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

Comparison of Open and Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy in Patients With Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma After Neoadjuvant Therapy

YOICHI HAMAI, MANABU EMI, YUTA IBUKI, TOMOAKI KUROKAWA, TORU YOSHIKAWA, RYOSUKE HIROHATA, MANATO OHSAWA, NAO KITASAKI and MORIHITO OKADA
Anticancer Research June 2021, 41 (6) 3011-3021; DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.15083
YOICHI HAMAI
Department of Surgical Oncology, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: yyhamai@hotmail.com
MANABU EMI
Department of Surgical Oncology, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
YUTA IBUKI
Department of Surgical Oncology, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TOMOAKI KUROKAWA
Department of Surgical Oncology, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
TORU YOSHIKAWA
Department of Surgical Oncology, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
RYOSUKE HIROHATA
Department of Surgical Oncology, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MANATO OHSAWA
Department of Surgical Oncology, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
NAO KITASAKI
Department of Surgical Oncology, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MORIHITO OKADA
Department of Surgical Oncology, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: The safety and effectiveness of thoracoscopic compared with open esophagectomy remain uncertain. We aimed to clarify the differences between these surgical modalities in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. Patients and Methods: We reviewed surgical outcomes among 133 patients with locally advanced ESCC who underwent neoadjuvant therapy followed by esophagectomy. We compared the operative outcomes, postoperative complications and survival rates between 65 and 68 patients who were respectively treated by open and thoracoscopic esophagectomy. Results: The surgical duration was longer, but blood loss was lower during thoracoscopic, compared with open esophagectomy. The numbers of dissected mediastinal lymph nodes and rates of postoperative complications did not significantly differ between open and thoracoscopic esophagectomy. However, the rates of postoperative pneumonia and recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis were significantly lower and higher, respectively, after thoracoscopic, compared with open esophagectomy. Overall survival did not significantly differ between the groups. Conclusion: Thoracoscopic esophagectomy is feasible for patients with locally advanced ESCC who undergo neoadjuvant therapy.

Key Words:
  • Esophagus
  • lymph node
  • neoadjuvant therapy
  • surgery
  • complication
  • survival

Neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery is generally conducted for local control and to improve the survival of patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy (NCT and NCRT, respectively) are frequently administered for locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) (1-3). We have also reported the results of NCT or NCRT followed by surgery for resectable locally advanced ESCC (4-7).

Although intensive neoadjuvant therapy might cause toxicity and postoperative morbidity, the incidence of postoperative morbidity and mortality has not recently increased among patients given neoadjuvant therapy compared with surgery alone (2, 3, 8-10). However, esophageal surgery is highly invasive and still associated with a higher likelihood of postoperative morbidity and mortality than other types of gastroenterological surgery (8, 11). Furthermore, postoperative complications are significantly associated with prognosis after surgery for esophageal cancer (12-14). Therefore, invasiveness and postoperative complications of esophageal surgery should be further minimized.

The incidence of thoracoscopic esophagectomy is increasing, even though whether it improves short- and long-term outcomes is supported by limited evidence (15, 16). Furthermore, the safety and effectiveness of thoracoscopic, compared with open esophagectomy remain uncertain especially as treatment for advanced ESCC after neoadjuvant therapy. The present study compares the outcomes of these surgical modalities between patients with locally advanced ESCC who underwent NCT or NCRT at our institute.

Patients and Methods

Patients. We reviewed 133 consecutive patients with SCC in the thoracic esophagus and esophagogastric junction (EGJ) who underwent NCT or NCRT followed by esophagectomy via thoracotomy or a thoracoscopic approach at our institution between January 2012 and December 2018. Patients who were treated by salvage surgery after definitive CRT were excluded.

Patients with performance status (PS) 0 or 1 according to the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group criteria underwent NCT or NCRT and surgery if cancer of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction was resectable, and if tumor invasion was worse than cT2, positive for lymph node (LN) metastasis (cN+) or supraclavicular LN metastasis was resectable (cM1 LYM). We basically adopted NCRT as the first choice of preoperative therapy especially for patients with bulky cT3 tumors associated with dysphagia, and selected NCT when patients had cT1 or cT2 disease with clinical LN metastasis and without dysphagia.

The clinicopathologic profiles of the tumors were based on the TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors, 7th edition (17). The Institutional Review Board of Hiroshima University approved this study (approval no. E-1756).

