4.7 Article

Pulmonary Metastasectomy Secondary to Esophageal Carcinoma: Long-Term Survival and Prognostic Factors

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue -, Pages 365-369

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-014-3677-7

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Lung metastasectomy has become an effective treatment for selected patients with colorectal cancer, renal cancer, and other malignancies; however, limited experience has been reported regarding pulmonary metastasectomy for esophageal carcinoma. We reviewed 23 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent pulmonary metastasectomy and investigated their long-term prognosis and prognostic factors. A total of 23 patients who underwent 30 curative pulmonary metastasectomies at Toranomon Hospital, Japan, between 2001 and 2011 were included. Four patients underwent repeated metastasectomy. The overall survival rate was examined by the Kaplan-Meier method and various characteristics were assessed by univariate analysis to identify prognostic factors. The overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rate was 82.6, 46, and 34.1 %, respectively. Median follow-up was 37.4 months (range 1-114 months). Univariate analysis revealed a history of extrapulmonary metastases before pulmonary metastasectomy, poorly differentiated primary esophageal carcinoma, and short disease-free interval (DFI) as unfavorable prognostic factors. Five patients who underwent repeated metastasectomy for recurrent pulmonary metastases survived a mean 58 months (range 24-114 months). The other patients survived a mean 29.4 months (range 1-109 months). Pulmonary resection for lung metastases from esophageal carcinoma should be considered in selected patients, and repeated metastasectomy should be encouraged. Extrapulmonary metastases before pulmonary metastasectomy, poor differentiation of primary esophageal carcinoma, and short DFI are unfavorable prognostic factors. Due to poor prognosis, metastasectomy in patients with these factors should be more carefully considered before being indicated.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available