Surgical approach and the impact of epidural analgesia on survival after esophagectomy for cancer: A population-based retrospective cohort study

Abstract

Background

Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer carries high morbidity and mortality, particularly in older patients. Transthoracic esophagectomy allows formal lymphadenectomy, but leads to greater perioperative morbidity and pain than transhiatal esophagectomy. Epidural analgesia may attenuate the stress response and be less immunosuppressive than opioids, potentially affecting long-term outcomes. These potential benefits may be more pronounced for transthoracic esophagectomy due to its greater physiologic impact. We evaluated the impact of epidural analgesia on survival and recurrence after transthoracic versus transhiatal esophagectomy.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Patients aged ≥66 years with locoregional esophageal cancer diagnosed 1994–2009 who underwent esophagectomy were identified, with follow-up through December 31, 2013. Epidural receipt and surgical approach were identified from Medicare claims. Survival analyses adjusting for hospital esophagectomy volume, surgical approach, and epidural use were performed. A subgroup analysis restricted to esophageal adenocarcinoma patients was performed.

Results

Among 1,921 patients, 38% underwent transhiatal esophagectomy (n = 730) and 62% underwent transthoracic esophagectomy (n = 1,191). 61% (n = 1,169) received epidurals and 39% (n = 752) did not. Epidural analgesia was associated with transthoracic approach and higher volume hospitals. Patients with epidural analgesia had better 90-day survival. Five-year survival was higher with transhiatal esophagectomy (37.2%) than transthoracic esophagectomy (31.0%, p = 0.006). Among transthoracic esophagectomy patients, epidural analgesia was associated with improved 5-year survival (33.5% epidural versus 26.5% non-epidural, p = 0.012; hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval [0.70, 0.93]). Among the subgroup of esophageal adenocarcinoma patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy, epidural analgesia remained associated with improved 5-year survival (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval [0.67, 0.96]); this survival benefit persisted in sensitivity analyses adjusting for propensity to receive an epidural.

Conclusion

Among patients undergoing transthoracic esophagectomy, including a subgroup restricted to esophageal adenocarcinoma, epidural analgesia was associated with improved survival even after adjusting for other factors.

About the Authors:

Kenneth C. Cummings III

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft

Affiliations Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America, Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America, Department of Anesthesiology, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America

Tzuyung Doug Kou

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization

Affiliation: Department of Quantitative and Population Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America

Amitabh Chak

Roles Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America, Department of Medicine, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America, Department of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America

Mark D. Schluchter

Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Software, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America, Department of Quantitative and Population Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America

Seunghee Margevicius

Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Software, Validation

Affiliations Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America, Department of Quantitative and Population Health Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America

Gregory S. Cooper

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America, Department of Medicine, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America, Department of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America

Neal J. Meropol

Roles Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Current address: Flatiron Health, New York, New York, United States of America

Affiliation: Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America

Yaron Perry

Roles Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Department of Surgery, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America, Department of Surgery, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America

Philip A. Linden

Roles Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America, Department of Surgery, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America, Department of Surgery, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America

Linda C. Cummings

Roles Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Visualization, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Case Comprehensive Cancer Center, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America, Department of Medicine, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America, Department of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America

ORCID logo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8767-2795

Introduction

Approximately 17,290 new esophageal cancer cases are expected in the U.S. in 2018, with 15,850 deaths.[1] The histologic subtype of most new cases in the U.S. is adenocarcinoma; its incidence has been rising over the past several decades.[2] With a median age of 68 at diagnosis,[3] esophageal cancer has a 5-year disease-free survival of <40% after treatment with resection alone,[4, 5] reflecting early spread and recurrence. While the addition of neoadjuvant therapy has led to improvements in 5-year progression-free survival to 44%, prognosis for this disease remains poor.[6] Survival after recurrence is 6–12 months,[5, 7, 8] occurring a median of 10–12 months postoperatively.[4, 7, 8]

Esophagectomy is potentially curative but carries high morbidity and mortality,[9, 10] particularly with a transthoracic approach (TTE). The transhiatal approach (THE) may reduce perioperative mortality,[11] but precludes a full thoracic lymphadenectomy. Mortality after esophagectomy is associated with lower hospital esophagectomy volume.[12, 13] Esophagectomy results in circulating tumor cells which may promote subsequent metastasis.[14] Perioperative factors including surgery,[15] the stress response,[16] blood transfusion,[17] opioids,[18] and general anesthesia[19] impair immune function. TTE may suppress immune function more substantially than THE through a greater reduction in T-helper type 2 cytokine production,[15] while epidural analgesia (EA) may be less immunosuppressive than opioids by achieving superior pain control, thereby attenuating the surgical stress response.[20] EA may also support immune function by reducing systemic opioid exposure. Surgical approach and EA may therefore modulate immune activity, potentially impacting long-term outcomes through effects on tumor surveillance.

We previously reported that EA is associated with improved survival for colorectal cancer.[21] We hypothesized that EA improves long-term outcomes in esophageal cancer. We therefore aimed to assess the impact of EA on survival and recurrence after esophagectomy, with adjustment for surgical approach due to the potential impact of surgical approach on immune function.

Materials and methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results tumor registry linked to billing data from Medicare, a U.S. federal government insurance program that primarily benefits individuals aged ≥65 years (SEER-Medicare). Approval was obtained from the University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center’s Institutional Review Board and the National Cancer Institute (NCI). Informed consent was not obtained because the data did not contain personal identifiers, and the patients whose data were being reviewed had already been seen, treated, and released from medical care.

Data sources

SEER provides cancer incidence and survival from registries currently covering approximately 28% of the U.S. population. The geographic areas covered by SEER are reflective of the demographics of the general population in the U.S.[22] SEER data include demographics, tumor site, histology, surgical stage, survival, and initial treatment. Linkage to billing data from Medicare allows identification of comorbidities and treatment after the first 4 months. Surgical resection can be identified from SEER and from Medicare inpatient billing data or Medicare bills from individual physicians. The latter two sources contain International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision-Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) codes and Common Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, respectively. Common Procedural Terminology codes are common 5-character alphanumeric codes used in insurance claims in the U.S. to designate specific surgical or medical procedures.

Study population

Patients aged ≥66 years with incident esophageal cancer diagnosed 1994–2009 who underwent esophagectomy were identified. Participation in Medicare inpatient (Part A) and outpatient (Part B) coverage from 6 months before diagnosis until 8 months after diagnosis was required to capture comorbidities and perioperative complications. Patients aged >65 but <66 years were excluded due to lack of data on comorbid conditions; in addition, patients aged <65 years with Medicare were eligible due to disability or end stage renal disease and therefore may have differed in other ways from those in the cohort. Health maintenance organization participants were excluded due to incomplete claims.

Measures

Patient, tumor, and geographic characteristics.

Available demographics included age, race, geographic region, gender, and county-level education and income data. Cases with squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma histology with localized or regional SEER Summary Stage were included. In the SEER staging system, cases are classified as localized (local disease including extension to the muscularis propria or submucosa), regional (direct extension or regional lymph node involvement), or distant (distant lymph nodes or metastasis). Comorbidities were identified using a modified Deyo adaptation of the Charlson comorbidity index[23], excluding malignancy.

Esophagectomy and hospital esophagectomy volume.

Transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomies were identified from procedure codes (Appendix). Hospital identifiers in Medicare inpatient or physician-supplier claims were used to calculate hospital esophagectomy volume, ranked into quintiles. Additionally, hospital volume cutpoints specific to each surgical group were determined for sensitivity analyses assessing the impact of EA within each surgical group. Cases missing hospital identifiers were excluded.

Analgesia and perioperative transfusion.

Thoracic epidural analgesia was identified from CPT codes for epidural placement or management[21, 24, 25] within 7 days of esophagectomy. Patients without these codes were classified in the non-epidural group. Blood transfusion within 7 days of esophagectomy was identified using ICD-9-CM procedure codes.[26]

Recurrence.

Among patients surviving ≥6 months postoperatively, recurrence was defined by meeting ≥1 of 4 criteria ≥6 months after completion of the initial treatment for esophageal cancer: 1) chemotherapy; 2) radiation; 3) ≥2 Medicare claims containing matching secondary neoplasm ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes (Appendix); or 4) death attributed to esophageal neoplasm.[21, 24, 25] The earliest claim date constituted the recurrence date.