Neoadjuvant therapy. NCT comprised cisplatin/5-fluorouracil, nedaplatin/5-fluorouracil or docetaxel/cisplatin/5-fluorouracil regimens, as described (4). NCRT comprised concurrent radiotherapy (40 Gy in 20 fractions) and chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil and either docetaxel or cisplatin or a combination of both, as described (5-7, 10, 12, 13). Patients with elevated serum creatinine were treated with nedaplatin instead of cisplatin.

Surgical procedures. All patients were treated by transthoracic or thoracoscopic esophagectomy approached from the right side of the chest 4 to 8 weeks after completing neoadjuvant therapy. Open esophagectomy proceeded via a ~15-cm skin incision in the 4th intercostal thoracotomy, and under one-lung ventilation with patients in the left decubitus position. Thoracoscopic esophagectomy proceeded using five trocars for pneumothorax and maintained CO2 insufflation (10 mm Hg) under two-lung ventilation in prone patients. We dissected LNs in at least the thoracic and abdominal regions (two-field LN dissection). Esophageal cancer in the upper and middle third of the thoracic esophagus, and LN metastasis in the superior mediastinum was essentially treated by lymphadenectomy in the cervical, thoracic and abdominal regions (three–field LN dissection). Abdominal procedures comprised open or laparoscopic surgery, and the gastric tube or pedicled jejunum were subsequently lifted via posterior mediastinal, retrosternal or subcutaneous routes for cervical anastomosis with the esophagus.

LNs were postoperatively separated from esophageal specimens and periesophageal tissues, and assigned specific numbers indicating LN stations that were numbered and named according to the guidelines of the Japan Esophageal Society (18).

We graded postoperative morbidity from 0-5 based on the Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications (19). The highest grades of postoperative complications during hospitalization after surgery were compared between open and thoracoscopic surgery.

Statistical analysis. Categorical variables were analyzed using χ2 tests, and continuous variables were analyzed using unpaired t-tests for comparison of each thoracic approach. Potential preoperative and surgical factors for pneumonia and recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) paralysis were analyzed by univariate analysis, and independent predictors of these postoperative complications were determined by multivariate logistic regression analysis using forward selection.

Survival data were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier curves and results were compared using log rank tests. Potential preoperative, surgical and pathological factors for overall survival (OS) were evaluated by univariate analysis, and independent predictors of OS were determined by multivariate Cox proportional hazards analysis using forward selection. Values with p<0.05 were considered statistically significant. All data were statistically analyzed using SPSS software (version 20.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

Patient characteristics. The distribution of age, gender, PS, various preoperative comorbidities, neoadjuvant therapy, and clinical and pathological stages did not differ between the patients who underwent open or thoracoscopic surgery (Table I).

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

Patient characteristics.

Comparison of operative factors between open and thoracoscopic esophagectomy. Table II shows that the fields of LN dissection, organ for reconstruction, and curability did not differ between operative procedures. More patients underwent thoracoscopic than open esophagectomy via the abdominal laparoscopic approach and the retrosternal reconstruction route (p=0.01 and 0.003, respectively). The rate of R2 resection tended to be higher during open than thoracoscopic esophagectomy, but it did not reach significance (p=0.08).

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

Comparison of operative factors between open and thoracoscopic surgery.

The thoracic surgical duration was significantly longer in thoracoscopic than open surgery (269 vs. 201 min, p<0.0001). Total surgical duration was also significantly longer in thoracoscopic than open surgery (527 vs. 466 min, p=0.02). The amount of blood loss was significantly lower in thoracoscopic, than open surgery (261 vs. 450 ml, p=0.0004). Therefore, significantly fewer patients required blood transfusions after thoracoscopic, than open surgery (7 vs. 19 patients, p=0.006).

Comparison of dissected lymph nodes between open and thoracoscopic esophagectomy. Table III shows that the numbers of all dissected LNs and of mediastinal LNs did not significantly differ between the groups (p=0.71 and 0.31, respectively). More LNs were dissected in left tracheobronchial (No.106tbL) and lower thoracic paraesophageal regions (No.110) during thoracoscopic than open surgery (p=0.03 for both). The numbers of dissected LNs in other mediastinal LN stations did not significantly differ between the groups.

