现代二野淋巴结清扫食管癌切除术的疗效分析

目的 探讨食管癌切除现代二野淋巴结清扫的手术疗效及临床实际应用价值.方法 1987年6月至2007年12月间,对1690例中下段及上段食管癌患者分别采用Ivor-Lewis术式和Akiyama术式进行现代淋巴结清扫治疗,总结胸腹二野淋巴结转移的发生率以及患者术后1、3、5和10年的生存率.结果 全组患者中,有淋巴结转移713例,转移率为42.2%(713/1690).胸部淋巴结转移665例,占39.3%(665/1690),其中有胸顶气管旁三角区淋巴结转移349例,占20.7%;后上纵隔淋巴结转移444例,占26.3%;下纵隔淋巴结转移307例,占18.2%.腹部淋巴结转移339例,占20.1%.全组患者术后有278例发生312例次各种并发症,并发症的发生率为16.4%(278/1690),其中以肺部并发症为主,共136例次,占43.6%.全组患者的手术死亡率为0.2%.全组患者术后1、3、5和10年生存率分别为88.2%(1388/1574)、63.5%(868/1367)、54.8%(705/1287)和30.8%(232/754).无淋巴结转移患者的5年生存率为76.2%(448/588),有淋巴结转移患者的5年生存率为36.8%(257/699).结论 食管癌切除采用Ivor-Lewis和Akiyama术式可良好地显露胸腹二野,淋巴结清扫彻底,特别是对后上纵隔喉返神经旁、右胸顶气管旁三角区淋巴结的清扫尤为便利.对有淋巴结转移的食管癌患者施行现代二野淋巴结清扫十分必要,能显著提高患者的术后5年生存率.     

Ivor-Lewis术式与Sweet术式治疗胸段食管癌的疗效比较

目的:评价右胸、上腹部两切口(Ivor-Lewis术式)、左胸一切口（Sweet术式）两种术式治疗胸段食管癌的安全性、近期及远期疗效。方法:对2007年7月至2011年7月间我院收治351例经手术切除的食管癌患者进行回顾性分析,其中129例患者经Ivor-Lewis术式食管癌根治术,222例经Sweet术式食管癌根治术,分别对两组患者围手术期情况及远期生存进行对比分析。结果:Ivor-Lewis及Sweet术式食管上切缘阳性率分别为1.6%、6.8%;心率失常发生率分别为4.7%、11.7%;平均清扫淋巴结数分别为（16.15±6.41）个、（13.19±7.26）个;平均转移淋巴结数分别为（1.95±2.49）个、（1.31±2.21）个;胸部淋巴结转移率分别为24.0%、14.4%,上述差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;而在平均手术出血量、术后平均住院时间、术后肺部并发症、吻合口瘘、呼吸衰竭、膈疝、吻合口出血发生率无统计学差异（P＞0.05）;Ivor-Lewis术及Sweet术后1、3、5年生存率分别是81.7%、51.0%、37.5%和81.0%、48.3%、31.8%,差异无统计学意义(P=0.691);单因素分析发现肿瘤大小、浸润深度、淋巴结转移部位、淋巴结转移数量、病理分期、神经脉管浸润、围手术期输血是影响预后的因素（P＜0.05）,Cox分析发现肿瘤病理分期、淋巴结转移数目、神经脉管浸润、围手术期输血是影响食管癌患者预后的独立危险因素。结论:Ivor-Lewis术式较Sweet术式切缘阳性率低、淋巴结清扫更彻底、心率失常发生率低,具有一定优势,但在远期生存率上并无明显差异。     

Cervical lymph node metastasis in patients with submucosal carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The effect of esophagectomy with three-field lymph node dissection for submucosal carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus remains controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of esophagectomy with three-field lymph node dissection for submucosal carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus. METHODS: From January 1983 to December 1997, the records of 101 consecutive patients who underwent transthoracic esophagectomy with three-field lymph node dissection were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: The incidence of the operative complications was 70%. The 30-day and overall hospital mortality rates were 1.0% and 2.0%, respectively. The positive rate of histological cervical nodal metastasis was 17%. The 5-year survival rates for the patients with and those without cervical nodal metastasis were 55% and 71%, respectively. The difference between patients with and those without cervical nodal metastasis was not statistically significant. Cumulative 5-year survival rates for the patients with metastasis in the cervical, upper mediastinal, or abdominal lymph nodes were 55%, 65%, and 46%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between each survival. CONCLUSIONS: Three-field lymph node dissection may be indicated for patients requiring esophagectomy for submucosal carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus because the frequency of cervical lymph node metastasis is not negligible and acceptable overall hospital mortality and favorable survival rates of patients with histologically positive cervical nodes can be achieved.     

