RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Previous reports comparing endoscopic therapy (ET) and surgical therapy (ST) have predominantly assessed patients with high-grade dysplasia. The study aim was to compare ET to ST in physiologically fit patients with cT1a adenocarcinoma (EAC). METHODS: Review of two prospective databases yielded 100 patients presenting with clinical cT1a EAC between 2000 and 2013. Only physiologically fit patients who were candidates for either treatment were analyzed. RESULTS: Presenting patient characteristics were similar between ET (n = 36) and ST groups (n = 49). Surgical patients were less likely to be staged with EMR (43 vs 100 %) and were associated with mass lesions >1 cm at EGD (p = 0.01), multifocal EAC (p = 0.03), and positive margins for EAC on EMR (p < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, only multifocal HGD was an independent factor for surgery. Following esophagectomy, R0 resection rates for Barrett's esophagus and cancer were 100 %. Incidence of surgery decreased over the study period from 85 to 25 %. All ET patients had EMR, and 28 patients underwent additional ablative therapies for Barrett's esophagus. Following ET, eradication rates of EAC, dysplasia, and BE were 92, 81, and 53 %, respectively. Morbidity rates were comparable between groups (ST 51 % vs ET 39 %, p = 0.31). In-hospital mortality rate was zero in each group. Recurrence rates in ST and ET group were 2 and 11 % (p = 0.08). In the ET group, two patients with endoluminal cancer recurrence after complete eradication underwent esophagectomy. Age-adjusted overall survival was comparable. CONCLUSION: In high-volume esophageal centers, ST and ET provide equally safe and effective treatment for cT1a EAC in medically fit patients. While the results of this study provide a historical perspective and clearly demonstrate an evolution toward ET over time, the appropriate treatment modality is best selected in a multidisciplinary fashion with EMR providing the most accurate staging. In endoscopically treated patients, indefinite endoscopic follow-up required, however, standardized long-term follow-up protocols are needed.
Asunto(s)
Adenocarcinoma/cirugía , Esófago de Barrett/cirugía , Neoplasias Esofágicas/cirugía , Esofagoscopía , Adenocarcinoma/patología , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Neoplasias Esofágicas/patología , Esofagectomía , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia , Grupo de Atención al PacienteRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: National and subspecialty guidelines for lung and esophageal cancers recommend treatment decisions to be made in a multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB). This study prospectively analyzes the actual impact of presentation at the thoracic tumor board on decision making in thoracic cancer cases. METHODS: During the electronic submission process for presentation at MTB managing physicians documented their current treatment plan. The initial treatment plan was compared with the MTB final recommendation. Patient demographics, physician's proposed treatment plan, MTB recommendation, and documentation of application of MTB recommendations were prospectively recorded in an Institutional Review Board approved database. RESULTS: Between June 2010 and December 2012, 185 patients with esophageal and 294 patients with lung cancer were presented at the MTB. One hundred sixty-six patients were presented on more than 1 occasion, resulting in 724 assessments of 479 patients. In 48 esophageal cancer patients (26%) and 118 lung cancer patients (40%) MTB recommendations differed from the initial treatment plan. Overall, a differing MTB recommendation from the primary treatment plan occurred in 330 of 724 case presentations (46%). The MTB recommendations changed treatment plans in 40% and staging and assessment plans in 60% of patients. Follow-up in a cohort of 249 patients confirmed that MTB recommendations were followed in 97% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: This study validates the impact of the thoracic MTB. Recommendations will differ from the managing providers' initial plan in 26% to 40% of cases. However, MTB recommendations can be successfully initiated in the majority of patients. Complex thoracic cancer patients will benefit from multidisciplinary review and should ideally be presented at tumor board.