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

Comparison of the numbers of dissected lymph nodes between open and thoracoscopic surgery.

Comparison of postoperative complications between open and thoracoscopic esophagectomy. Table IV shows postoperative complications. The severity of complications based on the Clavien–Dindo classification (19) did not differ between the groups (p=0.64). The rate of pneumonia was significantly higher during open compared to thoracoscopic surgery (21.5% vs. 7.4%, p=0.02). The rate of RLN paralysis was significantly lower in open, than thoracoscopic surgery (9.2% vs. 22.0%, p=0.04).

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

Comparison of postoperative complications between open and thoracoscopic surgery.

Tables V and VI respectively show preoperative and surgical factors associated with postoperative pneumonia and RLN paralysis. Univariate analysis of preoperative and surgical factors significantly associated PS [odds ratio (OR)=3.92; 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.26-12.23; p=0.02] and open surgery (OR=3.46; 95%CI=1.17-10.24; p=0.03) with postoperative pneumonia. Multivariable analysis subsequently selected PS (OR=4.65; 95%CI=1.39-15.56; p=0.01) and open surgery (OR=3.93; 95%CI=1.27-12.19; p=0.02) as independent covariates for postoperative pneumonia.

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

Preoperative and surgical factors associated with postoperative pneumonia.

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

Preoperative and surgical factors associated with recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis.

Univariate analysis of preoperative and surgical factors significantly associated thoracoscopic surgery (OR=2.78; 95%CI=1.01-7.69; p=0.049) and three-field LN dissection (OR=5.70; 95%CI=1.26-25.71; p=0.02) with RLN paralysis. Multivariable analysis subsequently selected thoracoscopic surgery (OR=3.26; 95%CI=1.15-9.27; p=0.03) and three-field LN dissection (OR=6.58; 95%CI=1.43-30.28; p=0.02) as independent covariates for RLN paralysis.

Comparison of survival between open and thoracoscopic esophagectomy and predictive factors associated with survival. Figure 1 shows the overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) curves of patients treated with open and thoracoscopic surgery. The 5-year OS and DSS rates of patients after open and thoracoscopic surgery were 48.9% vs. 51.9% (p=0.46) and 58.8% vs. 59.4% (p=0.59), respectively and did not significantly differ between these groups.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Survival rates. Five-year overall survival (A) and disease-specific survival(B) rates of patients after open and thoracoscopic surgery are 48.9% vs. 51.9% (p=0.46), and 58.8% vs. 59.4% (p=0.59), respectively.

Table VII shows the preoperative, surgical and pathological factors associated with OS. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that gender [female vs. male: hazard ratio (HR)=4.40; 95%CI=1.72-11.24; p=0.002], PS (0 vs. 1: HR=3.18; 95%CI=1.65-6.13; p=0.001), neoadjuvant therapy (NCT vs. NCRT: HR=3.02; 95%CI=1.74-5.24; p<0.001) and ypT (0/1 vs. 2/3/4: HR=3.91; 95%CI=2.18-7.01; p<0.001) significantly correlated with OS as independent covariates. However, thoracic procedures were unrelated to OS.

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

Predictive factors associated with overall survival.

Discussion

The outcomes of open and thoracoscopic esophagectomy after neoadjuvant therapy have never been fully evaluated in patients with advanced ESCC. We therefore compared these surgical outcomes between patients with locally advanced ESCC who had received neoadjuvant therapy. The surgical duration was significantly longer, but blood loss was significantly lower during thoracoscopic than open esophagectomy. The number of dissected mediastinal LNs did not significantly differ between them. Although overall postoperative complications were essentially equivalent between the two approaches, rates of RLN paralysis and pneumonia were significantly higher and lower after thoracoscopic than open surgery, respectively. Survival rates were similar after both approaches.

Thoracoscopic surgery under direct vision offers many advantages, such as good lighting, magnification effect, wide field of view, fewer incisions, and less pain, compared with open surgery. Esophagectomy requires fine manipulation within a deep and narrow space. Thus, the thoracoscopic approach is suitable for esophagectomy (20). Minimally invasive surgery in general is longer, whereas operative blood loss is decreased, compared with open approaches (21-27). We also found that although thoracoscopic esophagectomy was prolonged, less blood was lost compared with open esophagectomy for ESCC after neoadjuvant therapy.