胸中段食管鳞癌淋巴结转移度及合理清扫范围的临床研究

目的:本研究通过分析胸中段食管鳞癌淋巴结转移规律及淋巴结转移度对预后的影响,探讨合理的淋巴结清扫范围.方法:对129例经现代二野淋巴结清扫术的胸中段食管鳞癌患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析.结果:全组患者淋巴结转移率为56.6%,总淋巴结转移度(阳性淋巴结数/清扫淋巴结总数,LMR)为11.3%,上纵隔淋巴结转移率为43.4%.最常见的淋巴结受累区域为食管旁、右喉返神经旁、贲门及胃左血管旁、隆突下.影响淋巴结转移的主要因素为肿瘤浸润深度、分化程度及肿瘤长度.无淋巴结转移组、淋巴结转移度≤20%组和淋巴结转移度>20%组患者5年生存率分别为50.4%、31.0%和6.8%,结果差异有统计学意义(P=0.000).结论:淋巴结转移度是判断食管癌预后的一个重要因素,胸中段食管癌应该常规行包括双侧上纵隔的现代二野淋巴结清扫术.     

Ivor Lewis食管切除术二野淋巴清扫治疗73例胸下段食管鳞癌的临床疗效

背景与目的:食管切除局部区域淋巴清扫是胸下段食管癌的主要治疗手段.本研究旨在评价Ivor Lewis食管切除术二野淋巴清扫治疗胸下段食管癌的临床效果.方法:选择1998年1月至2001年12月73例行Ivor Lewis食管切除术二野淋巴清扫的胸下段食管鳞癌病例,观察清扫的淋巴结数目、术后并发症发生率、死亡率等指标,Kaplan-Meier法进行生存分析.结果:术后并发症发生率15.1%,死亡率2.7%.淋巴结转移率71.2%,上纵隔淋巴转移率17.8%.Ⅰ期5例,Ⅱ期34例,Ⅲ期32例,Ⅳ期2例.总的5年生存率为23.3%.N0与M病例5年生存率分别为38.1%与17.3%(P＜0.01).ⅡA、ⅡB、Ⅲ期病例的5年生存率分别是31.2%、27.8%、12.5%(P＜0.01).结论:Ivor Lewis食管切除术二野淋巴清扫治疗胸下段食管鳞癌是一项安全的手术,可增加完整切除(肉眼及镜下均无癌残留)机会.     

217例胸段食管癌淋巴结转移及其对预后影响的分析

背景与目的：目前,食管癌术中对淋巴结清扫范围尚有争议。本研究通过了解胸段食管癌淋巴结转移规律及其对预后的影响,探讨合理的淋巴结清扫范围。方法：对217例经“三野”淋巴结清除根治术的食管癌患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析。选择9个可能对食管癌切除术后预后产生影响的特征性临床病理因素,通过计算机Cox比例风险模型进行预后分析。结果：全组淋巴结清除术后1、3、5年生存率分别为82．6％、59．8％、和48．8％。淋巴结转移率62．6％,转移度11．38％,淋巴结“跳跃性转移”率为5．5％。胸上、中、下段食管癌颈部、胸部纵隔和腹腔淋巴结转移率分别达到31．7％、21．9％、9．75％,21．2％、30．5％、12.7％和12．1％、15．6％、34．5％。影响淋巴结转移的主要因素为肿瘤浸润深度、分化程度及有无淋巴管浸润;肿瘤长度则影响不大。多因素分析表明,肿瘤浸润深度、分化程度、淋巴结转移区域数和肿瘤部位对预后的影响有显著性意义。随着食管癌淋巴结转移区域数的增加,患者生存率逐渐下降(P=0．0284)。结论：淋巴结转移尤其是淋巴结转移区域数是胸段食管癌预后的主要因素。胸段食管癌表现出上下“双向性”转移和跳跃性转移的特点,应常规行“三野”淋巴结清扫术,以提高患者5年生存率。     

