The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2021
Monitoring for Recurrence After Esophagectomy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chang Carolyn, Linden Philip A, Jiang Boxiang, Sarode Anuja, Bachman Katelynn, Towe Christopher W, Argote-Greene Luis, Worrell Stephanie G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for follow-up after esophagectomy suggest only history and physical examination (HPE). With recent advances in chemotherapy and immunotherapy for patients with recurrent esophageal cancer, we hypothesized that surveillance imaging (SI) would identify patients with cancer recurrence earlier and improve long-term survival.
METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer at a single institution between 2007 and 2018 was conducted. Patients were categorized as recurrence detected through SI or recurrence detected through HPE alone. Patients were excluded if recurrence occurred within 3 months of esophagectomy.
RESULTS: During the study period, 225 esophageal cancer patients underwent an esophagectomy. Among these, 101 (44.9%) had SI and 124 (55.1%) had routine follow-up with HPE. There were 88 recurrences (39.1%) with median follow-up of 12 months. Rate of recurrence was similar based on screening method: 41 of 101 (40.6%) by SI and 47 of 124 (37.9%) by HPE (P = .68). Among patients with recurrence, recipients of additional treatment were also similar between groups, 36 of 41 (87.8%) by SI and 34 of 47 (72.3%) by HPE (P = .468). Among those who had a recurrence, the median overall survival was significantly longer in those undergoing SI at 23 months compared with those who received HPE at 16 months (P = .047).
CONCLUSIONS: SI after esophagectomy is not associated with improved detection of recurrence, but is associated with improved overall survival once recurrence is detected. These data suggest that earlier identification of esophageal cancer recurrence may have survival benefit. Standardizing SI may prove beneficial for patients after esophagectomy.
METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal cancer at a single institution between 2007 and 2018 was conducted. Patients were categorized as recurrence detected through SI or recurrence detected through HPE alone. Patients were excluded if recurrence occurred within 3 months of esophagectomy.
RESULTS: During the study period, 225 esophageal cancer patients underwent an esophagectomy. Among these, 101 (44.9%) had SI and 124 (55.1%) had routine follow-up with HPE. There were 88 recurrences (39.1%) with median follow-up of 12 months. Rate of recurrence was similar based on screening method: 41 of 101 (40.6%) by SI and 47 of 124 (37.9%) by HPE (P = .68). Among patients with recurrence, recipients of additional treatment were also similar between groups, 36 of 41 (87.8%) by SI and 34 of 47 (72.3%) by HPE (P = .468). Among those who had a recurrence, the median overall survival was significantly longer in those undergoing SI at 23 months compared with those who received HPE at 16 months (P = .047).
CONCLUSIONS: SI after esophagectomy is not associated with improved detection of recurrence, but is associated with improved overall survival once recurrence is detected. These data suggest that earlier identification of esophageal cancer recurrence may have survival benefit. Standardizing SI may prove beneficial for patients after esophagectomy.