Esophagectomy versus endoscopic resection for patients with early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma

A National Cancer Database propensity-matched study

Katy A. Marino, Jennifer L. Sullivan, Benny Weksler

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Endoscopic resection has been rapidly adopted in the treatment of early-stage esophageal tumors. We compared the outcomes after esophagectomy or endoscopic resection for stage T1a adenocarcinoma. Methods: We queried the National Cancer Database for patients with T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma who underwent esophagectomy or endoscopic resection and generated a balanced cohort with 735 matched pairs using propensity-score matching. We then performed a multivariable Cox regression analysis on the matched and unmatched cohorts. Results: We identified 2173 patients; 1317 (60.6%) underwent esophagectomy, and 856 (39.4%) underwent endoscopic resection. In the unmatched cohort, patients who underwent esophagectomy were younger, more often not treated in academic settings, and more likely to have comorbidities (30.4% vs 22.5%, P =.002). They had longer hospital stays and more readmissions than patients who underwent endoscopic resection. Factors positively affecting overall survival were younger age, resection at an academic medical center, and lower Charlson–Deyo comorbidity score. In the matched cohort, patients who underwent esophagectomy had longer hospital stays and were more likely to be readmitted within 30 days (7.0% vs 0.6%, P <.001). When a time period–specific partition was applied, endoscopic resection had a lower death hazard 0 to 90 days after resection (hazard ratio, 0.15; P =.003), but this was reversed for survival greater than 90 days (hazard ratio, 1.34; P =.02). Conclusions: In patients with early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma, survival appears equivalent after endoscopic resection or esophagectomy, but endoscopic resection is associated with shorter hospital stays, fewer readmissions, and less 90-day mortality. In patients surviving more than 90 days, esophagectomy may provide better overall survival.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)2211-2218.e1
JournalJournal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery
Volume155
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2018

Fingerprint

Esophagectomy
Adenocarcinoma
Databases
Neoplasms
Length of Stay
Survival
Comorbidity
Patient Readmission
Propensity Score
Regression Analysis
Mortality

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Esophagectomy versus endoscopic resection for patients with early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma : A National Cancer Database propensity-matched study. / Marino, Katy A.; Sullivan, Jennifer L.; Weksler, Benny.

In: Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Vol. 155, No. 5, 01.05.2018, p. 2211-2218.e1.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5fdc35e8cfad41e2a96d6070c1c20d0a,
title = "Esophagectomy versus endoscopic resection for patients with early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma: A National Cancer Database propensity-matched study",
abstract = "Objectives: Endoscopic resection has been rapidly adopted in the treatment of early-stage esophageal tumors. We compared the outcomes after esophagectomy or endoscopic resection for stage T1a adenocarcinoma. Methods: We queried the National Cancer Database for patients with T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma who underwent esophagectomy or endoscopic resection and generated a balanced cohort with 735 matched pairs using propensity-score matching. We then performed a multivariable Cox regression analysis on the matched and unmatched cohorts. Results: We identified 2173 patients; 1317 (60.6{\%}) underwent esophagectomy, and 856 (39.4{\%}) underwent endoscopic resection. In the unmatched cohort, patients who underwent esophagectomy were younger, more often not treated in academic settings, and more likely to have comorbidities (30.4{\%} vs 22.5{\%}, P =.002). They had longer hospital stays and more readmissions than patients who underwent endoscopic resection. Factors positively affecting overall survival were younger age, resection at an academic medical center, and lower Charlson–Deyo comorbidity score. In the matched cohort, patients who underwent esophagectomy had longer hospital stays and were more likely to be readmitted within 30 days (7.0{\%} vs 0.6{\%}, P <.001). When a time period–specific partition was applied, endoscopic resection had a lower death hazard 0 to 90 days after resection (hazard ratio, 0.15; P =.003), but this was reversed for survival greater than 90 days (hazard ratio, 1.34; P =.02). Conclusions: In patients with early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma, survival appears equivalent after endoscopic resection or esophagectomy, but endoscopic resection is associated with shorter hospital stays, fewer readmissions, and less 90-day mortality. In patients surviving more than 90 days, esophagectomy may provide better overall survival.",
author = "Marino, {Katy A.} and Sullivan, {Jennifer L.} and Benny Weksler",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.11.111",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "155",
pages = "2211--2218.e1",
journal = "Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery",
issn = "0022-5223",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Esophagectomy versus endoscopic resection for patients with early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma

T2 - A National Cancer Database propensity-matched study

AU - Marino, Katy A.