阴性淋巴结数目对胸段食管癌患者预后的影响

目的:探讨胸段食管癌患者标准淋巴结清扫术中阴性淋巴结数目对患者预后的影响。方法:回顾性分析2000～2006年,汕头市中心医院239例食管癌患者的性别、年龄、肿瘤定位、浸润深度、病理组织分化程度、类型以及阴、阳性淋巴结数目,通过Kaplan-Meier曲线和Cox多因素回归模型,评估上述临床病理参数等与患者生存期之间的相关性。结果:全组患者平均5年生存率44.1%。单因素分析结果显示,阳性淋巴结数目及阴性淋巴结数目对患者5年生存率有显著影响(P0.05)。阴性淋巴结数目≥4的患者,5年生存率(49.1%)明显高于阴性淋巴结数目4的患者(31.5%)(x~2=6.042,P=0.014)。Cox多因素回归分析显示,阳性淋巴结数目(P=0.000,HR=1.370,95%CI=1.204～1.559)及阴性淋巴结数目(P=0.046,HR=0.955,95%CI=0.913～0.999)均可作为影响患者预后的独立影响因素(P0.05)。结论:阴性淋巴结数目是胸段食管癌患者预后的独立影响因素,在今后的食管癌分期标准中可用于改进淋巴结分期。     

Influence of number of metastatic lymph nodes on survival of curative resected thoracic esophageal cancer patients and value of radiotherapy: report of 549 cases

PURPOSE: To analyze the significance of the number of metastatic lymph nodes on survival with and without the addition of prophylactic postoperative radiotherapy (RT) after radical resection of thoracic esophageal carcinoma. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 549 thoracic esophageal squamous cell cancer patients who had undergone radical resection were randomized by the envelope method into a surgery-alone group (S, n = 275) and a surgery plus RT group (S+R, n = 274). We performed a retrospective review of all patients according to the extent of metastasis. The patients were classified into three groups: Group 1, 269 patients (49.0%) without lymph node involvement; Group 2, 159 patients (29.0%) with one to two positive nodes; and Group 3, 121 patients (22.0%) with three or more positive lymph nodes. RESULTS: For the same T stage (T3), the 5-year survival rate for Groups 1, 2, and 3 was 50.6%, 29.3%, and 11.7%, respectively (p = 0.0000). For patients with Stage III, the 5-year survival rate for Groups 1 (T4N0M0), 2 (T3-T4N1M0), and 3 (T3-T4N2M0) was 58.1%, 30.6%, and 14.4%, respectively (p = 0.0092). The 5-year survival rate of the S and S+R groups with positive lymph nodes (Groups 2 and 3) was 17.6% and 34.1% (p = 0.0378). In the positive lymph node groups, the incidence of failure by intrathoracic lymph node metastasis and supraclavicular lymph node metastasis in the S+R group (21.5% and 4.6%, respectively) was lower than in the S group (35.9% and 19.7%, respectively; p <0.012). In the negative lymph node group, the incidence of failure by intrathoracic lymph node metastasis in the S and S+R groups was 27.8% and 13.3%, respectively (p = 0.006). Hematogenous metastasis was the greatest (27.5%) in Group 3 (three or more positive lymph nodes). CONCLUSION: The number of metastatic lymph nodes is one of the important factors affecting the survival of patients with thoracic esophageal carcinoma. In our study, postoperative RT improved the survival of patients with positive lymph nodes. Additionally, postoperative RT reduced the incidence of intrathoracic recurrence and supraclavicular lymph node metastasis for all patients.     

Recurrent esophageal carcinoma after esophagectomy with three-field lymph node dissection

To evaluate the effect of the extended lymphadenectomy for thoracic esophageal carcinoma, the pattern of recurrence in the 50 patients with pT3 tumors who underwent esophagectomy with cervical, mediastinal, and abdominal lymph node dissection (3-F) (group A) was compared with that of 100 patients at pT3 who underwent esophagectomy without upper mediastinal and cervical lymphadenectomy (2-F) (group B). The cumulative 5-year survival rate for 115 patients who underwent 3-F was 50.9%. Cumulative 5-year survival rates for patients in groups A and B were 36.8% and 22.0%, respectively. The survival curve for group A was significantly better than group B (P = 0.02332). Lymphatic recurrence was noted less frequently in group A (8/23) than in group B (31/49) (χ² = 5.1149), whereas the rate of hematogenous recurrence was similar. Extension of the field of lymph node dissection reduced the lymph node recurrence in patients with thoracic esophageal carcinoma, which may have positively affected patient survival. © 1996 Wiley-Liss, Inc.     

