Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophageal Resection Three-year Follow-up of the Previously Reported Randomized Controlled Trial: the TIME Trial

被引:418
|
作者
Straatman, Jennifer [1 ]
van der Wielen, Nicole [1 ]
Cuesta, Miguel A. [1 ]
Daams, Freek [1 ]
Roig Garcia, Josep [2 ]
Bonavina, Luigi [3 ]
Rosman, Camiel [4 ]
Henegouwen, Mark I. van Berge [5 ]
Gisbertz, Suzanne S. [5 ]
van der Peet, Donald L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Dept Gastrointestinal Surg, Med Ctr, Boelelaan 1117,ZH 7F020, NL-1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Hosp Univ Girona Dr Josep Trueta, Dept Surg, Girona, Spain
[3] Univ Milan, IRCCS Policlin San Donato, Dept Surg, Milan, Italy
[4] Canisius Wilhelmina Hosp, Dept Surg, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[5] Acad Med Ctr, Dept Surg, Amsterdam, Netherlands
关键词
esophageal cancer; minimally invasive esophagectomy; open esophagectomy; survival; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; CANCER; MULTICENTER; OUTCOMES;
D O I
10.1097/SLA.0000000000002171
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate 3-year survival following a randomized controlled trial comparing minimally invasive with open esophagectomy in patients with esophageal cancer. Background: Research on minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has shown faster postoperative recovery and a marked decrease in pulmonary complications. Debate is ongoing as to whether the procedure is equivalent to open resection regarding oncologic outcomes. The study is a follow-up study of the TIME-trial (traditional invasive vs minimally invasive esophagectomy, a multicenter, randomized trial). Methods: Between June 2009 and March 2011, patients with a resectable intrathoracic esophageal carcinoma, including the gastroesophageal junction tumors (Siewert I), were randomized between open and MI esophagectomy with curative intent. Primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival. Secondary outcomes include overall survival, lymph node yield, short-term morbidity, mortality, complications, radicality, local recurrence, and metastasis. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR TC 2452. Both trial protocol and short-term results have been published previously. Results: One hundred fifteen patients were included from 5 European hospitals and randomly assigned to open (n = 56) or MI esophagectomy (n = 59). Combined overall 3-year survival was 40.4% (SD 7.7%) in the open group versus 50.5% (SD 8%) in the minimally invasive group (P = 0.207). The hazard ratio (HR) is 0.883 (0.540 to 1.441) for MIE compared with open surgery. Disease-free 3-year survival was 35.9% (SD 6.8%) in the open versus 40.2% (SD 6.9%) in the MI group [HR 0.691 (0.389 to 1.239). Conclusions: The study presented here depicted no differences in disease-free and overall 3-year survival for open and MI esophagectomy. These results, together with short-term results, further support the use of minimally invasive surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal cancer.
引用
收藏
页码:232 / 236
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Psychological debriefing for road traffic accident victims - Three-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial
    Mayou, RA
    Ehlers, A
    Hobbs, M
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2000, 176 : 589 - 593
  • [22] Laparoscopic extraperitoneal repair versus open inguinal hernia repair: 20-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial
    A. Barbaro
    H. Kanhere
    J. Bessell
    G. J. Maddern
    Hernia, 2017, 21 : 723 - 727
  • [23] Prospective randomized controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open inguinal hernia mesh repair: 5-year follow-up
    Douek, M
    Smith, G
    Oshowo, A
    Stoker, DL
    Wellwood, JM
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2002, 89 : 37 - 37
  • [24] Laparoscopic extraperitoneal repair versus open inguinal hernia repair: 20-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial
    Barbaro, A.
    Kanhere, H.
    Bessell, J.
    Maddern, G. J.
    HERNIA, 2017, 21 (05) : 723 - 727
  • [25] Does behaviour modification affect post-stroke risk factor control? Three-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial
    McManus, Julie Ann
    Craig, Alison
    McAlpine, Christine
    Langhorne, Peter
    Ellis, Graham
    CLINICAL REHABILITATION, 2009, 23 (02) : 99 - 105
  • [26] Three-Year Follow-up of the Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial of Coflex Interlaminar Stabilization vs Instrumented Fusion in Patients With Lumbar Stenosis
    Bae, Hyun W.
    Davis, Reginald J.
    Lauryssen, Carl
    Leary, Scott
    Maislin, Greg
    Musacchio, Michael J., Jr.
    NEUROSURGERY, 2016, 79 (02) : 169 - 180
  • [27] A prospective randomized trial comparing laparoscopic versus open colectomy for cancer: 10 year follow-up
    Geisler, DP
    Milsom, J
    Hull, TL
    Marcello, P
    Hammel, J
    Brady, K
    Fazio, VW
    DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2006, 49 (05) : 720 - 720
  • [28] Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoracolaparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy: long-term follow-up of a randomized clinical trial
    de Groot, Eline M.
    van der Horst, Sylvia
    Kingma, B. Feike
    Goense, Lucas
    van der Sluis, Pieter C.
    Ruurda, Jelle P.
    van Hillegersberg, Richard
    DISEASES OF THE ESOPHAGUS, 2020, 33
  • [29] Laparoscopic versus open sigmoid resection for diverticular disease: follow-up assessment of the randomized control Sigma trial
    Bastiaan R. Klarenbeek
    Roberto Bergamaschi
    Alexander A. F. A. Veenhof
    Donald L. van der Peet
    Wim T. van den Broek
    Elly S. M. de Lange
    Willem A. Bemelman
    Pieter Heres
    Antonio M. Lacy
    Miguel A. Cuesta
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2011, 25 : 1121 - 1126
  • [30] RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL OF NISSEN VERSUS LIND FUNDOPLICATION - RESULTS AT 10-YEAR FOLLOW-UP
    BAXTER, ST
    WALKER, SJ
    SUTTON, R
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 1995, 108 (04) : A56 - A56