Statistical analysis

Baseline characteristics by pain management approach and surgical approach were compared using summary statistics. Categorical and continuous variables were compared using chi-square and independent samples t-tests, respectively. P values <0.05 were considered significant. Overall survival (OS) was measured from esophagectomy until death. Time to recurrence was measured starting from 6 months after completion of initial treatment until recurrence; patients dying without known recurrence were censored at time of death. OS and time to recurrence were administratively censored December 31, 2013. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to assess overall survival (survival cohort) or event-free survival (recurrence cohort) by epidural status. Z-tests were conducted comparing Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year survival rates, and log rank tests with censoring at 5 years were used to compare OS and recurrence curves. Median follow-up times were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier estimate of potential follow-up method.[27]

Marginal Cox models were used to adjust for clustering by hospital identifier[28] to assess associations between epidural analgesia and 1) OS and 2) time to recurrence while accounting for surgical approach. Because the test for an interaction for surgical approach with EA was significant in the survival model, marginal Cox models within each surgical group assessing associations between 1) EA and OS and 2) EA and time to recurrence were developed as sensitivity analyses. In addition, survival analyses within each surgical group were performed using propensity score methods. Propensity scores [29] predicting the probability of receiving epidural analgesia were generated from nonparsimonious logistic regression models containing all observed covariates felt to be predictors of use of EA. Marginal Cox models within each surgical group were developed stratifying by propensity score quartile.

To examine the impact of EA on long-term survival without potential for confounding due to histologic subtype, a subgroup analysis restricted to esophageal adenocarcinoma patients was performed. Within this subgroup, in addition to generating marginal Cox models to assess associations between EA and 1) OS and 2) time to recurrence, sensitivity analyses were performed using propensity scores predicting the probability of receiving epidural analgesia.[29] Propensity scores were generated from nonparsimonious logistic regression models containing all observed covariates evaluated in the marginal Cox models. These survival analyses were performed using marginal Cox regression, stratifying on propensity score quartiles.

SAS version 9.3 (Cary, NC) was used for all analyses.

Results

We identified 1,921 patients meeting criteria (Fig 1), including 1,191 TTE and 730 THE patients. Baseline characteristics by pain management and surgical approaches are shown (Table 1). EA was given in 60.9% (n = 1,169) of cases, was associated with higher esophagectomy volume (p<0.0001) and was more common with TTE (64.3%, n = 766 vs. 55.2%, n = 403 for THE). THE patients were slightly older and more likely to have localized stage and Charlson score ≥2. Differences in esophagectomy volume were seen with surgical approach (p<0.0001); while TTE was more common with mid-range volume (quintiles 2–4), THE was more common at highest volume hospitals (quintile 5). The median follow-up time in the overall cohort was 2.2 years. Median follow-up time was slightly longer within the THE group (2.5 years) and slightly shorter within the TTE group (2.0 years).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 1. Stepwise identification of cohort.

The proportion of patients excluded at each step is provided in parentheses.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211125.g001

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 1. Baseline characteristics in cohort by pain management approach and surgical approach.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211125.t001

Short-term outcomes

Patients with EA had lower 30-day and 90-day mortality than those without. Per NCI policy, 30-day mortality rates cannot be reported due to counts <11. Ninety-day mortality was 5.6% (65/1,169) with EA and 8.9% (67/752) without EA (p = 0.005).

Overall survival

Fig 2 shows Kaplan-Meier curves displaying survival by pain management and surgical approaches. Five-year survival was better with THE versus TTE and, among TTE patients, better with EA (Fig 3). The multivariable marginal Cox model examining the association between EA and time to death is shown (Table 2), including an interaction term for surgical approach and epidural status which was significant (p = 0.009). The adjusted mortality hazard ratio (HR) for EA among TTE patients was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70, 0.93; p = 0.0035), indicating better survival among TTE patients receiving EA. The HR for EA among THE patients was non-significant (1.10, 95% CI 0.91, 1.34).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 2. Kaplan-Meier overall survival curves for patients undergoing transthoracic or transhiatal esophagectomy with or without epidural analgesia.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211125.g002

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Fig 3. Five-year survival by surgical approach and, within each surgical group, by epidural status.