胸部食管癌转移淋巴结数与预后的临床研究

目的 探讨胸部食管癌转移淋巴结的个数与预后的关系。方法 采用颈、胸、腹三切口施行胸部食管癌手术１１２例,同时施行三区域淋巴结清扫。选择９个可能对食管癌切除术后预后产生影响的特征性临床因素,通过Ｃｏｘ比例风险模型,利用累计生存率对食管癌切除术后患者进行预后多因素分析。结果 本组总５年生存率为５８．４％,其中无淋巴结转移组（Ａ组）为８８．４％、转移淋巴结１～３枚组（Ｂ组）为５０．８％,转移≥４枚组（Ｃ     

胸段食管癌淋巴结转移规律的临床研究

目的 分析胸段食管癌淋巴结转移规律，探讨肿瘤外科淋巴结清扫范围。方法 回顾性分析217例经“三野”淋巴结清除根治术的食管癌患者的临床资料。结果 全组淋巴结转移病例占62．6％，转移率11．38％，淋巴结“跳跃性转移”率为5．5％。胸上、中、下段食管癌颈部、胸部纵隔和腹腔淋巴结转移率分别达到31．7％、21．9％、9．75％、21．2％、30．5％、12．7％和12．1％、15．6％、34．5％。影响淋巴结转移的因素为肿瘤浸润深度，分化程度及有无淋巴管浸润。与肿瘤长度关系不大。结论 胸段食管癌表现上下“双向性”转移和跳跃性转移的特点，应常规行“三野”淋巴结清扫术，以提高患者5年生存率。     

胸段食管癌淋巴结转移规律与术后放疗范围的探讨

目的 分析胸段食管痛淋巴结转移规律、失败部位,为术后放疗范围提供依据.方法 549例食管癌根治术后患者随机进入单纯手术组(275例)和术后放疗组(274例).术后放疗组术后3～4周开始双锁骨上淋巴引流Ⅸ和全纵隔放疗50～60 Cy分25～30次5～6 周完成.结果 全组1、2个解剖1)(域淋巴结转移者5年生存率分别为31.5%、13.9%(P=0.013),单纯手术组淋巴结转移个数≥2个(82例)的分别为24.8%、4.9%(P=0.046).上、中、下段食管癌淋巴结切除均数分别为13、17、20个,上、中、下段食管癌淋巴结转移率分别为26.1%、49.6%、64.9%(χ2=15.51,P<0.01).胸段食管痛食管旁、纵隔、胃周围(贲门左、贲门右、胃小弯)淋巴结转移率分别为33.2%、12.4%、30.4%(χ2=79.93,P<0.01),在上、中、下段食管痛中食管旁淋巴结阳性率相似(61.5%、65.6%、64.9%,χ2=0.16,P>0.05).在单纯手术组,纵隔淋巴结转移和锁骨上淋巴结转移失败率上、中段分别为26.7%、29.8%和16.7%、14.3%.上段食管癌吻合口的复发率16.7%明显的高于中、下段(3.1%、7.7%,χ2=9.02,P=0.011).结论 食管癌术后生存率受淋巴结转移区域多少的影响.上段食管癌淋巴结转移率低可能与淋巴结清扣个数少有关,发牛在食管旁淋巴结转移率最高,且不受病变部位的影响.上、中段食管癌除纵隔、锁骨上区域的复发率高外,上段食管癌的吻合口也很高,这些部位应是术后放疗的重点.     

