title: Adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction: influence of esophageal resection margin and operative approach on outcome.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To determine whether the length of esophageal resection or the operative approach influences outcome for patients with adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ).
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  While R0 resection remains the mainstay of curative treatment of patients with GEJ cancer, the optimal length of esophageal resection remains controversial.
  
  
  METHODS
  Patients with Siewert I, II, or III adenocarcinoma who underwent complete gross resection without neoadjuvant therapy were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Proximal margin lengths were recorded ex vivo as the distance from the gross tumor edge to the esophageal transection line. Operative approaches were grouped into gastrectomy (limited esophagectomy) or esophagectomy (extended esophagectomy).
  
  
  RESULTS
  From 1985 through 2003, 505 patients underwent R0/R1 gastrectomy (n = 153) or esophagectomy (n = 352) without neoadjuvant treatment. There were no differences in R1 resection rate, number of nodes examined or operative mortality between gastrectomy and esophagectomy. Univariate analysis found >3.8 cm to be the ex vivo proximal margin length (approximately 5 cm in situ) most predictive of improved survival. Multivariable analysis in patients who underwent R0 resection with >or=15 lymph nodes examined (n = 275) found the number of positive lymph nodes, T stage, tumor grade, and ex vivo proximal margin length >3.8 cm to be independent prognostic factors. Subset analysis found that the benefit associated with >3.8 cm margin was limited to patients with T2 or greater tumors and <or=6 positive lymph nodes.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In patients not receiving neoadjuvant therapy, the goal for patients with adenocarcinoma of the GEJ should be R0 resection including at least 15 lymph nodes, preferably with 5 cm of grossly normal in situ proximal esophagus for those with <or=6 positive lymph nodes. The operative approach may be individualized to achieve these goals.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10021, USA.
authors.forename: Andrew P
authors.initials: AP
authors.lastname: Barbour
authors.forename: Nabil P
authors.initials: NP
authors.lastname: Rizk
authors.forename: Mithat
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Gonen
authors.forename: Laura
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Tang
authors.forename: Manjit S
authors.initials: MS
authors.lastname: Bains
authors.forename: Valerie W
authors.initials: VW
authors.lastname: Rusch
authors.forename: Daniel G
authors.initials: DG
authors.lastname: Coit
authors.forename: Murray F
authors.initials: MF
authors.lastname: Brennan
mesh_terms: D000230:Adenocarcinoma / Q000401:mortality / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D004938:Esophageal Neoplasms / Q000401:mortality / Q000473:pathology / Q000601:surgery*; D016629:Esophagectomy / Q000379:methods*; D004943:Esophagogastric Junction; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005743:Gastrectomy / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009367:Neoplasm Staging; D011446:Prospective Studies; D015996:Survival Rate; D016896:Treatment Outcome