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

ZHANG Ya-wei,HU Hong,MIAO Long-sheng,MA Long-fei,ZHANG Jie,LI He-cheng,CHEN Hai-quan,XIANG Jia-qing
2008-01-01
Abstract:Background and purpose:For esophageal cancer, the tumor cells frequently spread to upper mediastinal and cervical lymph nodes, and the lymphatic recurrence was the most important death cause after surgical treatment, which made the extent of lymphadenectomy controversial in esophageal cancers, especially in middle third thoracic esophageal carcinomas. The controversy mainly focused on which of 2-field or 3-field lymphadenectomy was better. We described the distribution of lymph node metastases using 2-field or 3-field lymphadenectomy for esophageal squamous cell carcinomas and evaluated the impact of these two types of lymphadenectomy based on N classification. Methods:We retrospectively reviewed 96 patients who were treated surgically with middle third thoracic esophageal carcinoma from January 2005 to June 2006. The tumor length ranged from 3 to 5 cm. 55 patients were treated by 2-fi eld lymphadenectomy combined with Ivor Lewis’ esophagectomy, and the remain 41 patients were treated by 3-fi eld lymphadenectomy combined with Akiyama’s esophagectomy. The metastases rates of each station lymph node were calculated, the numbers of each station lymph nodes dissected were analyzed. The difference of metastases rate was tested with two-tailed χ2 test, and difference of mean was tested with independent t test. Results: The lymph node metastases (LNM) of different stations occurred concurrently or solitarily in many patients. The highestlymph node metastasis sites were superaclavicular nodes, midddle paraesophagus nodes, paracardiac nodes, and recurrent nerve lymphatic chains. The number of dissected nodes in 3-fi eld group was much higher than that in 2-fi eld group. The LNM rate was 49.1% in 2-fi eld group, and 70.7% in 3-fi eld group(χ2=4.526,P=0.033), respectively. The LNM rate limited to the cervical area in 3-fi eld group was 24.3%. The upper mediastinal LNM rate in 3-fi eld group was much higher than that in 2-fi eld group; it was 26.8% to 10.9%(χ2=4.085,P=0.043). The number of dissected nodes accompanying left recurrent laryngeal nerve in thoracic cavity in 3-f ield group was much more higher than that in 2-f ield group, it was 1 to 0.5(F=5.771,P=0.04). Conclusions:For middle third thoracic esophageal carcinomas, patients verifi ed as N1 classifi caton after 2-fi eld lymphadenectomy cannot be included into M classifi cation because of positive cervical nodes. It also cannot be determined whether the cervical and upper mediastinal nodes were metastases in N0 patients after 2-fi eld lymphadenectomy. 3-fi eld lymphadenectomy was recommended if there is no evidence excluding metastases of cervical or upper mediastinal nodes.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?