Background: Robotic‐assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) combines the beneficial effects of minimally invasive surgery on postoperative complications, especially on pulmonary ones, with the safety of the anastomosis performed in open surgery. Moreover, RAMIE could allow a more accurate lymphadenectomy.Methods: We reviewed our database to identify all patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus treated by Ivor–Lewis esophagectomy in the period January 2014 to June 2022. Patients were divided according to the thoracic approach into RAMIE and open esophagectomy (OE) groups. We compared the groups for early surgical outcomes, 90‐day mortality as well as R0 rate, and the number of lymph nodes harvested.Results: We identified 47 patients in RAMIE and 159 patients in the OE group. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Operative time was significantly longer for RAMIE procedures (p < 0.01); however, we did not observe the difference in overall (RAMIE 55.5% vs. OE 61%, p = 0.76) and severe complications rate (RAMIE 17% vs. OE 22.6%, p = 0.4). The anastomotic leak rate was 2.1% after RAMIE and 6.9% after OE (p = 0.56). We did not report the difference in 90‐day mortality (RAMIE 2.1% vs. OE 1.9%, p = 0.65). In the RAMIE group, we observed a significantly higher number of thoracic lymph nodes harvested, with a median of 10 lymph nodes in the RAMIE group versus 8 in the OE group (p < 0.01).Conclusions: In our experience, RAMIE has morbimortality rates comparable to OE. Moreover, it allows a more accurate thoracic lymphadenectomy which results in a higher thoracic lymph nodes retrieval rate.

Guidelines on the treatment of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) recommend neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery or definitive chemoradiotherapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients with a cCR after chemoradiotherapy who underwent active surveillance. Patients with oesophageal SCC who were treated with chemoradiotherapy between January 2016 and June 2022 were identified from an institutional database. Survival and recurrence of patients with a cCR who underwent active surveillance were compared with those of patients who underwent planned surgery. Survival was calculated according to the Kaplan–Meier method and compared between groups using the log rank test. The 37 patients who underwent active surveillance were older and tumours were more often located in the middle/upper-third of the oesophagus than in the surgery group of 57 patients. Median follow-up was 28.1 (i.q.r. 17.2–47.1) months for the active surveillance group and 20 (12.9–39.1) months for the surgery group. Overall survival was comparable between the two groups, with 3-year survival rates of 50 (95% c.i. 31 to 67) and 59 (40 to 73)% for the active surveillance and surgery groups respectively (P = 0.55). Three-year progression-free survival for patients who underwent active surveillance was better than in the surgery group: 70 (43 to 85) versus 58 (40 to 72)% (P = 0.02). Overall and progression-free survival was comparable between patients in the active surveillance group and 23 patients in the surgery group who had a pCR (ypT0 N0). The overall recurrence rate was comparable between the groups: 7 of 37 (19.4%) in active surveillance group versus 16 of 49 (32.6%) in surgery group (P = 0.26). Locoregional recurrence was noted more often in the active surveillance group and systemic recurrence in the surgery group. Active surveillance is feasible and safe for patients with oesophageal SCC who have a cCR after chemoradiotherapy.

The association between each Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) component and the incidence of major postoperative complications following Ivor Lewis or McKeown surgery is understudied. Therefore, we wanted to determine the association between ERAS components, major postoperative complications, and the reasons for non-compliance with the ERAS program. Data were extracted from the prospective ERAS Registry managed by the University of Verona, Italy. We searched and compared the data for postoperative major complications (Clavien-Dindo Classification ≥3B) and reasons for non-compliance with 15 ERAS items in patients undergoing Ivor Lewis or McKeown surgery with radical intent for esophageal or esophagogastric junction cancer. The study sample was 346 patients: 43 (12.4 %) experienced one or more postoperative major complications. When stratified by type of surgery, complications were more frequent after McKeown surgery than after Ivor Lewis surgery (15.5 % and 11.5 %, respectively). Organizational setbacks were the most common reason for non-compliance with the ERAS program. We identified several associations between clinical and patient demographic characteristics and 90-day postsurgical complications. The multivariate model indicated an association between fewer major postoperative complications after Ivor Lewis surgery and adherence to the protocol items "soft diet intake" (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.23; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.63) and "urinary catheter removal" (adjusted OR, 0.26; 95 % CI, 0.10-0.63). Major complications are relatively frequent, especially after McKeown surgery. What remains uncertain is whether ERAS items can predict the occurrence of postoperative complications. Adherence to the protocol may be influenced by the co-occurrence of complications, comorbidities, and organizational setbacks.

Background: Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is a common complication after esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction. It is still unclear whether a pyloric drainage procedure might reduce the risk of DGE. Methods: We identified in our database all patients subjected to Ivor Lewis esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in the period 2000–2012. In the period 2000–2009, we performed a routine pyloroplasty (pyloroplasty group, PP group, 15 patients), after 2009 we did not perform any type of pyloric drainage procedure (nonpyloroplasty group, NPP group, 11 patients). We compared the groups with subjective questionnaires to assess the perceived quality of life (QoL) (QLQ-C30 and OES-18) and with objective test to study the gastric tube emptying (timed barium swallow test, scintigraphy, 24 hours' pH-metry). Results: No difference was observed in questionnaires QLC-C30 and OES-18 scores: 73% of patients in PP group and 63% in NPP group scored their overall QoL as good to excellent (QLC-C30). We did not report difference in timed barium swallow test results and in scintigraphy results. Twenty-four-hour pH-metry results showed in PP group a nonsignificant higher number of acid reflux episodes (NPP group 23.2 ± 9.5 versus PP group 41.3 ± 10.7, P = .29) and a longer time with pH <4 (NPP group 0.89% ± 1.6% versus PP group 3.1% ± 2.1%, P = .24). Conclusions: In our series, pyloroplasty was not associated with improved long-term QoL nor with better gastric conduit emptying. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objective: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) account for less than 1% of digestive tract tumors. The most common location of these tumors is the stomach, while the esophageal location is estimated to be between 0.7–5% of all GISTs, which explains the lack of specific guidelines and randomized trials. The objective of this review is to develop a revision of literature about clinicopathological features, diagnostic and treatment management. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar and MEDLINE databases from 1998 to 2022 by using the keywords: “Esophageal gastrointestinal stromal tumor”, “GIST”, “GIST treatment”, “GIST epidemiology”, “GIST surgical treatment”, “esophageal GIST management”, “imatinib”, “GIST clinicopathologic features”. Additional literature was searched manually from references of related articles. Key Content and Findings: GISTs arising from the interstitial cells of Cajal (ICC), are CD117 positive and are characterized by mutations in the c-kit genes or mutations of the platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha. Their diagnosis is often challenging and it is difficult to distinguish themselves from other subepithelial lesions that arise from the esophagus, such as leiomyomas and leiomyosarcomas. The endoscopic ultrasound plays an important role in the identification of GISTs but the immunopathological assessment via fine needle aspiration biopsy during endoscopic ultrasound is substantial for the precise diagnosis. These tumors are potentially malignant and their goal standard treatment is based on radical surgery. Endoscopic management has also been described for smaller and low risk GISTs. Chemotherapy is based on tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) which have been described in metastatic, adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings. Conclusions: Esophageal GISTs are a rare entity and their optimal management has not been yet defined and more data based on prospective studies or clinical trials are necessary.