P values are from Z-tests comparing Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year survival rates.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211125.g003

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 2. Marginal Cox model for time to death (5-year survival).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211125.t002

Surgical approach also impacted survival: among non-epidural patients, THE was associated with lower mortality (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63, 0.90), while there was no association with mortality among THE patients receiving EA (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.88, 1.21). Female gender, adenocarcinoma, and higher hospital volume were associated with a decreased risk of death, while age, regional stage, and Charlson score of 1 or ≥2 were predictors of mortality. Radiation in the first course of treatment and perioperative transfusions were not significantly associated with time to death. Sensitivity analyses examining the impact of epidural receipt on OS within each surgical group also demonstrated an association between EA and decreased mortality with TTE (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70, 0.93; S1 Table), but not with THE (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.89, 1.33). Additionally, in sensitivity analyses stratified by propensity score quartile within each surgical group, EA was associated with decreased mortality with TTE (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68, 0.92; S2 Table), but not with THE (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.90, 1.33; S2 Table).

Time to recurrence

The recurrence analysis included 1,635 patients (85% of the cohort) surviving ≥6 months, among whom 62.5% (n = 1,023) received epidurals and 37.4% (n = 612) did not. Fifty-three percent of these patients (n = 864) met criteria for recurrence. In a multivariable marginal Cox model, hazard ratios for the association between EA and time to recurrence were 0.86 (95% CI 0.72, 1.04) for TTE and 1.14 (95% CI 0.90, 1.43) for THE (Table 3). To maintain consistency with the OS model, an interaction term between surgical approach and epidural receipt was included although the term was not significant (p = 0.069). Adenocarcinoma was associated with decreased recurrence, while increasing age and regional stage were associated with increased risk of recurrence. Marginal Cox models within each surgical group did not show an association between EA and time to recurrence (TTE, 0.85 [95% CI 0.70, 1.02]; THE, 1.09 [95% CI 0.85, 1.38]; S1 Table).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 3. Marginal Cox model for time to recurrence.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211125.t003

Subgroup analysis restricted to esophageal adenocarcinoma

A subgroup analysis restricted to the 1,343 esophageal adenocarcinoma patients in the cohort was performed. Among adenocarcinoma patients, 817 underwent TTE and 526 underwent THE (Table 4). EA was utilized in 61% of cases (n = 821), remained associated with higher esophagectomy volume (p<0.0001), and was more common with TTE (64.5%, n = 527 vs. 55.9%, n = 294 for THE). A marginal Cox model assessing the impact of EA on long-term survival demonstrated that EA was associated with improved survival among adenocarcinoma patients receiving TTE (Table 5; HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67, 0.96) but not among adenocarcinoma patients receiving THE (Table 5; HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.80, 1.27), while adjusting for other factors. There was no significant association between EA and time to recurrence among adenocarcinoma patients receiving TTE (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70, 1.10) or THE (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.83, 1.46). In sensitivity analyses stratified by PS quartile, among patients undergoing TTE, EA was associated with improved survival (S3 Table; HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67, 0.96) but not improved time to recurrence (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.70, 1.10).

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 4. Baseline characteristics among adenocarcinoma patients by pain management approach and surgical approach.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211125.t004

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

Table 5. Marginal Cox model for time to death (5-year survival) in adenocarcinoma patients.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211125.t005

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first population-based analysis of analgesic technique and long-term outcomes after esophagectomy. We found an interaction between epidural analgesia and surgical approach in the survival analysis; i.e., the effects of epidural analgesia and surgical approach on overall survival were dependent upon each other. Among non-epidural patients, THE was associated with improved overall survival. Among patients undergoing TTE, EA was associated with improved survival, including the subgroup of adenocarcinoma patients. This latter finding is consistent with our prior work in colorectal cancer[21] and a recent meta-analysis of the effects of EA on multiple outcomes.[30] Our results are also supported by a recent meta-analysis demonstrating improved overall and recurrence-free survival in patients receiving neuraxial anesthesia and/or analgesia for cancer resection.[31]

In the current study, EA was associated with higher hospital esophagectomy volume, which has been linked to improved survival.[12, 13, 32] We found that higher hospital esophagectomy volumes were independently associated with better survival (Table 2). Patients receiving EA were younger. Adenocarcinoma was associated with better survival, consistent with prior studies,[33, 34] while increasing age, higher comorbidity, and regional stage were associated with worse survival.

