Five-Year Survival Outcomes of Hybrid Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy in Esophageal Cancer: Results of the MIRO Randomized Clinical Trial

Abstract

Importance: Available data comparing the long-term results of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (HMIE) with that of open esophagectomy are conflicting, with similar or even better results reported for the minimally invasive esophagectomy group.

Objective: To evaluate the long-term, 5-year outcomes of HMIE vs open esophagectomy, including overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and pattern of disease recurrence, and the potential risk factors associated with these outcomes.

Design, setting, and participants: This randomized clinical trial is a post hoc follow-up study that analyzes the results of the open-label Multicentre Randomized Controlled Phase III Trial, which enrolled patients from 13 different centers in France and was conducted from October 26, 2009, to April 4, 2012. Eligible patients were 18 to 75 years of age and were diagnosed with resectable cancer of the middle or lower third of the esophagus. After exclusions, patients were randomized to either the HMIE group or the open esophagectomy group. Data analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis from November 19, 2019, to December 4, 2020.

Interventions: Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy (laparoscopic gastric mobilization with open right thoracotomy) was compared with open esophagectomy.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary end points of this follow-up study were 5-year OS and DFS. The secondary end points were the site of disease recurrence and potential risk factors associated with DFS and OS.

Results: A total of 207 patients were randomized, of whom 175 were men (85%), and the median (range) age was 61 (23-78) years. The median follow-up duration was 58.2 (95% CI, 56.5-63.8) months. The 5-year OS was 59% (95% CI, 48%-68%) in the HMIE group and 47% (95% CI, 37%-57%) in the open esophagectomy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.48-1.06). The 5-year DFS was 52% (95% CI, 42%-61%) in the HMIE group vs 44% (95% CI, 34%-53%) in the open esophagectomy group (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.55-1.17). No statistically significant difference in recurrence rate or location was found between groups. In a multivariable analysis, major intraoperative and postoperative complications (HR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.41-3.45; P < .001) and major pulmonary complications (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.21-3.10; P = .005) were identified as risk factors associated with decreased OS. Similarly, multivariable analysis of DFS identified overall intraoperative and postoperative complications (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.28-2.90; P = .002) and major pulmonary complications (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.19-2.86; P = .006) as risk factors.

Conclusions and relevance: This study found no difference in long-term survival between the HMIE and open esophagectomy groups. Major postoperative overall complications and pulmonary complications appeared to be independent risk factors in decreased OS and DFS, providing additional evidence that HMIE may be associated with improved oncological results compared with open esophagectomy primarily because of a reduction in postoperative complications.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00937456.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Mabrut reported receiving grants from the National Cancer Research Project during the conduct of the study. Dr Piessen reported receiving grants from Institut National du Cancer during the conduct of the study; nonfinancial support in the past from Medtronic; and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Stryker, and Nestlé as well as personal fees in the past from Amgen, Hoffmann-La Roche, and MSD outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

Figures

Figure 1.. CONSORT Diagram of the Study Population

HMIE indicates hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Figure 2.. Kaplan-Meier Analysis of Overall Survival and Disease-Free Survival

HMIE indicates hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy.