).

Statistical analysis. All statistical analyses were performed using EZR (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Saitama, Japan), which is a graphical user interface for R (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienne, Austria). More precisely, it is a modified version of R commander designed to add statistical functions frequently used in biostatistics (11). The chi-squared test was performed for statistical analyses of categorical variables between the two groups. The Mann-Whitney U-test or the Student's t-test was performed for analysis of continuous variables of the two groups. When the number of events was less than 5, Fisher's exact test was performed. A p-values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Results

The baseline patient characteristics are shown in Table I. Most patient-related factors did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the MIE after NAC group contained significantly more patients with advanced ESCC (p<0.001).

Table II shows the preoperative blood biochemistry and nutritional parameters in the two groups. Preoperative lymphocyte counts, hemoglobin, and albumin were lower in the MIE after NAC group compared with the MIE group. The prognostic nutritional index was also lower in the MIE after NAC group compared with the MIE group (p<0.001). Moreover, malnutrition, as measured by controlling nutritional status, was more frequently observed in the MIE after NAC group (p<0.001).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Characteristics of patients.

The surgery-related factors between the two groups are shown in Table III. The extent of lymphadenectomy was significantly wider in the MIE after NAC group than in the MIE group (p<0.001). However, the use of laparoscopy, operation time, and intraoperative bleeding were statistically equivalent in the two groups.

The incidence of postoperative morbidities is depicted in Table IV. The incidence of each morbidity was statistically equivalent between the groups. In the MIE group, one patient died of progression of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia. In the MIE after NAC group, one patient died of respiratory failure. The length of hospital stay was also equivalent between the two groups.

Discussion

Neoadjuvant therapy followed by esophagectomy has become a standard therapy for locally advanced ESCC. Although MIE after NAC is being increasingly performed in Japan, the safety of MIE in this situation has not been well established. In this study, we found that preoperative nutritional status and hemoglobin levels were significantly worse in the MIE after NAC group. However, NAC did not adversely affect short-term outcomes after MIE.

There are several reasons why patients who underwent NAC had worse nutritional status and lower hemoglobin levels. First, the NAC plus MIE group had more patients with advanced cancer, which is often associated with disorders of dietary passage. Secondly, appetite loss and nausea can occur during NAC that can also induce malnutrition during preoperative treatment. In addition, hemorrhage from advanced primary cancer and myelosuppression induced by the anticancer therapy might reduce the hemoglobin levels. Previous studies suggested that preoperative low nutritional status is a significant risk factor for postoperative complications after esophagectomy (12-14). Therefore, it is important to maintain nutritional status during NAC. Enteral nutrition via nasogastric feeding tube and total parenteral nutrition may contribute to maintaining nutritional status during NAC. Mazaki et al. found that immunoenhancing the enteral and parenteral nutrition can reduce the incidence of various morbidities after gastrointestinal surgery (15). Patients with dysphagia due to advanced esophageal cancer should pay careful attention to nutrition during NAC. For such patients, esophageal stenting during preoperative chemotherapy for patients with stenosis may be effective to maintain preoperative nutrition (16, 17).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Preoperative blood chemistries and nutritional parameters.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table III.

Surgery between the groups.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table IV.

Postoperative complications.

In this study, out of 46 patients who received NAC, 26 received the FP regimen and 20 received the DCF regimen. DCF is associated with more frequent and stronger myelosuppression than FP. In contrast, FP is correlated with a frequent incidence of nausea and appetite loss. It is necessary to determine whether the differences in adverse events affect preoperative nutritional status and short-term outcomes after MIE. However, preoperative nutritional status and surgical outcomes did not differ significantly between patients receiving the two regimens, in our study (data not shown). A phase III randomized controlled trial comparing the FP and DCF regimens as neoadjuvant treatments for locally advanced esophageal cancer (JCOG1109) is ongoing (18), that may elucidate the influence of the type of regimen on short-term outcomes after esophagectomy.

