Advertisement

Mortality from esophagectomy for esophageal cancer across low, middle, and high-income countries: An international cohort study

Published:December 31, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2020.12.006

      Abstract

      Background

      No evidence currently exists characterising global outcomes following major cancer surgery, including esophageal cancer. Therefore, this study aimed to characterise impact of high income countries (HIC) versus low and middle income countries (LMIC) on the outcomes following esophagectomy for esophageal cancer.

      Method

      This international multi-center prospective study across 137 hospitals in 41 countries included patients who underwent an esophagectomy for esophageal cancer, with 90-day follow-up. The main explanatory variable was country income, defined according to the World Bank Data classification. The primary outcome was 90-day postoperative mortality, and secondary outcomes were composite leaks (anastomotic leak or conduit necrosis) and major complications (Clavien-Dindo Grade III - V). Multivariable generalized estimating equation models were used to produce adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI95%).

      Results

      Between April 2018 to December 2018, 2247 patients were included. Patients from HIC were more significantly older, with higher ASA grade, and more advanced tumors. Patients from LMIC had almost three-fold increase in 90-day mortality, compared to HIC (9.4% vs 3.7%, p < 0.001). On adjusted analysis, LMIC were independently associated with higher 90-day mortality (OR: 2.31, CI95%: 1.17–4.55, p = 0.015). However, LMIC were not independently associated with higher rates of anastomotic leaks (OR: 1.06, CI95%: 0.57–1.99, p = 0.9) or major complications (OR: 0.85, CI95%: 0.54–1.32, p = 0.5), compared to HIC.