LN metastasis is one of the most negative prognostic factors (5, 7, 12, 13), and an adequate extent of LN dissection is particularly important for staging and improving long-term survival after thoracic ESCC (28). During open surgery, en-bloc resection of the thoracic paratracheal and cervical paraesophageal LNs through a transthoracic approach is quite difficult because of a narrow space at the cervicothoracic junction and poor illumination. However, during thoracoscopic surgery, a thoracoscope can provide better illumination and exposure of this space (28), and paracervical esophageal LNs can be effectively dissected from the thoracic cavity (29).

Furthermore, thoracoscopic surgery of prone patients afforded a good operative field from the mid-to-lower mediastinum without retraction of the right lung compared with the lateral decubitus position (11, 30). The prone position also provides better visualization of the subaortic arch and subcarinal and supraphrenic regions (11, 28). We found that although the total number of dissected mediastinal LNs did not significantly differ between open and thoracoscopic surgery, more LNs at the left tracheobronchial (No.106tbL) and lower thoracic paraesophageal (No.110) regions were dissected during thoracoscopic, than open surgery. A narrow mediastinal area containing important structures, namely the bilateral main bronchus, left RLN, aortic arch, and pulmonary artery has anatomically impeded 106tbL LN dissection under direct vision by open surgery. Therefore, thoracoscopic surgery might benefit LN dissection especially at the left tracheobronchial station (No.106tbL) of the subaortic arch region and at the lower thoracic paraesophageal station (No.110) in the supraphrenic region due to better visualization.

Radical mediastinal LN dissection could result in a high incidence of vocal cord paralysis related to RLN injury, which is challenging for esophageal surgeons especially when precise LN dissection is required around the RLN. The causes of RLN injury include thermal, clamping, traction, compression, transection, suction, and energy devices (31). The RLN paralysis rates for thoracoscopic surgery range from 0% to 41.9% (11, 16, 24, 26, 27, 29-31). RLN paralysis was significantly more prevalent in patients after thoracoscopic, compared with open surgery in the present study. Apparently, 30-60 procedures on prone patients are needed to reach a plateau in the thoracoscopic esophagectomy learning curve and to reduce morbidity rates by decreasing the surgical duration, retrieving more chest nodes, and decreasing rates of RLN paralysis (32, 33). The present study might include procedures that have not yet reached a plateau in the learning curve. We need to improve the surgical techniques for LN dissections around RLN.

Furthermore, most patients developed pneumonia after open than thoracoscopic surgery. A randomized control study also found a significantly lower rate of postoperative pneumonia after minimally invasive, than open esophagectomy (12% vs. 34%) (23). Furthermore, minimally invasive surgery reduces the rate of postoperative pulmonary complications (16, 22, 25, 34). The smaller incision for thoracoscopic esophagectomy probably helped to preserve lung function, as well as the ability to expectorate sputum and reduce pulmonary complications (26).

The survival of patients after thoracoscopic and open esophagectomy has been compared, but the results remain controversial (16). Some studies found no significant differences in survival between the two approaches (26, 34, 35), whereas others indicated significantly better survival after thoracoscopic, than open surgery esophagectomy (22, 27). The recent TIME trial also found that disease-free and 3-year OS did not significantly differ between minimally invasive and open esophagectomy (36). Furthermore, a systematic review and meta-analysis found equivalent long-term oncological outcomes of minimally invasive esophagectomy and open esophagectomy (37). The Japan Clinical Oncology Group is conducting a randomized phase III study to compare OS between thoracoscopic and open surgery for stage I-III esophageal cancer (15). This study is ongoing and should define the impact of each method on short- and long-term outcomes.

This retrospective study included inherent selection bias. Abdominal procedures and reconstruction routes varied between open and thoracoscopic surgery in actual clinical practice. However, we applied multivariate analysis to evaluate risk factors before, during and after surgery that might have influenced the occurrence of postoperative pneumonia, RLN paralysis, and survival. Furthermore, the outcomes of patients with locally advanced ESCC who undergo neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery have not been assessed as far as we can ascertain. Therefore, our findings are important for evaluating thoracoscopic surgery for patients with locally advanced ESCC who receive neoadjuvant therapy.

In conclusion, although the surgical procedure was longer, blood loss was significantly lower during thoracoscopic, than open esophagectomy. Postoperative complications and survival were almost equivalent between thoracoscopic and open esophagectomy. Thus, thoracoscopic esophagectomy is feasible for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer who have received neoadjuvant therapy.

Footnotes

  • Authors’ Contributions

    YH drafted the article. ME, YI, TK, TY, RH, MO and NK contributed to patient care. YH performed the literature search. ME, YI, and MO participated in the critical revision of the article. All the Authors read and approved the final article.

  • Conflicts of Interest

    The Authors have no commercial support or conflicts of interest to disclose in relation to this study.

  • Received May 5, 2021.
  • Revision received May 11, 2021.
  • Accepted May 13, 2021.
  • Copyright © 2021 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Sjoquist KM,
    2. Burmeister BH,
    3. Smithers BM,
    4. Zalcberg JR,
    5. Simes RJ,
    6. Barbour A,
    7. Gebski V and Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group
    : Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 12(7): 681-692, 2011. PMID: 21684205. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70142-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. van Hagen P,
    2. Hulshof MC,
    3. van Lanschot JJ,
    4. Steyerberg EW,
    5. van Berge Henegouwen MI,
    6. Wijnhoven BP,
    7. Richel DJ,
    8. Nieuwenhuijzen GA,
    9. Hospers GA,
    10. Bonenkamp JJ,
    11. Cuesta MA,
    12. Blaisse RJ,
    13. Busch OR,
    14. ten Kate FJ,
    15. Creemers GJ,
    16. Punt CJ,
    17. Plukker JT,
    18. Verheul HM,
    19. Spillenaar Bilgen EJ,
    20. van Dekken H,
    21. van der Sangen MJ,
    22. Rozema T,
    23. Biermann K,
    24. Beukema JC,
    25. Piet AH,
    26. van Rij CM,
    27. Reinders JG,
    28. Tilanus HW,
    29. van der Gaast A and CROSS Group
    : Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med 366(22): 2074-2084, 2012. PMID: 22646630. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1112088
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Ando N,
    2. Kato H,
    3. Igaki H,
    4. Shinoda M,
    5. Ozawa S,
    6. Shimizu H,
    7. Nakamura T,
    8. Yabusaki H,
    9. Aoyama N,
    10. Kurita A,
    11. Ikeda K,
    12. Kanda T,
    13. Tsujinaka T,
    14. Nakamura K and
    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(1): 68-74, 2012. PMID: 21879261. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-011-2049-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Ohsawa M,
    2. Hamai Y,
    3. Emi M,
    4. Takaoki F,
    5. Ibuki Y,
    6. Tomoaki K,
    7. Yoshikawa T and
    8. Okada M
    : Tumor response in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery. Anticancer Res 40(2): 1153-1160, 2020. PMID: 32014968. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14057
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Hamai Y,
    2. Emi M,
    3. Ibuki Y,
    4. Kurokawa T,
    5. Yoshikawa T,
    6. Ohsawa M,
    7. Hirohata R,
    8. Murakami Y,
    9. Nishibuchi I,
    10. Imano N,
    11. Nagata Y and
    12. Okada M
    : Distribution of lymph node metastasis in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after trimodal therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 28(3): 1798-1807, 2021. PMID: 32885399. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-09106-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Hamai Y,
    2. Emi M,
    3. Ibuki Y,
    4. Murakami Y,
    5. Nishibuchi I,
    6. Nagata Y,
    7. Furukawa T,
    8. Kurokawa T,
    9. Ohsawa M,
    10. Yoshikawa T and
    11. Okada M
    : Predictions of pathological features and recurrence based on FDG-PET findings of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after trimodal therapy. Ann Surg Oncol 27(11): 4422-4430, 2020. PMID: 32405978. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-020-08609-0
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Hamai Y,
    2. Hihara J,
    3. Emi M,
    4. Ibuki Y,
    5. Murakami Y,
    6. Nishibuchi I,
    7. Nagata Y,
    8. Aoki Y,
    9. Furukawa T and
    10. Okada M
    : Clinical significance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography-positive lymph nodes to outcomes of trimodal therapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 26(6): 1869-1878, 2019. PMID: 30675704. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-019-07158-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Chevallay M,
    2. Jung M,
    3. Chon SH,
    4. Takeda FR,
    5. Akiyama J and
    6. Mönig S
    : Esophageal cancer surgery: review of complications and their management. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1482(1): 146-162, 2020. PMID: 32935342. DOI: 10.1111/nyas.14492
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kidane B,
    2. Korst RJ,
    3. Weksler B,
    4. Farrell A,
    5. Darling GE,
    6. Martin LW,
    7. Reddy R and
    8. Sarkaria IS
    : Neoadjuvant therapy vs upfront surgery for clinical T2N0 esophageal cancer: A systematic review. Ann Thorac Surg 108(3): 935-944, 2019. PMID: 31077657. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.04.008
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Hamai Y,
    2. Hihara J,
    3. Taomoto J,
    4. Yamakita I,
    5. Ibuki Y and
    6. Okada M
    : Effects of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on postoperative morbidity and mortality associated with esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus 28(4): 358-364, 2015. PMID: 24612033. DOI: 10.1111/dote.12207
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Noshiro H and
    2. Miyake S
    : Thoracoscopic esophagectomy using prone positioning. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 19(6): 399-408, 2013. PMID: 24284506. DOI: 10.5761/atcs.ra.13-00262
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Kurokawa T,
    2. Hamai Y,
    3. Emi M,
    4. Ibuki Y,
    5. Yoshikawa T,
    6. Ohsawa M,
    7. Hirohata R and
    8. Okada M
    : Risk factors for recurrence in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma without pathological complete response after trimodal therapy. Anticancer Res 40(8): 4387-4394, 2020. PMID: 32727767. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.14442
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Hamai Y,
    2. Emi M,
    3. Ibuki Y,
    4. Murakami Y,
    5. Nishibuchi I,
    6. Nagata Y,
    7. Furukawa T,
    8. Kurokawa T,
    9. Ohsawa M and
    10. Okada M
    : Early recurrence and cancer death after trimodal therapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Anticancer Res 39(3): 1433-1440, 2019. PMID: 30842179. DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.13259
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Saunders JH,
    2. Yanni F,
    3. Dorrington MS,
    4. Bowman CR,
    5. Vohra RS,
    6. Parsons SL and Trent Oesophago Gastric Unit (TOGU)
    : Impact of postoperative complications on disease recurrence and long-term survival following oesophagogastric cancer resection. Br J Surg 107(1): 103-112, 2020. PMID: 31869460. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11318
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Kataoka K,
    2. Takeuchi H,
    3. Mizusawa J,
    4. Ando M,
    5. Tsubosa Y,
    6. Koyanagi K,
    7. Daiko H,
    8. Matsuda S,
    9. Nakamura K,
    10. Kato K,
    11. Kitagawa Y and Japan Esophageal Oncology Group/Japan Clinical Oncology Group
    : A randomized Phase III trial of thoracoscopic versus open esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study JCOG1409. Jpn J Clin Oncol 46(2): 174-177, 2016. PMID: 26732383. DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyv178
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Booka E,
    2. Takeuchi H,
    3. Kikuchi H,
    4. Hiramatsu Y,
    5. Kamiya K,
    6. Kawakubo H and
    7. Kitagawa Y
    : Recent advances in thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Asian J Endosc Surg 12(1): 19-29, 2019. PMID: 30590876. DOI: 10.1111/ases.12681
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Sobin L,
    2. Gospodarowicz M and
    3. Wittekind C
    : International Union Against Cancer (UICC). TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours (7th edition). New York, Wiley, 2009.
  16. ↵
    1. Japan Esophageal Society
    : Japanese classification of esophageal cancer, 11th edition: part I. Esophagus 14(1): 1-36, 2017. PMID: 28111535. DOI: 10.1007/s10388-016-0551-7
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Clavien PA,
    2. Barkun J,
    3. de Oliveira ML,
    4. Vauthey JN,
    5. Dindo D,
    6. Schulick RD,
    7. de Santibañes E,
    8. Pekolj J,
    9. Slankamenac K,
    10. Bassi C,
    11. Graf R,
    12. Vonlanthen R,
    13. Padbury R,
    14. Cameron JL and
    15. Makuuchi M
    : The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250(2): 187-196, 2009. PMID: 19638912. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Miyazaki T,
    2. Sakai M,
    3. Sohda M and
    4. Kuwano H
