4.4 Review

Extension of lymph node dissection in the surgical treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer: seven questions and answers

Journal

FUTURE ONCOLOGY
Volume 19, Issue 4, Pages 327-339

Publisher

FUTURE MEDICINE LTD
DOI: 10.2217/fon-2021-0545

Keywords

esophageal cancer; esophagectomy; gastroesophageal junctional cancer; Ivor Lewis esophagectomy; lymphadenectomy; minimally invasive surgery; nodal dissection; robotic esophagectomy; three-field nodal dissection; two-field nodal dissection; VATS

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The role of two- or three-field nodal dissection in the surgical treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer in the minimally invasive era is still controversial. This review aims to clarify the extension of nodal dissection in esophageal and gastroesophageal junctional cancer. Three-field lymph node dissection improves staging accuracy, enhances locoregional disease control and might improve survival in the group of patients with cervical and upper mediastinal metastatic lymph nodal involvement from middle and proximal-third esophageal cancer.
The role of two- or three-field nodal dissection in the surgical treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer in the minimally invasive era is still controversial. This review aims to clarify the extension of nodal dissection in esophageal and gastroesophageal junctional cancer. A basic evidence-based analysis was designed, and seven research questions were formulated and answered with a narrative review. Reports with little or no data, single cases, small series and review articles were not included. Three-field lymph node dissection improves staging accuracy, enhances locoregional disease control and might improve survival in the group of patients with cervical and upper mediastinal metastatic lymph nodal involvement from middle and proximal-third esophageal cancer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available