Journal of the National Cancer Center (Jun 2023)

Minimally invasive versus open esophagectomy for resectable thoracic esophageal cancer (NST 1502): a multicenter prospective cohort study

  • Yousheng Mao,
  • Shugeng Gao,
  • Yin Li,
  • Chun Chen,
  • Anlin Hao,
  • Qun Wang,
  • Lijie Tan,
  • Jianqun Ma,
  • Gaoming Xiao,
  • Xiangning Fu,
  • Wentao Fang,
  • Zhigang Li,
  • Yongtao Han,
  • Keneng Chen,
  • Renquan Zhang,
  • Xiaofei Li,
  • Tiehua Rong,
  • Jianhua Fu,
  • Yongyu Liu,
  • Weimin Mao,
  • Meiqing Xu,
  • Shuoyan Liu,
  • Zhentao Yu,
  • Zhirong Zhang,
  • Yan Fang,
  • Donghong Fu,
  • Xudong Wei,
  • Ligong Yuan,
  • Shan Muhammad,
  • Jie He

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 3, no. 2
pp. 106 – 114

Abstract

Read online

Background: Whether minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is superior to open esophagectomy (OE) in the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is still uncertain. Therefore, this multicenter prospective study aimed to compare MIE with OE in postoperative parameters and long-term survival. Methods: All hospitalized patients with cT1b-3N0–1M0 thoracic ESCC treated by MIE or OE were enrolled from 19 selected centers from April 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018. The propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to minimize the selection bias. The basic clinicopathological characteristics and 3-year overall survival (OS) as well as disease-free survival (DFS) of two groups were compared by R version 3.6.2. Results: MIE were performed in 1,387 patients and OE in 335 patients. 335 cases in each group were finally matched by PSM, and no significant differences in the essential demographic characteristics were observed between the MIE and OE groups after PSM. Compared with OE, MIE had significantly less intraoperative bleeding, less total drainage volume, shorter postoperative hospital stay, and harvested significantly more lymph nodes (LNs) (all P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the major postoperative complications and death rates between MIE and OE. The 3-year OS and DFS were 77.0% and 68.1% in the MIE group versus 69.3% and 60.9% in the OE group (OS: P = 0.03; DFS: P = 0.09), and the rates were 75.1% and 66.5% in the MIE group versus 66.9% and 58.6% in the OE group for stage cII patients (OS: P = 0.04, DFS: P = 0.09), respectively. Conclusions: Compared with OE, MIE is a safe and effective treatment approach with similar mortality and morbidity. It has the advantages in harvesting more LNs, improving postoperative recovery and survival of stage cII ESCC patients.

Keywords