食管癌术后淋巴结转移对生存率的影响和放射治疗的意义

目的 分析淋巴结转移个数对生存率的影响及放射治疗的意义。方法 495例食管癌根治性手术切除患者,随机分为单一手术组(275例)和术后放疗组(220例),根据淋巴结转移的个数分为3组：A组无淋巴结转移,占47．2％;B组淋巴结转移个数1～2枚,占29．5％;C组淋巴结转移个数≥3枚,占23．2％。结果(1)相同T分期(T3)时,A、B、C三组的5年生存率分别为52．6％、28．8％和10．9(P=0．0000);在C组,单一手术和术后放疗者的5年生存率分别为0和19．3％(P=0．0336)。(2)在淋巴结阳性组(B C组),单一手术和术后放疗者的胸内淋巴结转移率分别为35．9％和21．2％(P=0．014),锁骨上淋巴结转移率分别为19．7％和4．4％(P=0．000);在淋巴结阴性组(A组),单一手术和术后放疗的胸内淋巴结转移率分别为27．8％和10．3％(P=0．003);A、B、C三组的腹腔淋巴结转移率分别为3．9％、9．4％和17．5％(P=0．000)。血行转移率以C组最高,为27．8％。结论 淋巴结转移个数是影响食管癌生存率的因素之一。淋巴结转移个数≥3枚时,血行转移率高,是全身化疗的指征。术后放疗降低了放疗部位淋巴结转移率,明显提高了C组生存率。     

Efficacy analysis of simplified intensity-modulated radiotherapy with high or conventional dose and concurrent chemotherapy for patients with neck and upper thoracic esophageal carcinoma

For patients with neck and upper thoracic esophageal carcinoma, it is difficult to control lymph node metastases with conventional dose therapy. In this study, we assessed the feasibility of simplified intensity-modulated radiotherapy (sIMRT) and concurrent chemotherapy for 44 patients and boosted high-dose to metastatic lymph nodes.Three radiation treatment volumes were defined: PGTVnd, with which 68.1 Gy was delivered in high dose group (hsIMRT group), and 60 Gy in the conventional dose group (csIMRT group); PTV1, featuring 63.9 Gy in the hsIMRT group and 60Gy in the csIMRT group; PTV2, with 54 Gy given to both groups. The sIMRT plan included 5 equi-angular coplanar beams. All patients received the cisplatin and 5-FU regimen concurrently with radiotherapy. The treatment was completed within six weeks and one case with grade three acute bronchitis was observed in hsIMRT group. For esophageal lesions, 80% complete response (CR) and 20% partial response (PR) rates were found in the hsIMRT group, and 79.2% CR, with 20.8% PR, in the csIMRT group; for lymph node lesions, 75% CR and 25% PR rates were observed in the hsIMRT group, with 45.8% and 37.5% respectively in the csIMRT group (P <0.05). The differences in 1-, 2- and 3-year relapse-free survival rates were all statistically significant (P <0.05). The major toxicity observed in both groups was Grade I~II leucopenia. sIMRT can generate a desirable dose distribution in treatment of neck and upper thoracic esophageal carcinoma with a better short-term efficacy. Boosted high dosing to metastatic lymph nodes can increase the relapse-free survival rate.     

左胸单切口和颈-右胸-腹三切口在食管癌淋巴结清扫中的应用

 目的　比较左胸单切口和颈-右胸-腹三切口在食管癌根治手术中的淋巴结清扫情况,探讨食管癌手术中合理的淋巴结切除范围。方法　回顾性分析2006年1月至2008年1月行食管癌根治手术的95例患者的临床资料,根据手术方式分为左胸切口组62例和三切口组33例,对淋巴结清扫状况和术后并发症进行分析。结果　95例患者共切除1322枚淋巴结,平均每例切除13.9枚。95例中有43例（45.3 %）出现淋巴结转移。左胸切口组和三切口组淋巴结转移率分别为40.3 %（25／62）和54.5 %（18／33）。上段和中段食管癌的颈部淋巴结转移率分别为25.0 %（2／8）和40.0 %（4／10）,下段食管癌的腹部淋巴结转移率为53.8 %（7／13）。食管癌的浸润深度（r＝0.315,P＝0.007）和分化程度（r＝0.239,P＝0.017）与淋巴结转移显著相关。肿瘤长度＞2 cm时淋巴结转移率明显增高（χ2＝34.2,P＜0.001）。左胸切口组和三切口组患者术后并发症发生率分别为25.8 %（16／62）和4.2 %（8／33）,差异无统计学意义（χ2＝0.017,P＝0.869）。围手术期死亡率分别为1.6 %（1／62）和3.0 %（1／33）,差异无统计学意义（χ2＝0.047,P＝0.651）。结论　食管癌根治手术应综合考虑肿瘤浸润深度、分化程度和长度对淋巴结转移的影响。对于上、中段食管癌宜选择三切口利于行术野淋巴结切除,下段食管癌应重视腹腔淋巴结的切除。     

