Robotic techniques in esophagogastric cancer surgery: an assessment of short- and long-term clinical outcomes
Kamarajah, Sivesh K Griffiths, Ewen A Phillips, Alexander W Ruurda, Jelle van Hillegersberg, Richard Hofstetter, Wayne L Markar, Sheraz R
Kamarajah, Sivesh K
Griffiths, Ewen A
Phillips, Alexander W
Ruurda, Jelle
van Hillegersberg, Richard
Hofstetter, Wayne L
Markar, Sheraz R
Citations
Altmetric:
Affiliation
University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Trust; University of Birmingham; The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; Newcastle University; University Utrecht; The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center; Imperial College London; Karolinska Institutet
Other Contributors
Publication date
2021-12-10
Collections
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Abstract
Background: Robotic esophagogastric cancer surgery is gaining widespread adoption. This population-based cohort study aimed to compare rates of textbook outcomes (TOs) and survival from robotic minimally invasive techniques for esophagogastric cancer.
Methods: Data from the United States National Cancer Database (NCDB) (2010-2017) were used to identify patients with non-metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer receiving open surgery (to the esophagus, n = 11,442; stomach, n = 22,183), laparoscopic surgery (to the esophagus [LAMIE], n = 4827; stomach [LAMIG], n = 6359), or robotic surgery (to the esophagus [RAMIE], n = 1657; stomach [RAMIG], n = 1718). The study defined TOs as 15 or more lymph nodes examined, margin-negative resections, hospital stay less than 21 days, no 30-day readmissions, and no 90-day mortalities. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox analyses were used to account for treatment selection bias.
Results: Patients receiving robotic surgery were more commonly treated in high-volume academic centers with advanced clinical T and N stage disease. From 2010 to 2017, TO rates increased for esophageal and gastric cancer treated via all surgical techniques. Compared with open surgery, significantly higher TO rates were associated with RAMIE (odds ratio [OR], 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-1.58) and RAMIG (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.17-1.45). For esophagectomy, long-term survival was associated with both TO (hazard ratio [HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.60-0.67) and RAMIE (HR 0.92; 95% CI 0.84-1.00). For gastrectomy, long-term survival was associated with TO (HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.56-0.60) and both LAMIG (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.85-0.94) and RAMIG (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.81-0.96). Subset analysis in high-volume centers confirmed similar findings.
Conclusion: Despite potentially adverse learning curve effects and more advanced tumor stages captured during the study period, both RAMIE and RAMIG performed in mostly high-volume centers were associated with improved TO and long-term survival. Therefore, consideration for wider adoption but a well-designed phase 3 randomized controlled trial (RCT) is required for a full evaluation of the benefits conferred by robotic techniques for esophageal and gastric cancers.
Citation
Kamarajah SK, Griffiths EA, Phillips AW, Ruurda J, van Hillegersberg R, Hofstetter WL, Markar SR. Robotic Techniques in Esophagogastric Cancer Surgery: An Assessment of Short- and Long-Term Clinical Outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022 May;29(5):2812-2825. doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-11082-y. Epub 2021 Dec 10
Type
Article