European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology · 2012
Oesophageal cancer: how radical should surgery be?
СтатьяОбзорНазвание 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.
Mariette C, Piessen G
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Oesophagectomy for carcinoma can be viewed as comprising two components: resection of the oesophagus and resection of the enveloping lymphatics. Controversy exists regarding how extensive these two components should be.
METHODS: Through a literature overview, the aim of this educational article is to provide surgeons with arguments to understand which operation is the most oncologically sound according to patient and tumour parameters.
RESULTS: Non-randomised comparative studies evaluating radical lymphadenectomy have reported controversial survival benefit. Independent association found between the number of surgically removed lymph nodes and overall survival is an indirect evidence supporting radical lymphadenectomy. The only phase III trial comparing non-radical transhiatal oesophagectomy with transthoracic oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma found 5-year survival rates of 29% vs. 39%, respectively. Although not statistically significant due to underpowered study, specialists would consider less of an increase in survival to be clinically relevant. For squamous OC, the first small randomised controlled trial comparing 2-field lymphadenectomy to 3-field lymphadenectomy did not found significant 5-year survival difference (48% vs. 66%) and the second one comparing 2-field lymphadenectomy to lymph node sampling identified a survival benefit favoring radical resection (36% vs. 25%).
CONCLUSION: Radical transthoracic oesophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy appears to offer an optimal balance between benefits and risks to a majority of OC patients, especially in the growing area of neoadjuvant treatments. Non-radical resection should be probably reserved for patients with a poor general status whereas 3-field lymphadenectomy may be reserved to selected patients with loco-regional disease in experienced hands, surely for patients with upper OC.
METHODS: Through a literature overview, the aim of this educational article is to provide surgeons with arguments to understand which operation is the most oncologically sound according to patient and tumour parameters.
RESULTS: Non-randomised comparative studies evaluating radical lymphadenectomy have reported controversial survival benefit. Independent association found between the number of surgically removed lymph nodes and overall survival is an indirect evidence supporting radical lymphadenectomy. The only phase III trial comparing non-radical transhiatal oesophagectomy with transthoracic oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma found 5-year survival rates of 29% vs. 39%, respectively. Although not statistically significant due to underpowered study, specialists would consider less of an increase in survival to be clinically relevant. For squamous OC, the first small randomised controlled trial comparing 2-field lymphadenectomy to 3-field lymphadenectomy did not found significant 5-year survival difference (48% vs. 66%) and the second one comparing 2-field lymphadenectomy to lymph node sampling identified a survival benefit favoring radical resection (36% vs. 25%).
CONCLUSION: Radical transthoracic oesophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy appears to offer an optimal balance between benefits and risks to a majority of OC patients, especially in the growing area of neoadjuvant treatments. Non-radical resection should be probably reserved for patients with a poor general status whereas 3-field lymphadenectomy may be reserved to selected patients with loco-regional disease in experienced hands, surely for patients with upper OC.