# Esophageal Cancer: Surgical Approach

## Introduction

Esophageal cancer is the sixth most common cause of cancer-related death worldwide. The epidemiologic landscape has shifted dramatically in Western countries, with adenocarcinoma now surpassing squamous cell carcinoma in incidence. Surgical resection remains the cornerstone of curative treatment for localized and locoregionally advanced disease, but esophagectomy carries significant morbidity and mortality, demanding meticulous patient selection, surgical technique, and perioperative management. This lecture reviews the surgical anatomy, staging, operative approaches, and multimodal strategies for esophageal cancer.

## Epidemiology and Risk Factors

### Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SCC)

Risk factors for squamous cell carcinoma include tobacco and alcohol use, which have a synergistic effect, as well as achalasia, caustic stricture, prior radiation, Plummer-Vinson syndrome, and hot beverage consumption. It is most common in the upper and middle esophagus and predominates in East Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and Iran, a region known as the "esophageal cancer belt."

### Adenocarcinoma

Risk factors for adenocarcinoma include gastroesophageal reflux disease, Barrett's esophagus, obesity, tobacco use, male sex, and Caucasian race. Barrett's esophagus represents intestinal metaplasia of the esophageal mucosa with an annual risk of progression to adenocarcinoma of 0.5-1%, and dysplasia (low-grade and high-grade) is the key intermediate step. Adenocarcinoma occurs in the distal esophagus and gastroesophageal junction and predominates in North America, Western Europe, and Australia, with incidence increasing 6-fold over the past 40 years.

## Siewert Classification of GEJ Tumors

The Siewert classification organizes gastroesophageal junction tumors into three types:

| Siewert Type | Tumor Center | Pathology | Surgical Approach |
|-------------|-------------|-----------|-------------------|
| I | 1–5 cm above GEJ | Distal esophageal adenocarcinoma (Barrett's) | Esophagectomy |
| II | 1 cm above to 2 cm below GEJ | True cardia carcinoma | Esophagectomy or extended total gastrectomy |
| III | 2–5 cm below GEJ | Subcardial gastric cancer involving GEJ | Extended total gastrectomy |

Type I tumors have their center 1-5 cm above the GEJ, represent true distal esophageal adenocarcinoma arising from Barrett's esophagus, and are treated with esophagectomy. Type II tumors have their center within 1 cm above to 2 cm below the GEJ, represent true cardia carcinoma, and are treated with esophagectomy or extended total gastrectomy. Type III tumors have their center 2-5 cm below the GEJ, represent subcardial gastric cancer involving the GEJ, and are treated with extended total gastrectomy.

## Staging and Preoperative Evaluation

Upper endoscopy with biopsy is the initial diagnostic study, assessing location, length, and circumferential extent with multiple biopsies from the tumor and any associated Barrett's mucosa. Endoscopic ultrasound is the most accurate modality for T-staging (depth of invasion) and regional lymph node assessment, with accuracy of 85-90% for T-stage, and EUS-guided fine needle aspiration of suspicious lymph nodes can be performed. CT of the chest and abdomen is standard for M-staging and assessment of local extent. PET/CT detects occult distant metastases in 10-20% of patients otherwise considered for curative resection and changes management in 15% of cases, though it is less sensitive for SCC and mucinous tumors. Staging laparoscopy is recommended for GEJ and Siewert Type III tumors to exclude peritoneal disease. Bronchoscopy is indicated for upper and middle third tumors to evaluate tracheobronchial invasion. Nutritional assessment is essential, as weight loss exceeding 10% is associated with worse outcomes and preoperative nutritional optimization with enteral or parenteral nutrition may be necessary.



## Management by Stage

### Superficial Esophageal Cancer (Tis-T1a)

High-grade dysplasia and T1a (mucosal) tumors are managed with endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection, followed by ablation of remaining Barrett's mucosa with radiofrequency ablation. Cure rates exceed 90% for T1a tumors without lymphovascular invasion, poor differentiation, or submucosal involvement. T1b (submucosal) tumors carry a 20-30% lymph node metastasis rate, and esophagectomy is generally recommended, though endoscopic therapy may be considered for superficial submucosal invasion (T1b-SM1) in select cases.

### Locally Advanced Esophageal Cancer (T2-T4a, N+)

Neoadjuvant therapy followed by surgery is the standard of care for locally advanced disease. The CROSS trial demonstrated that neoadjuvant chemoradiation with carboplatin/paclitaxel and 41.4 Gy of radiation followed by surgery improved overall survival compared to surgery alone (49 months versus 24 months), with a pathologic complete response rate of 29% overall (49% for SCC and 23% for adenocarcinoma). Perioperative FLOT chemotherapy without radiation is an alternative for GEJ adenocarcinoma based on the FLOT4-AIO trial. Definitive chemoradiation is the primary treatment for cervical esophageal cancer and for patients unfit for surgery, with cure rates comparable to surgery for SCC but not for adenocarcinoma.

### Unresectable and Metastatic Disease

Definitive chemoradiation is used for locally unresectable disease (T4b). Systemic chemotherapy with immunotherapy, including nivolumab plus chemotherapy for metastatic GEJ adenocarcinoma (CheckMate-649) and pembrolizumab for PD-L1-positive tumors, represents the systemic approach. Palliative interventions include endoscopic stenting for dysphagia, radiation for bleeding or obstruction, and feeding access.