改良Ivor-Lewis手术治疗62例胸中下段食管鳞癌的疗效分析

目的探讨改良Ivor-Lewis手术治疗胸中下段食管鳞癌的临床疗效。方法回顾性分析62例采用改良Ivor—Lewis手术治疗的胸中下段食管鳞癌患者的临床资料。生存率计算采用Kap／an．Meier方法。结果术后10例出现并发症,占16．1％。死亡2例,占3．2％。淋巴结转移率58．0％,上纵隔转移率最低（16．5％）,下纵膈转移率最高（40．9％）。全组平均生存时间为（52．06±3．21）个月,3、5年生存率分别为52．2％、24．5％。Ⅰ、Ⅱ、Ⅲ期患者3、5年生存率分别为93．4％和70．5％、49．3％和27．5％、36．2％和12．6％。结论改良Ivor—Lewis手术具有良好的手术视野．淋巴结清扫彻底的优点,可减少术后并发症,提高患者生存期．是治疗胸中下段食管鳞癌较理想的手术方式．     

胸段食管癌淋巴结转移规律及其影响因素*

目的:探讨胸段食管癌淋巴结转移规律及其影响因素。方法:选择行根治性手术切除、胸腹二野淋巴结清扫术的229 例胸段食管癌进行研究,手术共清扫淋巴结2 458 枚。分析食管癌不同病变部位淋巴结转移度分布情况以及肿瘤浸润深度、病变长度、大体病理形态、肿瘤分化程度等因素对淋巴结转移的影响。结果:1）102 例食管癌发生淋巴结转移,淋巴结转移率为44.5%（102/229）。 258 枚淋巴结发生转移,淋巴结转移度为10.5%（258/2 458）。2）胸上段食管癌上纵隔、中纵隔、下纵隔和腹腔淋巴结转移度分别为19.0% 、6.7% 、9.8% 和14.2% ;胸中段食管癌分别为26.1% 、7.4% 、11.8% 和11.9% ;胸下段食管癌分别为0、1.6% 、5.3% 和10.0% 。3）Tis期无淋巴结转移。T1、T2、T3、T4 期淋巴结转移率分别为28.6% 、42.9% 、48.3% 和31.3% ;淋巴结转移度分别为7.9% 、10.8% 、10.7% 和10.8% ;T1~T4 期淋巴结转移率和转移度组间比较均无显著性差异（χ2=2.733,P=0.435 和χ2=0.686,P=0.876）。 4）病变长度≤3cm组、
3～5cm组和>5cm组淋巴结转移率分别为45.2% 、43.4% 和46.2% ,淋巴结转移度分别为9.1% 、11.6% 和11.7% ,组间比较差异均不显著（χ2=0.094,P=0.954 和χ2=3.933,P=0.140）。 5）髓质型、溃疡型、蕈伞型和缩窄型食管癌淋巴结转移度分别为14.0% 、9.6% 、4.3% 和18.3%（χ2=19.292,P=0.000）,蕈伞型食管癌淋巴结转移度较低。6）鳞癌、低分化鳞癌淋巴结转移率为42.5% 和75.0%（χ2=4.852,P=0.028）;淋巴结转移度为9.5% 和18.6%（χ2=11.323,P=0.001）。 低分化者易发生淋巴结转移。结论:胸段食管癌淋巴结转移涉及部位多,播散广泛,且食管癌病变早期即可发生癌转移。大体病理形态及肿瘤分化程度是影响淋巴结转移的主要因素。      

非手术治疗食管癌临床分期的验证

[目的]对中国《非手术治疗食管癌临床分期标准(草案)》进行验证,为该草案进一步修订提供依据。[方法]收集2005~2006年行根治性三维适形放射治疗的食管癌患者236例,颈段25例,胸上段76例,胸中段118例,胸下段17例。放疗中位剂量64Gy(50~74Gy),其中有76例(32.2%)接受了以铂类为主的同期化疗。根据分期草案的标准进行T、N及临床分期,比较不同分期与总生存率的关系。[结果]73例生存患者的中位随访时间为50(10~72)个月,5年总生存率为26.2%。236例患者中,T1、T2、T3和T4的5年生存率分别为100%、35.2%、24.3%、19.8%(P=0.006),生存曲线均无交叉。N0、N1和N2的5年生存率分别为50.7%、16.5%、23.7%(P=0.087),其中N2组与N1组生存曲线存在交叉。Ⅰ、Ⅱ和Ⅲ期5年生存率分别为50.7%、0和23.7%(P=0.033),Ⅱ、Ⅲ期生存曲线有交叉。有30例胸段食管癌存在胸廓入口以上食管旁小淋巴结转移(5mm<最长径<10mm),如将这部分患者N分期定义为N1,则N0、N1和N2的5年总生存率分别为34.3%、26.6%和19.4%(P=0.029),各期生存曲线均能很好分开;由此定义的临床分期Ⅰ、Ⅱ和Ⅲ期5年生存率分别为50.7%、31.2%和20.7%(P=0.009),各期生存曲线均能很好分开。[结论]非手术治疗食管癌临床分期草案T分期可以较好地反映预后,N分期标准存在不足。建议将有胸段食管癌胸廓入口以上单纯食管旁小淋巴结转移(最长径<10mm)者定义为N1。     

早期食管癌淋巴结转移特点及临床意义

目的　探讨早期食管癌的淋巴结转移特点及临床意义。方法　对内镜检查诊断考虑为早期食管癌的患者经上腹、右胸二切或加行左颈三切口 ,行标准胸、腹二区域淋巴结清扫食管癌根治术。对不同区域的淋巴结编号进行病理检查。术后进行 5年生存率的调查。结果　经术后病理证实为早期食管癌 2 2 4例。总淋巴结转移率为 10 .2 7%,转移度 4.0 1%。不同的病灶部位对早期食管癌淋巴结转移率差异无显著性 (P >0 .0 5 )。不同的肉眼分型间淋巴结转移率差异有高度显著性 (P <0 .0 1)。原位癌和侵犯粘膜下层癌淋巴结转移率分别为 4.0 8%和 14 .0 7%,差异显著 (P <0 .0 5 )。病灶范围大小对淋巴结转移率的影响差异不显著 (P >0 .0 5 )。鳞癌和癌肉瘤淋巴结转移率分别为 10 .0 %和 2 5 .0 %(P <0 .0 1) .术后总 5年生存率 94.5 4%,无淋巴结转者 96.97%,有淋巴结转移者 72 .2 2 %,一区域淋巴结转移 5年生存率 81.18%,二区域淋巴结转移 5年生存率 5 7.14 %。有无淋巴结转移及淋巴结转移范围大小对 5年生存率的影响差异有高度显著性 (P <0 .0 1)。结论　早期食管癌淋巴结转移发生率比较高。早期食管癌的肉眼分型、浸润深度、组织学分型是影响其淋巴结转移的重要因子。淋巴结转移是影响早期食管癌 5年生存率的重要因素。     

Localization of initial lymph node metastasis from carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus

BACKGROUND: Most surgeons consider esophageal carcinoma with lymph node involvement a systemic disease. However, it is possible that the disease may be localized in the earlier phases of lymphatic metastasis. The distribution of involved lesions in the initial phase of lymph node metastasis has not been thoroughly investigated yet. METHODS: Among 329 patients that underwent curative (R0 International Union Against Cancer [UICC]) esophagectomy with systematic mesoesophageal dissection, 51 cases of patients with only 1 involved lymph node (solitary involvement) were retrospectively investigated and compared with patients with multiple involved lymph nodes. The regional lymph nodes were divided into the thoracocervical junction group (lower deep cervical and recurrent nerve lymph nodes), perigastric group, and intrathoracic group. RESULTS: Lymph node involvement was limited to a solitary lymph node in 46% of lymph node positive patients with esophageal carcinoma confined to the wall (T1 and T2, UICC) and in 17% of lymph node positive patients with cancer that invaded the extramural layer (T3 and T4, UICC). Of patients with solitary involvement, 82% had a positive thoracocervical junction or perigastric lymph node. The 5-year survival rate in solitary involvement cases was 61%, and 65% when solitary involvement was not intrathoracic. Most of the 5-year survivors had involvement of a thoracocervical junction or perigastric lymph node and had not received systemic chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Solitary involvement was not rare and not directly associated with a disseminated disease. Solitary involvement was commonly located in the thoracocervical junction or abdomen that are accessible without thoracotomy. Systematic dissection of the regional lymph nodes including thoracocervical junction and perigastric groups is recommended for resectable esophageal carcinoma at this time. However, less extensive dissection may be performed in selected cases if the sentinel lymph node concept proves valid.