      Conclusion

      Resections in LMIC were independently associated with higher 90-day postoperative mortality, likely reflecting a failure to rescue of these patients following esophagectomy, despite similar composite anastomotic leaks and major complication rates to HIC. These findings warrant further research, to identify potential issues and solutions to improve global outcomes following esophagectomy for cancer.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to European Journal of Surgical Oncology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Collaborators GBDOC
        The global, regional, and national burden of oesophageal cancer and its attributable risk factors in 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017.
        Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020; 5: 582-597https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(20)30007-8
        • Fitzmaurice C.
        • Allen C.
        • et al.
        • Global Burden of Disease Cancer C
        Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study.
        JAMA Oncol. 2017; 3: 524-548https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.5688
        • Bray F.
        • Ferlay J.
        • Soerjomataram I.
        • Siegel R.L.
        • Torre L.A.
        • Jemal A.
        Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries.
        CA A Cancer J Clin. 2018; 68: 394-424https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492
        • Fitzmaurice C.
        • Abate D.
        • et al.
        • Global Burden of Disease Cancer C
        Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 29 cancer groups, 1990 to 2017: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study.
        JAMA Oncol. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2996
        • Torre L.A.
        • Bray F.
        • Siegel R.L.
        • Ferlay J.
        • Lortet-Tieulent J.
        • Jemal A.
        Global cancer statistics, 2012.
        CA A Cancer J Clin. 2015; 65: 87-108https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21262
        • Low D.E.
        • Kuppusamy M.K.
        • Alderson D.
        • et al.
        Benchmarking complications associated with esophagectomy.
        Ann Surg. 2019; 269: 291-298https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002611
        • Low D.E.
        • Kuppusamy M.K.
        • Alderson D.
        • et al.
        Benchmarking complications associated with esophagectomy.
        Ann Surg. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000002611
        • Goense L.
        • van Dijk W.A.
        • Govaert J.A.
        • van Rossum P.S.
        • Ruurda J.P.
        • van Hillegersberg R.
        Hospital costs of complications after esophagectomy for cancer.
        Eur J Surg Oncol. 2017; 43: 696-702https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2016.11.013
        • Markar S.
        • Gronnier C.
        • Duhamel A.
        • et al.
        The impact of severe anastomotic leak on long-term survival and cancer recurrence after surgical resection for esophageal malignancy.
        Ann Surg. 2015; 262: 972-980https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001011
        • Low D.E.
        • Alderson D.
        • Cecconello I.
        • et al.
        International consensus on standardization of data collection for complications associated with esophagectomy: esophagectomy complications consensus group (ECCG).
        Ann Surg. 2015; 262: 286-294https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001098
        • GlobalSurg C.
        Mortality of emergency abdominal surgery in high-, middle- and low-income countries.
        Br J Surg. 2016; 103: 971-988https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.10151
        • van der Werf L.R.
        • Busweiler L.A.D.
        • van Sandick J.W.
        • van Berge Henegouwen M.I.
        • Wijnhoven B.P.L.
        Dutch upper GICAg. Reporting national outcomes after esophagectomy and gastrectomy according to the esophageal complications consensus group (ECCG).
        Ann Surg. 2019; https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000003210
        • Nepogodiev D.
        • Martin J.
        • Biccard B.
        • Makupe A.
        • Bhangu A.
        • National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit on Global S
        Global burden of postoperative death.
        Lancet. 2019; 393: 401https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)33139-8
        • Evans R.P.T.
        • Singh P.
        • Nepogodiev D.
        • et al.
        Study protocol for a multicenter prospective cohort study on esophagogastric anastomoses and anastomotic leak (the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit/OGAA).
        Dis Esophagus. 2020; 33https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doz007
        • Collaborative S.T.
        Writing/Steering C, Data Management G, External Advisory G. REspiratory COmplications after abdomiNal surgery (RECON): study protocol for a multi-centre, observational, prospective, international audit of postoperative pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery.
        Br J Anaesth. Jan. 2020; 124: e13-e16https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2019.10.005
        • Clavien P.A.
        • Barkun J.
        • de Oliveira M.L.
        • et al.
        The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience.
        Ann Surg. 2009; 250: 187-196https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
        • Dindo D.
        • Muller M.K.
        • Weber M.
        • Clavien P.A.
        Obesity in general elective surgery.
        Lancet. 2003; 361: 2032-2035https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(03)13640-9
        • Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Study Group on behalf of the West Midlands Research C
        International variation in surgical practices in units performing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer: a unit survey from the oesophago-gastric anastomosis audit (OGAA).
        World J Surg. 2019; 43: 2874-2884https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-019-05080-1
        • Birkmeyer J.D.
        • Siewers A.E.
        • Finlayson E.V.
        • et al.
        Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States.
        N Engl J Med. 2002; 346: 1128-1137https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa012337
        • Birkmeyer J.D.
        • Stukel T.A.
        • Siewers A.E.
        • Goodney P.P.
        • Wennberg D.E.
        • Lucas F.L.
        Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States.
        N Engl J Med. 2003; 349: 2117-2127https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa035205
        • Amin M.B.
        • Greene F.L.
        • Edge S.B.
        • et al.
        The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more "personalized" approach to cancer staging.
        CA A Cancer J Clin. 2017; 67: 7https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21388
        • von Elm E.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Egger M.
        • et al.
        The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.
        Lancet. 2007; 370: 1453-1457https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X
        • Silber J.H.
        • Williams S.V.
        • Krakauer H.
        • Schwartz J.S.
        Hospital and patient characteristics associated with death after surgery. A study of adverse occurrence and failure to rescue.
        Med Care. 1992; 30: 615-629https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199207000-00004
        • Ghaferi A.A.
        • Birkmeyer J.D.
        • Dimick J.B.
        Complications, failure to rescue, and mortality with major inpatient surgery in medicare patients.
        Ann Surg. 2009; 250: 1029-1034https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0b013e3181bef697
        • Almoudaris A.M.
        • Mamidanna R.
        • Bottle A.
        • et al.
        Failure to rescue patients after reintervention in gastroesophageal cancer surgery in England.
        JAMA Surg. 2013; 148: 272-276https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2013.791
        • Liou D.Z.
        • Serna-Gallegos D.
        • Mirocha J.
        • Bairamian V.
        • Alban R.F.
        • Soukiasian H.J.
        Predictors of failure to rescue after esophagectomy.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2018; 105: 871-878https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.10.022
        • Finks J.F.
        • Osborne N.H.
        • Birkmeyer J.D.
        Trends in hospital volume and operative mortality for high-risk surgery.
        N Engl J Med. 2011; 364: 2128-2137https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa1010705
        • Ghaferi A.A.
        • Birkmeyer J.D.
        • Dimick J.B.
        Hospital volume and failure to rescue with high-risk surgery.
        Med Care. 2011; 49: 1076-1081https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182329b97
        • Sheetz K.H.
        • Dimick J.B.
        • Ghaferi A.A.
        Impact of hospital characteristics on failure to rescue following major surgery.
        Ann Surg. 2016; 263: 692-697https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001414
        • Haynes A.B.
        • Weiser T.G.
        • Berry W.R.
        • et al.
        A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population.
        N Engl J Med. 2009; 360: 491-499https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa0810119
        • Birkmeyer N.J.
        • Finks J.F.
        • Greenberg C.K.
        • et al.
        Safety culture and complications after bariatric surgery.
        Ann Surg. 2013; 257: 260-265https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e31826c0085