Improved survival with EA among TTE patients in our study could result from fewer postoperative complications. Prior studies have demonstrated beneficial effects of EA on numerous outcomes including anastomotic leak and respiratory failure.[30, 35, 36] Epidural analgesia could be associated with improved survival because higher-volume centers providing EA would have infrastructure and specialists needed to optimize management of major complications. Surgical outcomes, including the ability to rescue patients from major complications, have been linked to the degree of anesthesiologist involvement.[37] Additionally, although our analysis adjusts for Charlson score and age, patients receiving EA may have been healthier as a result of unmeasured comorbidities.

Although EA was associated with better survival within the TTE group, we found no association with time to recurrence. The recurrence algorithm, although intended to be specific, likely lacks sensitivity for non-treated recurrence and misclassifies some untreated recurrences as non-recurrence. This underscores the difficulty defining cancer recurrence using claims data without access to medical records.[38] Alternatively, there may be no effect of epidural analgesia on recurrence and any survival benefit would result from reduced perioperative complications.

In contrast with our previous studies,[21, 24] this analysis did not demonstrate any difference in survival with blood transfusions. Transfusions were likely undercoded, since other studies have reported transfusion rates of 38%-40% with esophagectomy.[39, 40] Despite prospective data in colorectal cancer showing that transfusion is associated with increased risk of recurrence,[17] the low transfusion rates of 9%-12% seen in this study reduced statistical power to detect an association with recurrence.

THE was associated with improved survival among non-epidural patients, adjusting for other factors including comorbid conditions, histology, and stage. This association remained in the subgroup analysis restricted to adenocarcinoma cases (Table 5). Previous analyses comparing TTE to THE have not included EA as a covariate. Chang et al. demonstrated higher 5-year survival for THE than TTE (30.5% vs. 22.7%, p = 0.02), but this difference did not persist after adjustment.[11] Other studies found no survival difference by surgical approach.[41, 42] A randomized trial showed potential benefit for TTE among patients with 1–8 positive nodes.[43] Some analyses report greater lymph node yield with TTE.[44, 45] Our findings may result from selection bias. The THE group was more likely to have localized stage; although our analysis adjusted for stage, confounders such as margin positivity, unmeasured comorbidities, or provider preferences (i.e., reserving TTE for more aggressive disease or younger patients) could have biased the results.

This analysis has several other limitations. Given its observational nature, causality cannot be inferred. Untreated recurrence could have been misclassified. Because detailed staging information is often incomplete, our analysis used SEER stage, which is more consistent over time although lacking granularity. We were also unable to distinguish open and minimally-invasive approaches. This would minimize differences between groups as patients undergoing minimally-invasive esophagectomy are less likely to receive EA. Over the study period, however, minimally-invasive approaches were less common than at present. To allow adequate follow-up, the cohort was from 2009 and earlier. Finally, clinical data regarding analgesic approaches in the non-epidural group were not available, resulting in a heterogenous group. Likewise, in the epidural group, clinical data detailing the degree of success of the epidural block were not available. However, patients with ineffective epidural analgesia would have been included in the EA group, which would have minimized the observed differences.

Our study has several strengths including a large sample size for a relatively uncommon malignancy. Our results are potentially more generalizable to the elderly than clinical trials, which often do not include older patients.[46] While a randomized trial comparing operative and analgesic approaches provides the strongest study design, physician biases and patient preferences could hamper accrual, as occurred with CALGB 9781.[47] Nonetheless, an ongoing study comparing epidural analgesia to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for pancreatoduodenectomy demonstrates that randomized controlled trials comparing alternative approaches in acute pain management are possible.[48]

Conclusions

In summary, this large population-based analysis demonstrates an association between epidural analgesia and improved survival after TTE, but not THE, for cancer. This association persisted in analyses restricted to patients with adenocarcinoma. Since no association between EA and recurrence was found, the results do not support the hypothesis that EA protects against recurrence by reducing immunosuppression and improving tumor surveillance when compared to systemic opioids. Given the limitations of SEER-Medicare data, prospective studies or registries with more detailed clinical information are needed to elucidate the effect of regional analgesic techniques on esophageal cancer recurrence, particularly in the era of minimally invasive approaches. Nonetheless, our findings support the importance of appropriate analgesic selection tailored to the surgical approach for esophageal cancer.

Supporting information

[Figure omitted. See PDF.]

S1 File. Appendix.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211125.s001

(DOCX)

S2 File. STROBE checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211125.s002

(DOC)

S1 Table. Marginal Cox models for time to death and time to recurrence within TTE group.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211125.s003

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Marginal Cox model for time to death (5-year survival) within each surgical group—Stratified by propensity score quartiles.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211125.s004

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Marginal Cox model for time to death (5-year survival) in adenocarcinoma patients—Stratified by propensity score quartiles.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211125.s005

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

This study used the linked SEER-Medicare database. The interpretation and reporting of these data are the sole responsibility of the authors. The authors acknowledge the efforts of the Applied Research Program, NCI; the Office of Research, Development and Information, CMS; Information Management Services (IMS), Inc.; and the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program tumor registries in the creation of the SEER-Medicare database.

Citation: Cummings III KC, Kou TD, Chak A, Schluchter MD, Margevicius S, Cooper GS, et al. (2019) Surgical approach and the impact of epidural analgesia on survival after esophagectomy for cancer: A population-based retrospective cohort study. PLoS ONE 14(1): e0211125. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211125

References

1. Siegel R, Miller K, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2018. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(1):7–30. pmid:29313949

2. Lagergren J, Lagergren P. Recent Developments in Esophageal Adenocarcinoma. CA Cancer J Clin. 2013;63:232–48. pmid:23818335

3. SEER Cancer Statistics Factsheets: Esophageal Cancer [accessed 5/14/18]. http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/esoph.html.

4. Thomson IG, Smithers BM, Gotley DC, Martin I, Thomas JM, O’Rourke P, et al. Thoracoscopic-Assisted Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: Analysis of Patterns and Prognostic Factors for Recurrence. Ann Surg. 2010;252(2):281–91 pmid:20647926

5. Smit JK, Pultrum BB, van Dullemen HM, Van Dam GM, Groen H, Plukker JTM. Prognostic factors and patterns of recurrence in esophageal cancer assert arguments for extended two-field transthoracic esophagectomy. Am J Surg. 2010;200(4):446–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.12.006 pmid:20409512

6. Shapiro J, van Lanschot JJB, Hulshof MCCM, van Hagen P, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Wijnhoven BPL, et al. Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy plus surgery versus surgery alone for oesophageal or junctional cancer (CROSS): long-term results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(9):1090–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00040-6 pmid:26254683

7. Abate E, DeMeester SR, Zehetner J, Oezcelik A, Ayazi S, Costales J, et al. Recurrence after Esophagectomy for Adenocarcinoma: Defining Optimal Follow-Up Intervals and Testing. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(4):428–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.01.006 pmid:20347734

8. Hsu P-K, Wang B-Y, Huang C-S, Wu Y-C, Hsu W-H. Prognostic Factors for Post-recurrence Survival in Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Patients with Recurrence after Resection. J Gastroint Surg. 2011;15(4):558–65. pmid:21327531

9. Low DE, Alderson D, Cecconello I, Chang AC, Darling GE, D’Journo XB, et al. International Consensus on Standardization of Data Collection for Complications Associated With Esophagectomy: Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG). Ann Surg. 2015;262(2):286–94. Epub 2015/01/22. pmid:25607756

10. In H, Palis B, Merkow R, Posner M, Ferguson M, Winchester D, et al. Doubling of 30-Day Mortality by 90 Days After Esophagectomy: A Critical Measure of Outcomes for Quality Improvement. Ann Surg. 2016;263(2):286–91. pmid:25915912

11. Chang AC, Ji H, Birkmeyer NJ, Orringer MB, Birkmeyer JD. Outcomes After Transhiatal and Transthoracic Esophagectomy for Cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2008;85(2):424–9. pmid:18222237

12. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EVA, Stukel TA, Lucas FL, Batista I, et al. Hospital Volume and Surgical Mortality in the United States. New Engl J Med. 2002;346(15):1128–37. pmid:11948273

13. Birkmeyer JD, Sun Y, Wong SL, Stukel TA. Hospital Volume and Late Survival After Cancer Surgery. Ann Surg. 2007;245(5):777–83. pmid:17457171

14. Liu Z, Jiang M, Zhao J, Ju H. Circulating Tumor Cells in Perioperative Esophageal Cancer Patients: Quantitative Assay System and Potential Clinical Utility. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(10):2992–7. pmid:17505001

