Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To compare the safety and efficacy between three-field lymphadenectomy and normative Ivor-Lewis two-field lymphadenectomy for thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma METHODS: Clinical data of 375 patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent three-field lymphadenectomy(3FL) or Ivor-Lewis two-field lymphadenectomy(2FL, Ivor-Lewis) in Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center during 2013 were retrieved and collected from electronic medical record system. Ninety-one patients received three-field lymphadenectomy (3FL group), including 16 cases of intra-cervical gastro-esophageal anastomosis and 75 cases of intra-thoracic gastro-esophageal anastomosis, while 284 patients received Ivor-Lewis two-field lymphadenectomy (2FL group) with all intra-thoracic gastro-esophageal anastomosis. Short-term outcomes were compared between two groups, including postoperative anastomotic leakage, pneumonia and respiratory failure, chylothorax, reoperation and 90-day death. Total harvested lymph nodes and positive lymph nodes in each group were also compared. A total of 338 patients were enrolled into survival analysis. Survival curve was presented by Kaplan-Meier method.RESULTS:As compared to 2FL group, the 3FL group had significantly higher ratio of N3 patients [19.8% (18/91) vs. 5.3% (15/284), P=0.000], stageIII( patients [58.2%(53/91) vs. 43.0%(122/284), P=0.007], and upper thoracic cancer patients [12.1%(11/91) vs. 3.5%(10/284), P=0.027]; also the 3FL group had more harvested lymph nodes (40.1±14.6 vs. 25.3±9.4, P=0.000) and more positive lymph nodes (3.3±4.0 vs. 1.7±3.2, P=0.000). With respect to pneumonia and respiratory failure, chylothorax, reoperation and 90-day death, no significant differences were found between the group (P=0.447, P=0.751, P=0.678, P=0.685). The 3FL group had a significantly higher incidence of anastomotic leakage than 2FL group [7.7% (7/91) vs. 1.8% (5/284), P=0.011], while its incidence of intrathoracic anastomosis leakage was 4.0% (3/75), which was not significantly different with 1.8%(5/284) of 2FL group (P=0.372). Median follow-up was 33 months. Overall 1-, 2-, 3-year survival rates were 94%, 81% and 70%, while 1-, 2-, 3-year survival rates of 3FL group were 90%, 73% and 66%, of 2FL group were 95%, 84% and 72%, respectively, without significant differences between the two group(P=0.135). Further subgroup analysis showed that no significant differences of postoperative survival in stage I(, II( and III( patients were observed between the two groups (P=0.541, P=0.511, P=0.402), meanwhile no significant differences of postoperative survival in patients with metastasis and without metastasis were found between the two groups as well (P=0.985, P=0.233).CONCLUSIONS:Three-field lymphadenectomy can be performed with acceptable perioperative morbidity and mortality. The prognosis value of three field lymphadenectomy needs further investigation. Patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma may have favorable survival through normative Ivor-Lewis two-field lymphadenectomy.

Comparison of three-dimensional vs. two-dimensional assisted thoracoscopy for recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph nodes dissection in esophagectomy: a retrospective study

Three-field Versus Two-Field Lymph Node Dissection for Thoracic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: a Propensity Score-Matched Comparison.

Comparison of 2-field lymphadenectomy with 3-field lymphadenectomy for middle third thoracic esophageal carcinomas

[Efficacy Comparison Between Two-Field and Three-Field Lymphadenectomy for Thoracic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma].

Thoracic recurrent laryngeal lymph node metastases predict cervical node metastases and benefit from three-field dissection in selected patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

RA02.01: COMPARISON OF THREE-FIELD VERSUS TWO-FIELD LYMPHADENECTOMY FOR THORACIC MIDDLE AND LOWER ESOPHAGEAL CANCER: POST-OPERATIVE RESULTS OF A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL

A novel method for lymphadenectomy along the left laryngeal recurrent nerve during thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal carcinoma

A comparative study for three methods of thoracoscopic resection of lung cancer

Comparison of Video-assisted Thoracoscopic with Open Dissection of Systematic Mediastinal Lymph Nodes for Clinical Stage Ⅰ Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Clinical Analysis of Lymphadenectomy in Patients with Esophageal Carcinoma Underwent Single Left Thoracal Incision and Cervico-Right Thoracic-Abdominal Triple Incision

A Comparison of Different Surgical Approaches for the Treatment of Thoracic Middle/lower Segment Esophageal Cancer

Single-blind Randomized Controlled Comparison of 3D and 2D Assistive Functions in Transoral Endoscopic Thyroid Surgery

Esophagectomy With Three-Field Versus Two-Field Lymphadenectomy for Middle and Lower Thoracic Esophageal Cancer: Long-Term Outcomes of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Three-Field or Two-Field Resection for Thoracic Esophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

254 lymph node dissection in t1 and t2 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: minimally invasive esophagectomy versus open surgery

Comparison of Clinical Outcome and Safety after Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: Ivor Lewis Versus McKeown—A Real-World Multicenter Observational Study from China.

Three-field versus two-field lymphadenectomy in transthoracic oesophagectomy for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma: short-term outcomes of a randomized clinical trial

Video Assisted Thoracic Surgery Vs. Thoracotomy for Locally Advanced Lung Squamous Cell Carcinoma after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Metastatic patterns of subcarinal, right and left recurrent laryngeal nerve lymph nodes in thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma without neoadjuvant therapy

Three-Field Versus Two-Field Lymphadenectomy in Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy: 3-Year Survival Outcomes of a Randomized Trial

Feasibility and Safety of Radical Mediastinal Lymphadenectomy in Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer