Siewert II esophagogastric junction cancer: total gastrectomy or esophagectomy?

IF 1.8
Durval Renato Wohnrath, Raphael de Oliveira E Silva, Raphael Leonardo Cunha Araujo
{"title":"Siewert II esophagogastric junction cancer: total gastrectomy or esophagectomy?","authors":"Durval Renato Wohnrath, Raphael de Oliveira E Silva, Raphael Leonardo Cunha Araujo","doi":"10.1590/0102-67202025000019e1888","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The surgical approach for esophagogastric junction cancers (EJC), Siewert II, has been controversial regarding margin control, reconstruction, and lymphadenectomy extension. Therefore, predicting the need for total/subtotal esophagectomy and proximal gastrectomy (TEPG) or total gastrectomy with distal esophagectomy (TGDE) can be challenging, with each direction usually excluding the other. Historically, complication rates for TEPG are higher, affecting further systemic treatment and long-term outcomes.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>The aim of this study was to describe a surgical strategy for approaching tumors such as Siewert II EGJ, with the intraoperative decision to perform total gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy D2 or esophagectomy with lymphadenectomy based on intraoperative frozen sections.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients underwent laparotomy, beginning with greater curvature detachment while preserving the right gastroepiploic, right and left gastric arteries; dissection of the esophageal hiatus for node harvesting; and transection of the distal esophagus and its frozen section. TGDE was preferred if the proximal margin of the distal esophagus was negative; TEPG and gastric tube reconstruction were performed through transhiatal access if the margin was positive.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 38 Siewert II patients, 26 (69%) underwent TGDE and 12 (31%) underwent TEPG, regardless of the trend toward higher complication rates, positive margins, and shorter overall survival in the TEPG group, no statistically significant differences were detected.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although no significant differences in morbidity between the two procedures were noted, type II errors could be a possible cause. This study suggests that unnecessary esophagectomies can be avoided without jeopardizing surgical or oncologic outcomes by opting for a less morbid procedure.</p>","PeriodicalId":72298,"journal":{"name":"Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery","volume":"38 ","pages":"e1888"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12324771/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-67202025000019e1888","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The surgical approach for esophagogastric junction cancers (EJC), Siewert II, has been controversial regarding margin control, reconstruction, and lymphadenectomy extension. Therefore, predicting the need for total/subtotal esophagectomy and proximal gastrectomy (TEPG) or total gastrectomy with distal esophagectomy (TGDE) can be challenging, with each direction usually excluding the other. Historically, complication rates for TEPG are higher, affecting further systemic treatment and long-term outcomes.

Aims: The aim of this study was to describe a surgical strategy for approaching tumors such as Siewert II EGJ, with the intraoperative decision to perform total gastrectomy with lymphadenectomy D2 or esophagectomy with lymphadenectomy based on intraoperative frozen sections.

Methods: All patients underwent laparotomy, beginning with greater curvature detachment while preserving the right gastroepiploic, right and left gastric arteries; dissection of the esophageal hiatus for node harvesting; and transection of the distal esophagus and its frozen section. TGDE was preferred if the proximal margin of the distal esophagus was negative; TEPG and gastric tube reconstruction were performed through transhiatal access if the margin was positive.

Results: Among 38 Siewert II patients, 26 (69%) underwent TGDE and 12 (31%) underwent TEPG, regardless of the trend toward higher complication rates, positive margins, and shorter overall survival in the TEPG group, no statistically significant differences were detected.

Conclusions: Although no significant differences in morbidity between the two procedures were noted, type II errors could be a possible cause. This study suggests that unnecessary esophagectomies can be avoided without jeopardizing surgical or oncologic outcomes by opting for a less morbid procedure.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Siewert II型食管胃结癌:全胃切除术还是食管切除术?
背景:食管胃结癌(EJC)的手术入路,Siewert II,在边缘控制、重建和淋巴结切除扩展方面一直存在争议。因此,预测全/次全食管切除术加近端胃切除术(TEPG)或全胃切除术加远端食管切除术(TGDE)的必要性是具有挑战性的,两者通常相互排斥。从历史上看,TEPG的并发症发生率较高,影响进一步的全身治疗和长期结果。目的:本研究的目的是描述一种手术策略来接近肿瘤,如Siewert II EGJ,术中决定进行全胃切除术加D2淋巴结切除术或食管切除术加基于术中冷冻切片的淋巴结切除术。方法:所有患者均行剖腹手术,从大曲率脱离开始,同时保留右胃网膜、右胃动脉和左胃动脉;食管裂孔清扫术;切开食管远端和冷冻部分。如果食管远端近缘阴性,首选TGDE;如果边缘呈阳性,则通过跨道通道进行TEPG和胃管重建。结果:在38例Siewert II患者中,26例(69%)接受了TGDE, 12例(31%)接受了TEPG,尽管TEPG组有更高的并发症发生率、阳性边缘和更短的总生存期的趋势,但没有发现统计学差异。结论:虽然两种手术的发病率没有显著差异,但II型错误可能是原因。本研究表明,通过选择一种发病率较低的手术方法,可以避免不必要的食管切除术,而不会危及手术或肿瘤预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信