This study showed that MIE can be safely performed even after NAC. However, it is arguable whether the current result is applicable to every clinical situation. This study included only two T4 patients who received NAC. T4 tumors often require more invasive surgery and simultaneous resection of the invaded organ. In such situations, open esophagectomy may be useful to perform resection more safely and avoid the need for emergency surgery. Accumulation of data is necessary to elucidate whether MIE after NAC can be safely performed in T4 cases.

Furthermore, the indication of MIE after NAC for patients with high-risk comorbidity must be determined. Previous study suggested that patients who are current smokers at surgery are more likely to have complications after MIE (19). Impaired respiratory function and worse performance status is also associated with increased postoperative morbidities (20, 21). Such patients may have anemia and malnutrition more frequently, which can be risks of postoperative morbidity, so they must be closely monitored. Marker et al. have shown that the ERAS program leads to an improvement in postoperative outcomes. Preoperative respiratory rehabilitation programs are effective at preventing postoperative pulmonary complications (22). In addition, sufficient preoperative smoking cessation may decrease postoperative morbidities after MIE (23). We adopted these prophylaxes during treatment, which may be associated with the current favorable results in the NAC plus MIE group.

This study has several limitations. It was performed at a single institution, and the number of patients was not large. In addition, it was a retrospective study that related to a significant difference in patient background between the two groups. Notably, MIE was primarily conducted in patients with early-stage cancer that required no preoperative treatment. Thus, the MIE after NAC group contained more recent cases than the MIE alone group, and is therefore associated with a historical bias regarding perioperative management.

In conclusion, NAC did not worsen the short-term outcomes after MIE. However, it is important to address methods of minimizing preoperative risks during NAC to reduce postoperative morbidity.

Footnotes

  • Conflicts of Interest

    All Authors have no conflict of interests in relation to this article.

