4.6 Article

Intrathoracic anastomotic leakage after gastroesophageal cancer resection is associated with increased risk of recurrence

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.04.030

关键词

Leak; gastroesophageal; cancer; survival

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Intrathoracic anastomotic leakage after intended curative resection for cancer in the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction has a negative impact on long-term survival. The aim of this study was to investigate whether an anastomotic leakage was associated with an increased recurrence rate. Methods: This nationwide study included consecutively collected data on patients undergoing curative surgical resection with intrathoracic anastomosis, alive 8 weeks postoperatively, between 2003 and 2011. Patients with incomplete resection, or metastatic disease intraoperatively, were excluded. Only biopsy-proven recurrences were accepted. Results: In total, 1085 patients were included. The frequency of anastomotic leakage was 8.6%. The median follow-up time was 29 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 13-58 months). Overall, 369 (34%) patients had disease recurrence, of which 346 patients died of recurrent gastroesophageal carcinoma. Twenty-three patients were alive with recurrence at the censoring date. In the study period, 333 patients died without signs of recurrent disease. The overall median time to recurrence was 66 weeks (IQR: 38-109 weeks). Distant metastases were found in 267 (25%), and local disease recurrence in 102 (9%) patients. Overall, 5-year disease-free survival in patients with leakage was 27%, versus 39% in those without leakage (P = .017). Anastomotic leakage was independently associated with higher risk of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.17-2.29, P = .004) and all-cause mortality (HR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.23-2.05, P < .0001). Conclusions: Intrathoracic anastomotic leakage increased the risk of recurrence in patients who underwent curative gastroesophageal cancer resection.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据