    : Thoracoscopic esophagectomy. Kyobu Geka 67(8): 773-777, 2014. PMID: 25138955.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Siaw-Acheampong K,
    2. Kamarajah SK,
    3. Gujjuri R,
    4. Bundred JR,
    5. Singh P and
    6. Griffiths EA
    : Minimally invasive techniques for transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BJS Open 4(5): 787-803, 2020. PMID: 32894001. DOI: 10.1002/bjs5.50330
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Hsu PK,
    2. Huang CS,
    3. Wu YC,
    4. Chou TY and
    5. Hsu WH
    : Open versus thoracoscopic esophagectomy in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. World J Surg 38(2): 402-409, 2014. PMID: 24081542. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-013-2265-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    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 and
    13. Cuesta MA
    : Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379(9829): 1887-1892, 2012. PMID: 22552194. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60516-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Takeuchi H,
    2. Miyata H,
    3. Ozawa S,
    4. Udagawa H,
    5. Osugi H,
    6. Matsubara H,
    7. Konno H,
    8. Seto Y and
    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 24(7): 1821-1827, 2017. PMID: 28224366. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-017-5808-4
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Guo W,
    2. Ma X,
    3. Yang S,
    4. Zhu X,
    5. Qin W,
    6. Xiang J,
    7. Lerut T and
    8. Li H
    : Combined thoracoscopic-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: a meta-analysis of outcomes. Surg Endosc 30(9): 3873-3881, 2016. PMID: 26659248. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4692-x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Osugi H,
    2. Takemura M,
    3. Higashino M,
    4. Takada N,
    5. Lee S and
    6. Kinoshita H
    : A comparison of video-assisted thoracoscopic oesophagectomy and radical lymph node dissection for squamous cell cancer of the oesophagus with open operation. Br J Surg 90(1): 108-113, 2003. PMID: 12520585. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.4022
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Miyasaka D,
    2. Okushiba S,
    3. Sasaki T,
    4. Ebihara Y,
    5. Kawada M,
    6. Kawarada Y,
    7. Kitashiro S,
    8. Katoh H,
    9. Miyamoto M,
    10. Shichinohe T and
    11. Hirano S
    : Clinical evaluation of the feasibility of minimally invasive surgery in esophageal cancer. Asian J Endosc Surg 6(1): 26-32, 2013. PMID: 23116427. DOI: 10.1111/j.1758-5910.2012.00158.x
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Wang Z,
    2. Mao Y,
    3. Gao S,
    4. Li Y,
    5. Tan L,
    6. Daiko H,
    7. Liu S,
    8. Chen C,
    9. Koyanagi K and
    10. He J
    : Lymph node dissection and recurrent laryngeal nerve protection in minimally invasive esophagectomy. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1481(1): 20-29, 2020. PMID: 32671860. DOI: 10.1111/nyas.14427
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Koterazawa Y,
    2. Oshikiri T,
    3. Takiguchi G,
    4. Hasegawa H,
    5. Yamamoto M,
    6. Kanaji S,
    7. Yamashita K,
    8. Matsuda T,
    9. Nakamura T,
    10. Fujino Y,
    11. Tominaga M,
    12. Suzuki S and
    13. Kakeji Y
    : Prophylactic cervical lymph node dissection in thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer increases postoperative complications and does not improve survival. Ann Surg Oncol 26(9): 2899-2904, 2019. PMID: 31187365. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-019-07499-1
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Takeuchi H,
    2. Kawakubo H and
    3. Kitagawa Y
    : Current status of minimally invasive esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 61(9): 513-521, 2013. PMID: 23661109. DOI: 10.1007/s11748-013-0258-9
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. Yip HC,
    2. Shirakawa Y,
    3. Cheng CY,
    4. Huang CL and
    5. Chiu PWY
    : Recent advances in minimally invasive esophagectomy for squamous esophageal cancer. Ann NY Acad Sci 1482(1): 113-120, 2020. PMID: 32783237. DOI: 10.1111/nyas.14461
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Oshikiri T,
    2. Takiguchi G,
    3. Miura S,
    4. Takase N,
    5. Hasegawa H,
    6. Yamamoto M,
    7. Kanaji S,
    8. Yamashita K,
    9. Matsuda Y,
    10. Matsuda T,
    11. Nakamura T,
    12. Suzuki S and
    13. Kakeji Y
    : Current status of minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: Is it truly less invasive? Ann Gastroenterol Surg 3(2): 138-145, 2018. PMID: 30923783. DOI: 10.1002/ags3.12224