AU - Sullivan, Jennifer L.

AU - Weksler, Benny

PY - 2018/5/1

Y1 - 2018/5/1

N2 - Objectives: Endoscopic resection has been rapidly adopted in the treatment of early-stage esophageal tumors. We compared the outcomes after esophagectomy or endoscopic resection for stage T1a adenocarcinoma. Methods: We queried the National Cancer Database for patients with T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma who underwent esophagectomy or endoscopic resection and generated a balanced cohort with 735 matched pairs using propensity-score matching. We then performed a multivariable Cox regression analysis on the matched and unmatched cohorts. Results: We identified 2173 patients; 1317 (60.6%) underwent esophagectomy, and 856 (39.4%) underwent endoscopic resection. In the unmatched cohort, patients who underwent esophagectomy were younger, more often not treated in academic settings, and more likely to have comorbidities (30.4% vs 22.5%, P =.002). They had longer hospital stays and more readmissions than patients who underwent endoscopic resection. Factors positively affecting overall survival were younger age, resection at an academic medical center, and lower Charlson–Deyo comorbidity score. In the matched cohort, patients who underwent esophagectomy had longer hospital stays and were more likely to be readmitted within 30 days (7.0% vs 0.6%, P <.001). When a time period–specific partition was applied, endoscopic resection had a lower death hazard 0 to 90 days after resection (hazard ratio, 0.15; P =.003), but this was reversed for survival greater than 90 days (hazard ratio, 1.34; P =.02). Conclusions: In patients with early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma, survival appears equivalent after endoscopic resection or esophagectomy, but endoscopic resection is associated with shorter hospital stays, fewer readmissions, and less 90-day mortality. In patients surviving more than 90 days, esophagectomy may provide better overall survival.

AB - Objectives: Endoscopic resection has been rapidly adopted in the treatment of early-stage esophageal tumors. We compared the outcomes after esophagectomy or endoscopic resection for stage T1a adenocarcinoma. Methods: We queried the National Cancer Database for patients with T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma who underwent esophagectomy or endoscopic resection and generated a balanced cohort with 735 matched pairs using propensity-score matching. We then performed a multivariable Cox regression analysis on the matched and unmatched cohorts. Results: We identified 2173 patients; 1317 (60.6%) underwent esophagectomy, and 856 (39.4%) underwent endoscopic resection. In the unmatched cohort, patients who underwent esophagectomy were younger, more often not treated in academic settings, and more likely to have comorbidities (30.4% vs 22.5%, P =.002). They had longer hospital stays and more readmissions than patients who underwent endoscopic resection. Factors positively affecting overall survival were younger age, resection at an academic medical center, and lower Charlson–Deyo comorbidity score. In the matched cohort, patients who underwent esophagectomy had longer hospital stays and were more likely to be readmitted within 30 days (7.0% vs 0.6%, P <.001). When a time period–specific partition was applied, endoscopic resection had a lower death hazard 0 to 90 days after resection (hazard ratio, 0.15; P =.003), but this was reversed for survival greater than 90 days (hazard ratio, 1.34; P =.02). Conclusions: In patients with early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma, survival appears equivalent after endoscopic resection or esophagectomy, but endoscopic resection is associated with shorter hospital stays, fewer readmissions, and less 90-day mortality. In patients surviving more than 90 days, esophagectomy may provide better overall survival.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042016513&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042016513&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.11.111

DO - 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2017.11.111

M3 - Article

VL - 155

SP - 2211-2218.e1

JO - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

SN - 0022-5223

IS - 5

ER -