Does a high Mandard score really define a poor response to chemotherapy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma?

Background A high Mandard score implies a non-response to chemotherapy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma. However, some patients exhibit tumour volume reduction and a nodal response despite a high score. This study examines survival and recurrence patterns in these patients.Methods Clinicopathological factors were analysed using multivariable Cox regression assessing time to death and recurrence. Computed tomography-estimated tumour volume change was examined in a subgroup of consecutive patients.Results Five hundred and fifty-five patients were included. Median survival was 55 months (Mandard 1–3) and 21 months (Mandard 4 and 5). In the Mandard 4 and 5 group (332 patients), comparison between complete nodal responders and persistent nodal disease showed improved survival (90 vs 18 months), recurrence rates (locoregional 14.75 vs 28.74%, systemic 24.59 vs 48.42%) and circumferential resection margin positivity (22.95 vs 68.11%). Complete nodal response independently predicted improved survival (hazard ratio 0.34 (0.16–0.74). Post-chemotherapy tumour volume reduction was greater in patients with a complete nodal response (−16.3 vs −7.7 cm³, p = 0.033) with no significant difference between Mandard groups.Conclusion Patients with a complete nodal response to chemotherapy have significantly improved outcomes despite a poor Mandard score. High Mandard score does not correspond with a non-response to chemotherapy in all cases and patients with nodal downstaging may still benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.Subject terms: Oesophageal cancer, Surgical oncology     

Prospective Randomized Comparison of Linear Endostaplers During Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy

Purpose

The development of Laparoscopic Linear Endostaplers (LLES) is crucial in minimally invasive approaches in bariatric surgery, but there have been very few published studies comparing 6-row LLES in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy (LSG). The objective of this study was to compare two 6-row LLES in LSG.

Methods

A total of 60 patients were prospectively randomized to undergo LSG with either Medtronic Endo GIA? Tri-Staple technology (MTS) or AEON ? Endostapler(Lexington Medical) LLES. The measured parameters included patient demographics, comorbidity indices, LLES and specimen characteristics, postoperative symptoms, hospital stay, and total adverse events (AEs). Intraoperative bleeding was evaluated using five laparoscopic and corresponding endoscopic images of staple line before clip application, compared with a 1–5 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), assessed by an independent bariatric surgeon who was blinded to the LLES used. Images of all cases were reviewed on the same day to increase test–retest reliability.

Results

Both groups were similar in patient demographics. Compared to MTS, AEON LLES group had significantly lower bleeding VAS scores in 4/5 laparoscopic images (pre-pyloric: 1.7?±?0.7 vs. 2.36?±?0.76, p?=?0.0007, mid-sleeve: 1.46?±?0.62 vs. 1.86?±?0.68, p?=?0.019, proximal sleeve: 1.6?±?0.77 vs. 2.0?±?0.83, p?=?0.038, gastro-esophageal junction: 1.43?±?0.67 vs. 1.86?±?0.77, p?=?0.014) and 3/5 endoscopic images (pre-pyloric: 1.56?±?0.56 vs. 2.36?±?0.76, p?=?0.006, incisura: 1.66?±?0.54 vs. 2.0?±?0.52, p?=?0.021, mid-sleeve: 1.63?±?0.49 vs. 2.0?±?0.45, p?=?0.005). There was no statistical difference in other parameters.

Conclusion

Both devices were equally safe and effective in terms of LLES and specimen characteristics, patient symptoms, hospital stay, and AEs. Bleeding VAS scores were significantly lower, favoring the AEON LLES.

Graphical abstract