  • Received December 9, 2018.
  • Revision received December 12, 2018.
  • Accepted December 13, 2018.
  • Copyright© 2019, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. Biere SS,
    2. van Berge Henegouwen MI,
    3. Maas KW,
    4. Bonavina L,
    5. Rosman C,
    6. Garcia JR,
    7. Gisbertz SS,
    8. Klinkenbijl JH,
    9. Hollmann MW,
    10. de Lange ES,
    11. Bonjer HJ,
    12. van der Peet DL,
    13. Cuesta MA
    : Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Lancet 379: 1887-1892, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Takeuchi H,
    2. Miyata H,
    3. Gotoh M,
    4. Kitagawa Y,
    5. Baba H,
    6. Kimura W,
    7. Tomita N,
    8. Nakagoe T,
    9. Shimada M,
    10. Sugihara K,
    11. Mori M
    : A risk model for esophagectomy using data of 5354 patients included in a Japanese nationwide web-based database. Ann Surg 260: 259-266, 2014.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Mamidanna R,
    2. Bottle A,
    3. Aylin P,
    4. Faiz O,
    5. Hanna GB
    : Short-term outcomes following open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer in England: a population-based national study. Ann Surg 255: 197-203, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Seesing MFJ,
    2. Gisbertz SS,
    3. Goense L,
    4. van Hillegersberg R,
    5. Kroon HM,
    6. Lagarde SM,
    7. Ruurda JP,
    8. Slaman AE,
    9. van Berge Henegouwen MI,
    10. Wijnhoven BPL
    : A propensity score matched analysis of open versus minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy in the Netherlands. Ann Surg 266: 839-846, 2017.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Takeuchi H,
    2. Miyata H,
    3. ozawa S,
    4. Udagawa H,
    5. Osugi H,
    6. Matsubara H,
    7. Konno H,
    8. Seto Y,
    9. Kitagawa Y
    : Comparison of Short-Term Outcomes Between Open and Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal cancer using a Nationwide Database in Japan. Ann Surg Oncol 7: 1821-1827, 2017.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Ando N,
    2. Kato H,
    3. Igaki H,
    4. Shinoda M,
    5. Ozawa S,
    6. Shimazu H,
    7. Nakamura T,
    8. Yabusaki H,
    9. Aoyama N,
    10. Kurita A,
    11. Ikeda A,
    12. Kanada T,
    13. Tsujinaka T,
    14. Nakamura K,
    15. Fukuda H
    : A randomized trial comparing postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil versus preoperative chemotherapy for localized advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (JCOG9907). Ann Surg Oncol 19: 68-74, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Sobin LH,
    2. Gospodarowicz MK,
    3. Wittekind CH
    : International Union Against Cancer (UICC) TNM classification of malignant tumours. 7th ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK, 2009.
  6. ↵
    1. Kuwano H,
    2. Nishimura Y,
    3. Oyama T,
    4. Kato H,
    5. Kitagawa Y,
    6. Kusano M,
    7. Shimada H,
    8. Takiuchi H,
    9. Toh Y,
    10. Doki Y,
    11. Naomoto Y,
    12. Matsubara H,
    13. Miyazaki T,
    14. Muto M,
    15. Yanagisawa A
    : Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of carcinoma of the esophagus April 2012 edited by the Japan Esophageal Society. Esophagus 12: 1-30, 2015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Society of Thoracic Surgeons
    : Risk-Adjusted Morbidity and Mortality for Esophagectomy for Cancer. Available at: http://www.sts.org/quality-research-patient-safety/quality/quality-performance-measures. Accessed Apr 2018.
  8. ↵
    1. Dindo D,
    2. Demartines N,
    3. Clavien PA
    : Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240: 205-213, 2004.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Kanda Y
    : Investigation of the freely-available easy-to-use software “EZR” (Easy R) for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 48: 452-458, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Yoshida N,
    2. Baba Y,
    3. Shigaki H,
    4. Harada K,
    5. Iwatsuki M,
    6. Kurashige J,
    7. Sakamoto Y,
    8. Miyamoto Y,
    9. Ishimoto T,
    10. Kosumi K,
    11. Tokunaga R,
    12. Imamura Y,
    13. Ida S,
    14. Hiyoshi Y,
    15. Watanabe M,
    16. Baba H
    : Preoperative nutritional assessment by controlling nutritional status (CONUT) is useful to estimate postoperative morbidity after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. World J Surg 40: 1910-1917, 2016.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Nakatani M,
    2. Migita K,
    3. Matsumoto S,
    4. Wakatsuki K,
    5. Ito M,
    6. Nakade H,
    7. Kunishige T,
    8. Kitano M,
    9. Kanehiro H
    : Prognostic significance of the prognostic nutrional index in esophageal cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Dis Esophagus 30: 1-7, 2017.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. ↵
    1. Sakai M,
    2. Sohda M,
    3. Miyazaki T,
    4. Yoshida T,
    5. Kumakura Y,
    6. Honjo H,
    7. Hara K,
    8. Ozawa D,
    9. Suzuki S,
    10. Tanaka N,
    11. Yokobori T,
    12. Kuwano H
    : Association of preoperative nutritional status with prognosis in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing salvage esophagectomy. Anticancer Res 38: 933-938, 2018.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Mazaki T,
    2. Ishii Y,
    3. Murai I
    : Immunoenhancing enteral and parenteral nutrition for gastrointestinal surgery: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis. Ann Surg 261: 662-669, 2015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Brown RE,
    2. Abbas AE,
    3. Ellis S,
    4. Williams S,
    5. Scoggins CR,
    6. McMasters KM,
    7. Martin RC 2nd.
    : A prospective phase II evaluation of esophageal stenting for neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer: optimal performance and surgical safety. J Am Coll Surg 212: 582-588, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Bower M,
    2. Jones W,
    3. Vessels B,
    4. Scoggins C,
    5. Martin R
    : Nutritional support with endoluminal stenting during neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal malignancy. Ann Surg Oncol 16: 3161-3168, 2009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Nakamura K,
    2. Kato K,
    3. Igaki H,
    4. Ito Y,
    5. Mizusawa J,
    6. Ando N,
    7. Udagawa H,
    8. Tsubosa Y,
    9. Daiko H,
    10. Hironaka S,
    11. Fukuda H,
    12. Kitagawa Y
    : Three-arm phase III trial comparing cisplatin plus 5-FU (CF) versus docetaxel, cisplatin plus 5-FU (DCF) versus radiotherapy with CF (CF-RT) as preoperative therapy for locally advanced esophageal cancer (JCOG1109, NExT study). Jpn J Clin Oncol 43: 752-757, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Uchihara T,
    2. Yoshida N,
    3. Baba Y,
    4. Yagi T,
    5. Toihata T,
    6. Oda E,
    7. Kuroda D,
    8. Eto T,
    9. Ohuchi M,
    10. Nakamura K,
    11. Sawayama H,
    12. Kinoshita K,
    13. iwatsuki M,
    14. Ishimoto T,
    15. Sakamoto Y,
    16. Baba H
    : Risk factors for pulmonary morbidities after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc 32: 2852-2858, 2018.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Shiozaki A,
    2. Fujiwara H,
    3. Okamura H,
    4. Murayama Y,
    5. Komatsu S,
    6. Kuriu Y,
    7. Ikoma H,
    8. Nakanishi M,
    9. Ichikawa D,
    10. Okamoto K,
    11. Ochiai T,
    12. Kokuba Y,
    13. Otsuji E
    : Risk factors for postoperative respiratory complications following esophageal cancer resection. Oncol Lett 3: 907-912, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Ferguson MK,
    2. Celauro AD,
    3. Prachand V
    : Assessment of a scoring system for predicting complications after esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus 24: 510-515, 2011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Marker SR,
    2. Karthikesalingam A,
    3. Low DE
    : Enhanced recovery pathways lead to an improvement in postoperative outcomes following esophagectomy: systematic review and pooled analysis. Dis Esophagus 28: 468-475, 2015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Yoshida N,
    2. Nakamura K,
    3. Kuroda D,
    4. Baba Y,
    5. Miyamoto Y,
    6. Iwatsuki M,
    7. Hiyoshi Y,
    8. Ishimoto T,
    9. Imamura Y,
    10. Watanabe M,
    11. Baba H
    : preoperative smoking cessation is integral to the prevention of postoperative morbidities in minimally invasive esophagectomy. World J Surg 42: 2902-2909, 2018.
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 39 (1)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 39, Issue 1
January 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Influence of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on Short-term Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
4 + 4 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Influence of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on Short-term Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer
DAICHI NOMOTO, NAOYA YOSHIDA, TAKAHIKO AKIYAMA, YUKI KIYOZUMI, KOJIRO ETO, YUKIHARU HIYOSHI, YOHEI NAGAI, MASAAKI IWATSUKI, SHIRO IWAGAMI, YOSHIFUMI BABA, YUJI MIYAMOTO, HIDEO BABA
Anticancer Research Jan 2019, 39 (1) 471-475; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13136

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Influence of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy on Short-term Outcomes After Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer
DAICHI NOMOTO, NAOYA YOSHIDA, TAKAHIKO AKIYAMA, YUKI KIYOZUMI, KOJIRO ETO, YUKIHARU HIYOSHI, YOHEI NAGAI, MASAAKI IWATSUKI, SHIRO IWAGAMI, YOSHIFUMI BABA, YUJI MIYAMOTO, HIDEO BABA
Anticancer Research Jan 2019, 39 (1) 471-475; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13136
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Patients and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Efficacy and Treatment Outcomes of First-line Pazopanib Therapy in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in Greece
  • Intratumoral Injection of Allogeneic NK Cell With Chemotherapy in a Triple-negative Breast Cancer Preclinical Model
  • Efficacy of Pembrolizumab as Second or Third-line Therapy for Local Advanced and Metastatic Urothelial Cancer
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Esophageal cancer
  • esophagectomy
  • minimally invasive esophagectomy
  • neoadjuvant chemotherapy
Anticancer Research

© 2025 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire