Objective: This study aimed to compare the postoperative and pathological outcomes between carboplatin, paclitaxel, radiotherapy (CROSS) and 5-FU, leucovorine, oxaliplatin and docetaxel (FLOT) in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) patients from an international, multicenter cohort. Summary of Background Data: Ongoing debate exists around optimum approach to locally advanced EAC, with proponents for perioperative chemotherapy, such as FLOT, or multimodal therapy, in particular the CROSS regimen. Methods: Patients undergoing CROSS (n = 350) and FLOT (n = 368), followed by curative esophagectomy for EAC were identified from the Oesophagogastric Anastomosis Audit. Results: The 90-day mortality was higher after CROSS than FLOT (5% vs 1%, P = 0.005), even on adjusted analyses [odds ratio (OR): 3.97, confidence interval (CI)(95%): 1.34-13.67]. Postoperative mortality in CROSS were related to higher pulmonary (74% vs 60%) and cardiac complications (42% vs 20%) compared to FLOT. CROSS was associated with higher pathologic complete response (pCR) rates (18% vs 10%, P = 0.004) and margin-negative resections (93% vs 76%, P < 0.001) compared with FLOT. On adjusted analyses, CROSS was associated with higher pCR rates (OR: 2.05, CI95%: 1.26-3.34) and margin-negative resections (OR: 4.55, CI95%: 2.70-7.69) compared to FLOT. Conclusions: This study provides real-world data CROSS was associated with higher 90-day mortality than FLOT, related to cardio-pulmonary complications with CROSS. These warrant a further review into causes and mechanisms in selected patients, and at minimum suggest the need for strict radiation therapy quality assurance. Research into impact of higher pCR rates and R0 resections with CROSS compared to FLOT on long-term survival is needed.

Background: No evidence currently exists characterising global outcomes following major cancer surgery, including esophageal cancer. Therefore, this study aimed to characterise impact of high income countries (HIC) versus low and middle income countries (LMIC) on the outcomes following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Method: This international multi-center prospective study across 137 hospitals in 41 countries included patients who underwent an esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, with 90-day follow-up. The main explanatory variable was country income, defined according to the World Bank Data classification. The primary outcome was 90-day postoperative mortality, and secondary outcomes were composite leaks (anastomotic leak or conduit necrosis) and major complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade III-V). Multivariable generalized estimating equation models were used to produce adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI95%). Results: Between April 2018 to December 2018, 2247 patients were included. Patients from HIC were more significantly older, with higher ASA grade, and more advanced tumors. Patients from LMIC had almost three-fold increase in 90-day mortality, compared to HIC (9.4% vs 3.7%, p < 0.001). On adjusted analysis, LMIC were independently associated with higher 90-day mortality (OR: 2.31, CI95%: 1.17-4.55, p = 0.015). However, LMIC were not independently associated with higher rates of anastomotic leaks (OR: 1.06, CI95%: 0.57-1.99, p = 0.9) or major complications (OR: 0.85, CI95%: 0.54-1.32, p = 0.5), compared to HIC. Conclusion: Resections in LMIC were independently associated with higher 90-day postoperative mortality, likely reflecting a failure to rescue of these patients following esophagectomy, despite similar composite anastomotic leaks and major complication rates to HIC. These findings warrant further research, to identify potential issues and solutions to improve global outcomes following esophagectomy for cancer. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd, BASO similar to The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.

AbstractBackgroundThe complexity of oesophageal surgery and the significant risk of morbidity necessitates that oesophagectomy is predominantly performed by a consultant surgeon, or a senior trainee under their supervision. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of trainee involvement in oesophagectomy on postoperative outcomes in an international multicentre setting.MethodsData from the multicentre Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group (OGAA) cohort study were analysed, which comprised prospectively collected data from patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April 2018 and December 2018. Procedures were grouped by the level of trainee involvement, and univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to compare patient outcomes across groups.ResultsOf 2232 oesophagectomies from 137 centres in 41 countries, trainees were involved in 29.1 per cent of them (n = 650), performing only the abdominal phase in 230, only the chest and/or neck phases in 130, and all phases in 315 procedures. For procedures with a chest anastomosis, those with trainee involvement had similar 90-day mortality, complication and reoperation rates to consultant-performed oesophagectomies (P = 0.451, P = 0.318, and P = 0.382, respectively), while anastomotic leak rates were significantly lower in the trainee groups (P = 0.030). Procedures with a neck anastomosis had equivalent complication, anastomotic leak, and reoperation rates (P = 0.150, P = 0.430, and P = 0.632, respectively) in trainee-involved versus consultant-performed oesophagectomies, with significantly lower 90-day mortality in the trainee groups (P = 0.005).ConclusionTrainee involvement was not found to be associated with significantly inferior postoperative outcomes for selected patients undergoing oesophagectomy. The results support continued supervised trainee involvement in oesophageal cancer surgery.