Skip to main content

Development and validation of a novel nomogram for postoperative pulmonary complications following minimally invasive esophageal cancer surgery

Abstract

Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) are the most common complications following minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) and can be associated with adverse outcomes. This study aims to construct a nomogram based on clinical factors to predict PPCs and investigate related early outcomes. Clinical data of 969 consecutive patients receiving MIE were retrospectively collected. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed to select independent predictors. Using independent predictors to develop a nomogram and using a bootstrap-resampling approach to conduct internal verification. Early outcomes of PPCs were analyzed. The incidence of PPCs following MIE was 39.6% (384 out of 969). In multivariate analysis, older age (Odds ratio (OR) 1.034, P < 0.001), higher body mass index (OR 0.993, P = 0.003), heavy smoking (OR 1.396, P = 0.027), FEV1/FVC < 105% (OR 1.958, P < 0.001), chemoradiotherapy (OR 0.653, P = 0.039), estimated blood loss ≥ 400 mL (OR 2.582, P = 0.018), general anesthesia (vs Combined thoracic paravertebral blockade, OR 1.578, P = 0.014), operative time ≥ 240 min (OR 1.388, P = 0.027), squamous cell carcinoma (OR 2.099, P = 0.036) and conversion to thoracotomy (OR 2.820, P = 0.026) were independent predictors for PPCs. These ten independent predictors were used to develop a nomogram, with concordance index (C index) value of 0.662 and good calibration. After internal validation, similarly good calibration and discrimination (C index, 0.654; 95% CI 0.614–0.690) were observed. Patients developing PPCs had higher rates of anastomotic leakage, reoperation, ICU and 30-day readmissions, and prolonged ICU and hospital stays (P < 0.05). Our study identified ten predictors for PPCs, which were associated with poor early outcomes. The proposed nomogram can be a useful tool to identify patients at high risk of PPCs after MIE.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Simard EP, Ward EM, Siegel R, Jemal A (2012) Cancers with increasing incidence trends in the United States: 1999 through 2008 (published correction appears in CA Cancer J Clin. 2012 ;62 (4):277). CA Cancer J Clin 62(2):118–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Sjoquist KM, Burmeister BH, Smithers BM et al (2011) Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable esophageal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 12:681–692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Lagergren J, Smyth E, Cunningham D, Lagergren P (2017) esophageal cancer. Lancet 390(10110):2383–2396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Grimminger PP, Goense L, Gockel I et al (2018) Diagnosis, assessment, and management of surgical complications following esophagectomy. Ann NY Acad Sci 1434(1):254–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Xu QL, Li H, Zhu YJ, Xu G (2020) The treatments and postoperative complications of esophageal cancer: a review. J Cardiothorac Surg 15(1):163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Mariette C, Dahan L, Mornex F et al (2014) Surgery alone versus chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery for stage I and II esophageal cancer: final analysis of randomized controlled phase III trial FFCD 9901. J Clin Oncol 32(23):2416–2422

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Bonavina L, Scolari F, Aiolfi A et al (2016) Early outcome of thoracoscopic and hybrid esophagectomy: propensity-matched comparative analysis. Surgery 159(4):1073–1081

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Sihag S, Wright CD, Wain JC et al (2012) Comparison of perioperative outcomes following open versus minimally invasive Ivor Lewis esophagectomy at a single, high-volume centre. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 42(3):430–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Yamashita K, Makino T, Miyata H et al (2016) Postoperative infectious complications are associated with adverse oncologic outcomes in esophageal cancer patients undergoing preoperative chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol 23(6):2106–2114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Nathan H, Yin H, Wong SL (2017) Postoperative complications and long-term survival after complex cancer resection. Ann Surg Oncol 24(3):638–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Andalib A, Ramana-Kumar AV, Bartlett G et al (2013) Influence of postoperative infectious complications on long-term survival of lung cancer patients: a population-based cohort study. J Thorac Oncol 8(5):554–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Peng JS, Kukar M, Mann GN, Hochwald SN (2019) Minimally invasive esophageal cancer surgery. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 28(2):177–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Nagpal K, Ahmed K, Vats A et al (2010) Is minimally invasive surgery beneficial in the management of esophageal cancer? A meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 24:1621–1629

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW et al (2012) Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 379:1887–1892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O et al (2012) Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg 256:95–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Straatman J, Van der Wielen N, Cuesta MA et al (2017) Minimally invasive versus open esophageal resection: three-year follow-up of the previously reported randomized controlled trial: the TIME trial. Ann Surg 266:232–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Ohi M, Toiyama Y, Omura Y et al (2019) Risk factors and measures of pulmonary complications after thoracoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Surg Today 49(2):176–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Uchihara T, Yoshida N, Baba Y et al (2018) Risk factors for pulmonary morbidities after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. Surg Endosc 32(6):2852–2858

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Jammer I, Wickboldt N, Sander M et al (2015) Standards for definitions and use of outcome measures for clinical effectiveness research in perioperative medicine: European perioperative clinical outcome (EPCO) definitions: a statement from the ESA-ESICM joint taskforce on perioperative outcome measures. Eur J Anaesthesiol 32:88–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Zhang XJ, Sun JG, Sun J, Ming H, Wang XX, Wu L, Chen ZT (2012) Prediction of radiation pneumonitis in lung cancer patients: a systematic review. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 138(12):2103–2116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Wightman SC, Posner MC, Patti MG et al (2017) Extremes of body mass index and postoperative complications after esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus 30(5):1–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Ertilav M, Levin WN, Celtik A et al (2019) Impact of body mass index on short-term and long-term survival in prevalent hemodialysis patients. Hemodial Int 23(3):375–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Molena D, Mungo B, Stem M, Lidor AO (2014) Incidence and risk factors for respiratory complications in patients undergoing esophagectomy for malignancy: a NSQIP analysis. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 26(4):287–294

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Law S, Wong KH, Kwok KF, Chu KM, Wong J (2004) Predictive factors for postoperative pulmonary complications and mortality after esophagectomy for cancer. Ann Surg 240(5):791–800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Goense L, Meziani J, Bülbül M, Braithwaite SA, van Hillegersberg R, Ruurda JP (2019) Pulmonary diffusion capacity predicts major complications after esophagectomy for patients with esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doy082

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Grotenhuis BA, van Hagen P, Reitsma JB, Lagarde SM, Wijnhoven BP, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Tilanus HW, van Lanschot JJ (2010) Validation of a nomogram predicting complications after esophagectomy for cancer. Ann Thorac Surg 90(3):920–925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Billmeier SE, Jaklitsch MT (2011) Pulmonary surgery for malignant disease in the elderly. In: Rosenthal RA, Zenilman ME, Katlic MR (eds) Principles and practice of geriatric surgery, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, pp 605–616

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Nishigori T, Okabe H, Tanaka E et al (2016) Sarcopenia as a predictor of pulmonary complications after esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer. J Surg Oncol 113(6):678–684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Wagner D, DeMarco MM, Amini N, Buttner S, Segev D, Gani F, Pawlik TM (2016) Role of frailty and sarcopenia in predicting outcomes among patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. World J Gastrointest Surg 8:27–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Wilke TJ, Bhirud AR, Lin C (2015) A review of the impact of preoperative chemoradiotherapy on outcome and postoperative complications in esophageal cancer patients. Am J Clin Oncol 38(4):415–421

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Morita M, Yoshida R, Ikeda K et al (2008) Advances in esophageal cancer surgery in Japan: an analysis of 1000 consecutive patients treated at a single institute. Surgery 143:499–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Doty JR, Salazar JD, Forastiere AA et al (2002) Postesophagectomy morbidity, mortality, and length of hospital stay after preoperative chemoradiation therapy. Ann Thorac Surg 74:227–231 (discussion 231)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Tong C, Li T, Huang C et al (2020) Risk factors and impact of conversion to thoracotomy from 20,565 cases of thoracoscopic lung surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 109(5):1522–1529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Tong C, Zhu H, Li B, Wu J, Xu M (2019) Impact of paravertebral blockade use in geriatric patients undergoing thoracic surgery on postoperative adverse outcomes. J Thorac Dis 11(12):5169–5176

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Our research team would like to thank Dr. Zhigang Li and Dr. Bin Li thoracic surgeons in Shanghai Chest Hospital, Shanghai, China, for their involvement and support.

Funding

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (82071233).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Study conception and design: JW and CT; acquisition of data: JW and CT; analysis and interpretation of data JW, CT and YL; drafting of manuscript: JW, CT and YL; critical revision of manuscript: all authors; approval of the final version of manuscript: all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jingxiang Wu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethics approval

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Shanghai Chest Hospital (ChiCTR1900022257), and the informed consent was waived because of the retrospective nature of the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tong, C., Liu, Y. & Wu, J. Development and validation of a novel nomogram for postoperative pulmonary complications following minimally invasive esophageal cancer surgery. Updates Surg (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13304-021-01196-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Esophageal cancer
  • Minimally invasive esophagectomy
  • Postoperative pulmonary complications
  • Nomogram