15. van Sandick JW, Gisbertz SS, ten Berge I, Boermeester MA, van der Pouw Kraan TCTM, Out TA, et al. Immune responses and prediction of major infection in patients undergoing transhiatal or transthoracic esophagectomy for cancer. Ann Surg. 2003;237(1):35–43. pmid:12496528

16. Ben-Eliyahu S, Page GG, Yirmiya R, Shakhar G. Evidence that stress and surgical interventions promote tumor development by suppressing natural killer cell activity. Int J Cancer. 1999;80(6):880–8. pmid:10074922

17. Cata JP, Wang H, Gottumukkala V, Reuben J, Sessler DI. Inflammatory response, immunosuppression, and cancer recurrence after perioperative blood transfusions. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110(5):690–701. pmid:23599512

18. Yeager MP, Colacchio TA, Yu CT, Hildebrandt L, Howell AL, Weiss J, et al. Morphine Inhibits Spontaneous and Cytokine-enhanced Natural Killer Cell Cytotoxicity in Volunteers. Anesthesiology. 1995;83(3):500–8. pmid:7661350

19. Brand J-M, Kirchner H, Poppe C, Schmucker P. The Effects of General Anesthesia on Human Peripheral Immune Cell Distribution and Cytokine Production. Clin Immunol Immunopathol. 1997;83(2):190–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/clin.1997.4351. pmid:9143381

20. O’Riain SC, Buggy DJ, Kerin MJ, Watson RWG, Moriarty DC. Inhibition of the Stress Response to Breast Cancer Surgery by Regional Anesthesia and Analgesia Does Not Affect Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor and Prostaglandin E2. Anesth Analg. 2005;100(1):244–9. pmid:15616085

21. Cummings KC 3rd, Xu F, Cummings LC, Cooper GS. A comparison of epidural analgesia and traditional pain management effects on cancer recurrence after colectomy: A population based study. Anesthesiology. 2012;116(4):797–806. pmid:22273991

22. SEER Program Overview [accessed 10/7/2018]. https://seer.cancer.gov/about/factsheets/SEER_Overview.pdf.

23. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:613–9. pmid:1607900

24. Cummings KC 3rd, Patel M, Htoo PT, Bakaki PM, Cummings LC, Koroukian SM. A comparison of epidural analgesia and traditional pain management effects on outcomes after gastric cancer resection: A population-based study. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2014;39:200–7. pmid:24686324

25. Wu CL, Sapirstein A, Herbert R, Rowlingson AJ, Michaels RK, Petrovic MA, et al. Effect of postoperative epidural analgesia on morbidity and mortality after lung resection in Medicare patients. J Clin Anesth. 2006;18(7):515–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2006.03.005 pmid:17126780

26. Anderson S, Menis M, O’Connell K, Burwen D. Blood use by inpatient elderly population in the United States. Transfusion. 2007;47:582–92. pmid:17381615

27. Schemper M, Smith TL. A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time. Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(4):343–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(96)00075-X. pmid:8889347

28. Wei LJ, Lin DY, Weissfeld L. Regression Analysis of Multivariate Incomplete Failure Time Data by Modeling Marginal Distributions. J Am Stat Assoc. 1989;84(408):1065–73.

29. Austin P, Mamdani M, Stukel T, Anderson G, Tu J. The use of the propensity score for estimating treatment effects: administrative versus clinical data. Stat Med. 2005;24:1563–78. pmid:15706581

30. Pöpping DM, Elia N, Van Aken HK, Marret E, Schug SA, Kranke P, et al. Impact of Epidural Analgesia on Mortality and Morbidity After Surgery: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Ann Surg. 2014;259(6):1056–67. pmid:24096762

31. Weng M, Chen W, Hou W, Li L, Ding M, Miao C. The effect of neuraxial anesthesia on cancer recurrence and survival after cancer surgery: an updated meta-analysis. Oncotarget. 2016;7(12):15262–73. pmid:26918830

32. Reames BN, Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Hospital Volume and Operative Mortality in the Modern Era. Ann Surg. 2014;260(2):244–51. pmid:24368634

33. Stein HJ, Feith M, Bruecher BL, Naehrig J, Sarbia M, Siewert JR. Early Esophageal Cancer: Pattern of Lymphatic Spread and Prognostic Factors for Long-Term Survival After Surgical Resection. Ann Surg. 2005;242:260–9.

