ABSTRACT

Conclusion:

Despite changing trends and treatment options in esophageal cancer surgery, we have yet to see the expected improved results.

Results:

Open surgical methods were performed in 21 cases, while in 10 cases the Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) method was used. The MIS group received neoadjuvant therapy more frequently than the open surgical methods group (p=0.013). Although more complications were observed in the MIS group, the difference to the open esophagectomy methods group was not significant. Patients in the MIS group also had longer hospital stays, but again the difference was not significant. Although a pathologic complete response was seen in 8 of the 11 (72.7%) patients in our study who received chemoradiotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment, the surgical results of patients who received chemoradiotherapy were worse, although not to a statistically significant extent.

Material and Methods:

Reliable data from 51 esophageal cancer patients were evaluated retrospectively. Of the 51 cases, 31 were operable. These operable cases were further classified according to surgical method and neoadjuvant therapy status. Median survival time in months, complications, hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and pathology results (total lymph nodes harvested and pathologic tumor node metastasis stage [p_TNM]) were documented for the different surgical approaches.

Objective:

The main treatment modality for esophageal cancer remains to be surgery. Over the last decades, surgical strategies have evolved remarkably. When neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy became standard, discussions about the role, type, and timing of surgery began. In this study, we share results we obtained after operating our patients using various surgical techniques.