{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05443886097152429, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04648241206030151, 'mean_word_length': 4.942786069651741, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 5, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
National trends and perioperative outcomes of robotic oesophagectomy following induction chemoradiation therapy: a National Cancer Database propensity-matched analysis.

OBJECTIVES
Oesophagectomy following induction chemoradiation therapy (CRT) is technically challenging. To date, little data exist to describe the feasibility of a robotic approach in this setting. In this study, we assessed national trends and outcomes of robotic oesophagectomy following induction CRT compared to the traditional open approach.


METHODS
The National Cancer Database was queried for patients who underwent oesophagectomy following induction CRT (2010-2014). Trends of robotic utilization were assessed by a Mantel-Haenszel test of trend. Propensity matching controlled for differences in age, gender, comorbidity, stage, histology and tumour location between the robotic and open groups. Overall survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared by a log-rank test.


RESULTS
Oesophagectomy following induction CRT was performed in 6958 patients. Of them, 555 patients (8%) underwent robotic surgery (5% converted to an open approach). Between 2010 and 2014, utilization of a robotic approach increased from 3% to 11% (Mantel-Haenszel, P < 0.001) and the number of hospitals performing at least 1 robotic oesophagectomy increased from 23 to 57. Compared to the traditional open approach, robotic oesophagectomy was used more frequently at academic hospitals (76% vs 60%, P < 0.001), and in patients living in metropolitan areas (85% vs 77%, P < 0.001) and those living in the Midwest (41% vs 33%, P < 0.001). In the matched groups, a robotic approach was associated with shorter median hospital stay (9 vs 10 days, P = 0.004) and dissection of more lymph nodes (median, 16 vs 12, P < 0.001). However, there were no differences in rates of positive margin resection (5% for both groups, P = 0.95), 30-day readmissions (5% vs 7%, P = 0.18), 30-day mortality (2.5% vs 4%, P = 0.79), 90-day mortality (9% vs 8.5%, P = 0.89) or 5-year overall survival (42% vs 39%, P = 0.19) between patients undergoing robotic and open surgery, respectively.


CONCLUSIONS
Robotic oesophagectomy after induction CRT is feasible and associated with shorter hospitalization compared to an open approach, and does not compromise the adequacy of oncological resection, perioperative outcomes or long-term survival.