Li Kexun, Lu Simiao, Jiang Longlin, Li Changding, Mao Jie, He Wenwu, Wang Chenghao, Wang Kangning, Liu Guangyuan, Huang Yunchao, Han Yongtao, Leng Xuefeng, Peng Lin
Department of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (UESTC), Chengdu, China; Department of Thoracic Surgery I, Third Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University (Yunnan Cancer Hospital, Yunnan Cancer Center), Kunming, China.
Department of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (UESTC), Chengdu, China.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2025 Aug;170(2):391-404.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2024.12.015. Epub 2024 Dec 20.
Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma is a prevalent and aggressive gastrointestinal tumor, particularly in East Asia. However, there is a lack of consensus on the long-term survival outcomes of intrathoracic anastomosis and cervical anastomosis following esophagectomy. This study aims to provide a comprehensive summary of the long-term survival outcomes of these 2 anastomosis techniques.
We employed data drawn from the Sichuan Cancer Hospital and Institute Esophageal Cancer Case Management Database from January 2010 to December 2017. Patients were stratified into 2 distinct groups according to the anatomical location of anastomosis following esophagectomy: those who underwent intrathoracic anastomosis (IA) (IA group) and those who underwent cervical anastomosis (CA) (CA group). To account for potential confounding factors and baseline imbalances between the 2 groups, propensity score matching was employed.
The CA group exhibited longer overall survival compared with the IA group, with a median overall survival of 49.10 months versus 35.87 months (hazard ratio, 1.118; 95% CI, 1.118-1.412; P < .001). Additionally, survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were higher in the CA group (87%, 59%, and 48%, respectively) compared with the IA group (86%, 50%, and 39%, respectively). The significance persisted even after propensity score matching (hazard ratio, 1.164; 95% CI, 1.013-1.336; P < .001), inverse probability of treatment weighting, and overlap weighting were applied. The survival difference between CA and IA was attributed to varying extents of lymph node dissection, particularly in the upper mediastinal zone (P < .001).
Our study suggests that there could be the potential survival advantage of CA over IA in patients undergoing esophagectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.
食管鳞状细胞癌是一种常见且侵袭性强的胃肠道肿瘤,在东亚地区尤为如此。然而,对于食管切除术后胸内吻合和颈部吻合的长期生存结果,目前尚无共识。本研究旨在全面总结这两种吻合技术的长期生存结果。
我们使用了2010年1月至2017年12月期间四川省肿瘤医院和研究所食管癌病例管理数据库中的数据。根据食管切除术后吻合口的解剖位置,将患者分为两个不同的组:接受胸内吻合(IA)的患者(IA组)和接受颈部吻合(CA)的患者(CA组)。为了考虑两组之间潜在的混杂因素和基线不平衡,采用了倾向评分匹配法。
与IA组相比,CA组的总生存期更长,中位总生存期分别为49.10个月和35.87个月(风险比,1.118;95%置信区间,1.118 - 1.412;P <.001)。此外,CA组1年、3年和5年的生存率(分别为87%、59%和48%)高于IA组(分别为86%、50%和39%)。即使在应用倾向评分匹配(风险比,1.164;95%置信区间,1.013 - 1.336;P <.001)、逆概率处理加权和重叠加权后,这种显著性仍然存在。CA组和IA组之间的生存差异归因于淋巴结清扫范围的不同,尤其是在上纵隔区域(P <.001)。
我们的研究表明,对于接受食管鳞状细胞癌食管切除术的患者,CA可能比IA具有潜在的生存优势。