预防性淋巴结清扫在决定性放化疗后的补救性食管切除术中是否有效?

IF 2.6 3区 医学
Kengo Kuriyama, Akihiko Okamura, Masaru Hayami, Jun Kanamori, Masahiro Tamura, Naoki Takahashi, Masayoshi Terayama, Yasukazu Kanie, Suguru Maruyama, Masayuki Watanabe
{"title":"预防性淋巴结清扫在决定性放化疗后的补救性食管切除术中是否有效?","authors":"Kengo Kuriyama, Akihiko Okamura, Masaru Hayami, Jun Kanamori, Masahiro Tamura, Naoki Takahashi, Masayoshi Terayama, Yasukazu Kanie, Suguru Maruyama, Masayuki Watanabe","doi":"10.1093/dote/doaf004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Salvage esophagectomy for esophageal cancer after definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is a high-risk surgery, and radical lymph node dissection (RLND) can cause severe complications. However, the significance of RLND in salvage surgery remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study included 55 patients who underwent curative-intent salvage esophagectomy after dCRT for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. We evaluated the prognostic impact of lymph node dissection of each station using efficacy indexes (EIs) and compared the outcomes between RLND and limited lymph node dissection (LLND).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine (16.4%) patients underwent RLND and 46 (83.6%) underwent LLND. Patients who underwent RLND had greater operative blood loss and a greater number of resected lymph nodes compared to patients who underwent LLND (P = 0.053 and 0.002, respectively). However, the incidence of postoperative complications was not significantly different between the groups. The EIs of the cervical and mediastinal lymph nodes were zero because no patients with involved nodes at these stations remained alive at 5 years. In contrast, perigastric lymph nodes had relatively high EIs. Overall and cancer-specific survival did not differ significantly between patients who underwent RLND and those who underwent LLND (P = 0.475 and 0.808, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The EIs of the cervical and mediastinal lymph nodes were zero, and RLND did not improve survival. Depending on tumor status, LLND may be sufficient for salvage esophagectomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":54277,"journal":{"name":"Diseases of the Esophagus","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is prophylactic lymph node dissection efficacious in salvage esophagectomy after definitive chemoradiotherapy?\",\"authors\":\"Kengo Kuriyama, Akihiko Okamura, Masaru Hayami, Jun Kanamori, Masahiro Tamura, Naoki Takahashi, Masayoshi Terayama, Yasukazu Kanie, Suguru Maruyama, Masayuki Watanabe\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/dote/doaf004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Salvage esophagectomy for esophageal cancer after definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is a high-risk surgery, and radical lymph node dissection (RLND) can cause severe complications. However, the significance of RLND in salvage surgery remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study included 55 patients who underwent curative-intent salvage esophagectomy after dCRT for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. We evaluated the prognostic impact of lymph node dissection of each station using efficacy indexes (EIs) and compared the outcomes between RLND and limited lymph node dissection (LLND).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine (16.4%) patients underwent RLND and 46 (83.6%) underwent LLND. Patients who underwent RLND had greater operative blood loss and a greater number of resected lymph nodes compared to patients who underwent LLND (P = 0.053 and 0.002, respectively). However, the incidence of postoperative complications was not significantly different between the groups. The EIs of the cervical and mediastinal lymph nodes were zero because no patients with involved nodes at these stations remained alive at 5 years. In contrast, perigastric lymph nodes had relatively high EIs. Overall and cancer-specific survival did not differ significantly between patients who underwent RLND and those who underwent LLND (P = 0.475 and 0.808, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The EIs of the cervical and mediastinal lymph nodes were zero, and RLND did not improve survival. Depending on tumor status, LLND may be sufficient for salvage esophagectomy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54277,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diseases of the Esophagus\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diseases of the Esophagus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doaf004\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diseases of the Esophagus","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doaf004","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:食管癌终期放化疗(dCRT)后补救性食管切除术是一种高风险手术,根治性淋巴结清扫(RLND)可引起严重并发症。然而,RLND在抢救手术中的意义尚不清楚。方法:本研究纳入55例食管鳞状细胞癌dCRT术后行治疗意图挽救性食管切除术的患者。我们使用疗效指数(EIs)评估每个淋巴结清扫对预后的影响,并比较RLND和局限性淋巴结清扫(LLND)的结果。结果:RLND 9例(16.4%),LLND 46例(83.6%)。与接受LLND的患者相比,接受RLND的患者有更多的手术出血量和更多的淋巴结切除数量(P分别= 0.053和0.002)。但两组术后并发症发生率无明显差异。颈部和纵隔淋巴结的ei为零,因为在这些淋巴结受累的患者在5年内没有存活。相反,胃周围淋巴结的ei相对较高。RLND患者和LLND患者的总生存率和癌症特异性生存率无显著差异(P分别为0.475和0.808)。结论:颈部和纵隔淋巴结的ei均为零,RLND对生存率没有改善作用。根据肿瘤状况,LLND可能足以用于挽救性食管切除术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is prophylactic lymph node dissection efficacious in salvage esophagectomy after definitive chemoradiotherapy?

Background: Salvage esophagectomy for esophageal cancer after definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is a high-risk surgery, and radical lymph node dissection (RLND) can cause severe complications. However, the significance of RLND in salvage surgery remains unclear.

Methods: This study included 55 patients who underwent curative-intent salvage esophagectomy after dCRT for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. We evaluated the prognostic impact of lymph node dissection of each station using efficacy indexes (EIs) and compared the outcomes between RLND and limited lymph node dissection (LLND).

Results: Nine (16.4%) patients underwent RLND and 46 (83.6%) underwent LLND. Patients who underwent RLND had greater operative blood loss and a greater number of resected lymph nodes compared to patients who underwent LLND (P = 0.053 and 0.002, respectively). However, the incidence of postoperative complications was not significantly different between the groups. The EIs of the cervical and mediastinal lymph nodes were zero because no patients with involved nodes at these stations remained alive at 5 years. In contrast, perigastric lymph nodes had relatively high EIs. Overall and cancer-specific survival did not differ significantly between patients who underwent RLND and those who underwent LLND (P = 0.475 and 0.808, respectively).

Conclusions: The EIs of the cervical and mediastinal lymph nodes were zero, and RLND did not improve survival. Depending on tumor status, LLND may be sufficient for salvage esophagectomy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Diseases of the Esophagus
Diseases of the Esophagus Medicine-Gastroenterology
自引率
7.70%
发文量
568
期刊介绍: Diseases of the Esophagus covers all aspects of the esophagus - etiology, investigation and diagnosis, and both medical and surgical treatment.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信