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Oshikiri T,
    2. Yasuda T,
    3. Hasegawa H,
    4. Yamamoto M,
    5. Kanaji S,
    6. Yamashita K,
    7. Matsuda T,
    8. Sumi Y,
    9. Nakamura T,
    10. Fujino Y,
    11. Tominaga M,
    12. Suzuki S and
    13. Kakeji Y
    : Short-term outcomes and one surgeon’s learning curve for thoracoscopic esophagectomy performed with the patient in the prone position. Surg Today 47(3): 313-319, 2017. PMID: 27400692. DOI: 10.1007/s00595-016-1378-5
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. ↵
    1. Tapias LF,
    2. Mathisen DJ,
    3. Wright CD,
    4. Wain JC,
    5. Gaissert HA,
    6. Muniappan A,
    7. Lanuti M,
    8. Donahue DM and
    9. Morse CR
    : Outcomes with open and minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant therapy. Ann Thorac Surg 101(3): 1097-1103, 2016. PMID: 26652140. DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2015.09.062
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Kanekiyo S,
    2. Takeda S,
    3. Tsutsui M,
    4. Nishiyama M,
    5. Kitahara M,
    6. Shindo Y,
    7. Tokumitsu Y,
    8. Tomochika S,
    9. Tokuhisa Y,
    10. Iida M,
    11. Sakamoto K,
    12. Suzuki N,
    13. Yamamoto S,
    14. Yoshino S,
    15. Hazama S,
    16. Ueno T and
    17. Nagano H
    : Low invasiveness of thoracoscopic esophagectomy in the prone position for esophageal cancer: a propensity score-matched comparison of operative approaches between thoracoscopic and open esophagectomy. Surg Endosc 32(4): 1945-1953, 2018. PMID: 29075967. DOI: 10.1007/s00464-017-5888-z
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. Straatman J,
    2. van der Wielen N,
    3. Cuesta MA,
    4. Daams F,
    5. Roig Garcia J,
    6. Bonavina L,
    7. Rosman C,
    8. van Berge Henegouwen MI,
    9. Gisbertz SS and
    10. van der Peet DL
    : Minimally invasive versus open esophageal resection: Three-year follow-up of the previously reported randomized controlled trial: the TIME trial. Ann Surg 266(2): 232-236, 2017. PMID: 28187044. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000002171
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    1. Patel K,
    2. Askari A and
    3. Moorthy K
    : Long-term oncological outcomes following completely minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus 33(6): doz113, 2020. PMID: 31950180. DOI: 10.1093/dote/doz113
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 41 (6)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 41, Issue 6
June 2021
  • 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.
Comparison of Open and Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy in Patients With Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma After Neoadjuvant Therapy
(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.
10 + 3 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Comparison of Open and Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy in Patients With Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma After Neoadjuvant Therapy
YOICHI HAMAI, MANABU EMI, YUTA IBUKI, TOMOAKI KUROKAWA, TORU YOSHIKAWA, RYOSUKE HIROHATA, MANATO OHSAWA, NAO KITASAKI, MORIHITO OKADA
Anticancer Research Jun 2021, 41 (6) 3011-3021; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15083

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Comparison of Open and Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy in Patients With Locally Advanced Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma After Neoadjuvant Therapy
YOICHI HAMAI, MANABU EMI, YUTA IBUKI, TOMOAKI KUROKAWA, TORU YOSHIKAWA, RYOSUKE HIROHATA, MANATO OHSAWA, NAO KITASAKI, MORIHITO OKADA
Anticancer Research Jun 2021, 41 (6) 3011-3021; DOI: 10.21873/anticanres.15083
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...

  • Correlation Between Tumor Uptake on FDG-PET and Malignant Features in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Surgery
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Feasibility of an Exercise Training Program Among Patients With Newly Diagnosed Advanced Breast Cancer
  • Impact of Surgery Refusal on Overall Survival in Merkel Cell Carcinoma
  • Association of County-level Social Determinants and Pancreatic Cancer Incidence in the United States
Show more Clinical Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Esophagus
  • lymph node
  • neoadjuvant therapy
  • surgery
  • complication
  • survival
Anticancer Research

© 2025 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire