Open Access

Purpose: Anastomotic leakage is a major surgical complication following esophagectomy and gastric pull-up. Specific risk factors such as celiac trunk (TC) stenosis and high calcification score of the aorta have been identified, but no data are available on their relative prognostic values. This retrospective study aimed to compare and evaluate calcification score versus stenosis quantification with regards to prognostic impact on anastomotic leakage. Patients and methods: Preoperative contrast-enhanced computed tomography scans of 164 consecutive patients with primary esophageal cancer were evaluated by two radiologists to apply a calcification score (0–3 scale) assessing the aorta, the celiac axis and the right and left postceliac arteries. Concurrently, the presence and degree of stenosis of TC and superior mesenteric artery were recorded for stenosis quantification. Results: Anastomotic leakage was noted in 14/164 patients and 12/14 showed stenosis of TC (n=11). The presence of TC stenosis was found to have a significant impact on anastomotic healing (p=0.004). The odds ratio for the prediction of anastomotic leakage by the degree of stenosis was 1.04 (95% CI, 1.02–1.07). Ten of 14 patients had aortic calcification scores of 1 or 2, but calcification scores of the aorta, the celiac axis and the right and left postceliac arteries did not correlate with the corresponding TC stenosis values and showed no influence on patient outcome as defined by the occurrence of anastomotic insufficiency (p=0.565, 0.855, 0.518 and 1.000, respectively). Inter-reader reliability of computed tomography analysis and absolute agreement on calcium scoring was mostly over 90%. No significant differences in preoperative comorbidities and patient characteristics were found between those with and without anastomotic leakage. Conclusion: Measurement of TC stenosis in preoperative contrast-enhanced computed tomography scans proved to be more reliable than calcification scores in predicting anastomotic leakage and should, therefore, be used in the risk assessment of patients undergoing esophagectomy and gastric pull-up.

Background: Oesophageal (OeC) and gastric (GC) cancer patients are treated with similar multimodal therapy and have poor survival. There remains an urgent clinical need to identify biomarkers to individualise patient management and improve outcomes. Therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown promising results in other cancers. Proposed biomarkers to predict potential response to immune checkpoint inhibitors include DNA mismatch repair (MMR) and/or Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) status. The aim of this study was to establish and compare EBV status and MMR status in large multi-centre series of OeC and GC. Methods: EBV was assessed by EBV-encoded RNA (EBER) in situ hybridisation and MMR protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in 988 OeC and 1213 GC from multiple centres. In a subset of OeC, microsatellite instability (MSI) was tested in parallel with MMR IHC. Results: Frequency of MMR deficiency (MMRdef) and MSI was low in OeC (0.8% and 0.6%, respectively) compared with GC (10.3%). None of the OeCs were EBER positive in contrast to 4.8% EBER positive GC. EBV positive GC patients were younger (p = 0.01), more often male (p = 0.001) and had a better overall survival (p = 0.012). MMRdef GC patients were older (p = 0.001) and showed more often intestinal-type histology (p = 0.022). Conclusions: This is the largest study to date indicating that EBV and MMRdef do not play a role in OeC carcinogenesis in contrast to GC. The potential clinical usefulness of determining MMRdef/EBV status to screen patients for eligibility for immune-targeting therapy differs between OeC and GC patients.