34. Rice TW, Rusch VW, Ishwaran H, Blackstone EH, for the Worldwide Esophageal Cancer Collaboration. Cancer of the Esophagus and Esophagogastric Junction: Data-Driven Staging for the Seventh Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer Cancer Staging Manuals. Cancer. 2010;116(16):3763–73. pmid:20564099

35. Michelet P, D’Journo X-B, Roch A, Papazian L, Ragni J, Thomas P, et al. Perioperative risk factors for anastomotic leakage after esophagectomy: Influence of thoracic epidural analgesia. Chest. 2005;128(5):3461–6. pmid:16304300

36. Zingg U, Smithers B, Gotley D, Smith G, Aly A, Clough A, et al. Factors Associated with Postoperative Pulmonary Morbidity After Esophagectomy for Cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(5):1460–8. pmid:21184193

37. Silber J, Kennedy S, Even-Shoshan O, Chen W, Koziol L, Showan A, et al. Anesthesiologist Direction and Patient Outcomes. Anesthesiology. 2000;93(1):152–63. pmid:10861159

38. Warren JL, Yabroff KR. Challenges and Opportunities in Measuring Cancer Recurrence in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(8):djv134. pmid:25971299

39. Melis M, McLoughlin JM, Dean EM, Siegel EM, Weber JM, Shah N, et al. Correlations Between Neoadjuvant Treatment, Anemia, and Perioperative Complications in Patients Undergoing Esophagectomy for Cancer. J Surg Res. 2009;153(1):114–20. pmid:19201421

40. Bhayani NH, Gupta A, Dunst CM, Kurian AA, Reavis KM, Swanström LL. Esophagectomies with thoracic incisions carry increased pulmonary morbidity. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(8):733–8. pmid:23784203

41. Khullar OV, Jiang R, Force SD, Pickens A, Sancheti MS, Ward K, et al. Transthoracic versus transhiatal resection for esophageal adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus: A value-based comparison. J Surg Oncol. 2015;112(5):517–23. pmid:26374192

42. Boshier PR, Anderson O, Hanna GB. Transthoracic Versus Transhiatal Esophagectomy for the Treatment of Esophagogastric Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Ann Surg. 2011;254(6):894–906. pmid:21785341

43. Omloo JM, Lagarde SM, Hulscher JB, Reitsma JB, Fockens P, van Dekken H, et al. Extended Transthoracic Resection Compared With Limited Transhiatal Resection for Adenocarcinoma of the Mid/Distal Esophagus: Five-Year Survival of a Randomized Clinical Trial. Ann Surg. 2007;246(6):992–1001. pmid:18043101

44. Stiles BM, Mirza F, Coppolino A, Port JL, Lee PC, Paul S, et al. Clinical T2-T3N0M0 Esophageal Cancer: The Risk of Node Positive Disease. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;92(2):491–8. pmid:21704291

45. Kutup A, Nentwich MF, Bollschweiler E, Bogoevski D, Izbicki JR, Hölscher AH. What Should Be the Gold Standard for the Surgical Component in the Treatment of Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer: Transthoracic Versus Transhiatal Esophagectomy. Ann Surg. 2014;260(6):1016–22. pmid:24950288

46. Lewis JH, Kilgore ML, Goldman DP, Trimble EL, Kaplan R, Montello MJ, et al. Participation of Patients 65 Years of Age or Older in Cancer Clinical Trials. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(7):1383–9. pmid:12663731

47. Tepper J, Krasna MJ, Niedzwiecki D, Hollis D, Reed CE, Goldberg R, et al. Phase III Trial of Trimodality Therapy With Cisplatin, Fluorouracil, Radiotherapy, and Surgery Compared With Surgery Alone for Esophageal Cancer: CALGB 9781. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(7):1086–92. pmid:18309943

48. Klotz R, Hofer S, Schellhaaß A, Dörr-Harim C, Tenckhoff S, Bruckner T, et al. Intravenous versus epidural analgesia to reduce the incidence of gastrointestinal complications after elective pancreatoduodenectomy (the PAKMAN trial, DRKS 00007784): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2016;17(1):194. pmid:27068582