## Surgical Approaches to Esophagectomy

### Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy (Transthoracic)

The Ivor Lewis approach consists of a laparotomy (or laparoscopy) for gastric mobilization and creation of the gastric conduit, followed by a right thoracotomy (or thoracoscopy) for esophageal resection and intrathoracic anastomosis. It is indicated for mid-to-distal esophageal and GEJ tumors and is the most commonly performed approach. Its advantages include excellent exposure for mediastinal lymphadenectomy and intrathoracic anastomosis under direct visualization. The disadvantage is that intrathoracic anastomotic leak carries higher morbidity than cervical leak.

### McKeown (Three-Field) Esophagectomy

The McKeown approach involves a right thoracotomy, laparotomy, and left cervical incision, with esophageal mobilization through the chest, gastric conduit creation through the abdomen, and cervical esophagogastric anastomosis. It is indicated for upper and middle esophageal tumors and when cervical anastomosis is preferred. The advantage is that it allows a wider proximal margin and cervical leaks are generally more manageable than intrathoracic leaks. The disadvantages include a higher rate of anastomotic leak (10-15%), recurrent laryngeal nerve injury, and the requirement for three operative fields.

### Transhiatal Esophagectomy (THE)

The transhiatal approach involves a laparotomy with blunt mediastinal dissection through the hiatus and a cervical incision, without a thoracotomy. It is indicated for distal esophageal and GEJ tumors and for patients who cannot tolerate a thoracotomy. The advantage is avoidance of thoracotomy with a lower pulmonary complication rate. The disadvantages include limited mediastinal lymphadenectomy and the risk of mediastinal hemorrhage during blind dissection.

### Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (MIE)

The minimally invasive approach uses a thoracoscopic and laparoscopic technique (totally minimally invasive) or hybrid approaches. The TIME trial demonstrated that MIE reduced pulmonary complications and improved short-term quality of life compared to open esophagectomy with equivalent oncologic outcomes. Robotic-assisted esophagectomy is increasingly utilized and may offer advantages in lymph node dissection and anastomotic technique, with the ROBOT trial showing lower overall complications.



## Conduit and Reconstruction

The gastric conduit is the preferred conduit for esophageal reconstruction. The stomach is tubularized along the greater curvature, preserving the right gastroepiploic and right gastric arteries. Conduit width is typically 4-5 cm, and narrower conduits may have improved emptying but compromised blood supply. The gastric conduit tip at the site of anastomosis is the most vulnerable to ischemia, making preservation of the right gastroepiploic arcade critical. Colonic interposition is used when the stomach is not available, as in prior gastrectomy; left colon based on the ascending branch of the left colic artery is most common, though it carries higher morbidity. Jejunal interposition is reserved for short segment reconstruction but has limited reach for total esophageal replacement. The role of a pyloric drainage procedure such as pyloromyotomy or pyloroplasty is controversial; some centers perform it routinely to prevent conduit outlet obstruction while others omit it in favor of botulinum toxin injection to the pylorus.

## Lymphadenectomy

Two-field lymphadenectomy involving the abdominal and mediastinal stations is standard for distal and GEJ tumors, with a minimum of 15 lymph nodes for adequate staging. Three-field lymphadenectomy adding cervical stations is practiced more commonly in Japan and may improve staging and survival for upper and middle esophageal SCC, though it carries higher morbidity including recurrent laryngeal nerve injury and chylothorax. Lymph node ratio and total positive nodes are important prognostic factors beyond N-staging.

## Postoperative Complications

Anastomotic leak occurs in 5-15% of cases, with intrathoracic leaks from the Ivor Lewis approach being more morbid than cervical leaks. Diagnosis is made with CT esophagram or water-soluble contrast swallow, and management includes NPO status, drainage, stenting, or reoperation. Pulmonary complications including pneumonia, ARDS, and atelectasis are the most common complications at 15-25%, and aggressive pulmonary toilet, early mobilization, and epidural analgesia reduce risk. Conduit necrosis is rare (1-3%) but devastating, resulting from ischemia of the gastric conduit tip, and requires takedown with cervical esophagostomy and delayed reconstruction. Recurrent laryngeal nerve injury occurs in 5-10% of McKeown and three-field approaches, causing vocal cord paralysis and aspiration risk. Chylothorax from thoracic duct injury is managed with dietary modification using medium-chain triglycerides, octreotide, or thoracic duct ligation if output remains above 1 L per day or does not decrease after 2 weeks. Stricture occurs in 10-30% of cases and is managed with serial endoscopic dilation. Mortality is 2-5% at high-volume centers, and the volume-outcome relationship is well established.

## Key Clinical Pearls

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation following the CROSS protocol followed by surgery is the standard of care for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy reduces pulmonary complications and should be offered when expertise is available. The gastric conduit tip is the most ischemia-prone area, and gentle tissue handling with preservation of the right gastroepiploic arcade is critical. PET/CT changes management in 15% of patients by detecting occult metastases and should be obtained before committing to neoadjuvant therapy. Esophagectomy outcomes are strongly volume-dependent, and centralization to experienced centers improves survival.

## References

1. van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer (CROSS). *N Engl J Med*. 2012;366(22):2074-2084.
2. Biere SS, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Maas KW, et al. Minimally invasive versus open oesophagectomy for patients with oesophageal cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial (TIME). *Lancet*. 2012;379(9829):1887-1892.
3. Rice TW, Patil DT, Blackstone EH. 8th edition AJCC/UICC staging of cancers of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction. *Ann Cardiothorac Surg*. 2017;6(2):119-130.
4. Markar SR, Mackenzie H, Lagergren P, et al. Surgical proficiency gain and survival after esophagectomy for cancer. *J Clin Oncol*. 2016;34(13):1528-1536.