Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access

The change of health-related quality of life after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 3,
  • 4 and
  • 1Email author
Contributed equally
World Journal of Surgical Oncology201816:97

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-018-1330-9

  • Received: 5 November 2017
  • Accepted: 4 February 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

Short- and long-term health-related quality of life (HRQL) was severely affected after surgery. This study aimed to assess the direction and duration of HRQL from 3- to 24-month follow-ups after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) for esophageal cancer.

Methods

A systematic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane database was performed for all potentially relevant studies published until February 2017. Studies were included if they addressed the question of HRQL with OERTC-QLQ-C30 and OES18. Primary outcomes were HRQL change at 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were HRQL change from 3-, 6- (short-term) to 12- (mid-term), and/or 24-month (long-term) follow-ups.

Results

Six articles were included to estimate the change in 24 HRQL outcomes after MIE. Most of the patients’ HRQL outcomes deteriorated at short-term follow-up and some lasted to mid- or long-term after MIE. Patients’ physical function and global QOL deteriorated from short- to long-term follow-ups, and emotional function had no change. The directions of dyspnea, pain, fatigue, insomnia, constipation, diarrhea, cough, and speech problems were increased. The deterioration in global function lasted 6 months, the increase in constipation and speech problems lasted 12 months, and insomnia increased more than 12 months after MIE.

Conclusions

The emotional function had no change after MIE. The global QOL become worse during early postoperative period; the symptoms of constipation, speech problems, and insomnia increased for a long time after MIE.

Keywords

  • Esophageal cancer
  • Health-related quality of life (HRQL)
  • Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE)
  • Meta-analysis

Background

Esophageal cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors of the digestive system with a poor prognosis with overall 5-year survival rates only 15–50%, and the incidence of esophageal cancer has risen steadily during recent decades [13]. Esophagectomy with lymphadenectomy is regarded as the only curative option for patients with resectable esophageal cancer [46].

The traditional open esophagectomy (OE) is a relatively high invasive surgery, which may lead to several morbidities or prominent mortality [7]. Minimally invasive surgery is assumed to reduce surgical injury and improve patients’ prognosis. With the developing skills and increasing experiences in laparoscopy and thoracoscopy in thoracic and stomach surgery, minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) has become the recommended approach, popularized in centers with experienced surgeons [8].

A lot of longitudinal and meta-analysis studies have been performed to compare the outcomes of OE with MIE, which conclude that MIE is a safe alternation or better choice for esophageal cancer to OE because patients undergoing MIE may benefit from shorter hospital stay, lower complications, less morbidity, and overall survival [912]. Studies that investigate health-related quality of life (HRQL) after surgery for esophageal cancer show that patients will experience an impaired quality of life post operation, and MIE had an overall benefit on quality of life (QOL) for the patients compared with open surgery [1320]. However, few studies focus on assessing the impact of MIE for esophageal cancer on HRQL and the change of HRQL after surgery [13, 18]. On this basis, the aim of this meta-analysis is to analyze the change of short- to long-term QOL after MIE for esophageal cancer.

Methods

Search strategies

A MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database search was performed by two authors on all relevant clinical studies published until February 2017, analyzing quality of life after minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. The following keywords and medical subject headings were used: esophageal neoplasms, esophageal cancer, esophagus cancer, esophagus carcinoma, oesophageal cancer, esophageal carcinoma, oesophageal carcinoma, cancer of esophagus, carcinoma of esophagus, esophagectomy, resection of esophagus, minimally invasive surgical procedures, minimally invasive surgery, video-assisted thoracic surgery, thoracoscopic, thoracoscopy, laparoscopic, laparoscopy, quality of life, life quality, living quality, and quality of lives. Only studies on humans and written in English were considered for inclusion. The related-articles function was used to expand the search from each identified relevant study. A manual cross-reference search from articles was also performed. All citations and abstracts identified were thoroughly reviewed. The latest date for this search was 20 February 2017. Data quoted as unpublished or data from abstracts were not used. Any disagreements regarding which studies should be included that existed in two researchers were resolved through discussion.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies were selected if they reported on a series of patients who underwent minimally invasive esophagectomy because of esophageal cancer. Procedures of minimally invasive esophagectomy included thoracoscopy combined with laparotomy or laparoscopy.

All studies included in this meta-analysis also required to present detailed information used to assess quality of life and on when the questionnaire was administered. Only those were selected when all patients filled out the questionnaires before operation and at the follow-up (3, 6, 12, and/or 24 months after operation) by letter visit or out-patient consultant. Questionnaires that were used to analyze HRQL included, but not limited to, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ C30 and OES18. Those that only presented their results graphically were excluded. When studies were discovered to report (partially) similar patient data, only the most recent and complete data sets were included.

Data extraction

Data was extracted independently by two reviewers (XM Yang and YF Duan) from each study: study characteristics (first author, year of publication, study design, study aim, timing of follow-up and HRQL data gathering, and type of questionnaire used), population characteristics (number of patients included, demographics, cancer histologic type, cancer stage, cancer site, and neoadjuvant therapy), item, and total results.

We contacted the first or corresponding author of each article by e-mail if not all descriptive outcome data was reported. If necessary, we used reported 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), standard errors, to transform missing SD data [21].

Interested outcomes

The primary outcome of this study was HRQL change at 3-month follow-up. The second outcome was HRQL change from 3-, 6- (short-term) to 12- (mid-term), and/or 24-month (long-term) follow-ups.

The studies were included when both the following validated quality of life instruments were used: the EORTC-QLQ-C30 and the EORTC-QLQ-OES18. The QLQ-C30 questionnaire was developed by the Quality of Life Division of EORTC. It explored the generic quality of life of patients affected by oncologic diseases and includes a global health status scale, five functional scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social), three symptom scales (fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and pain), and six single items (dyspnea, insomnia, anorexia, constipation, diarrhea, and financial difficulties) [13]. The QLQ OES-18 assessed symptoms specific to esophageal cancer and was composed of four symptom scales (dysphagia, eating, reflux, and esophageal pain) and six single items (swallowing saliva, choking when swallowing, dry mouth, taste problem, coughing, and speech problem) [14]. Each item had four response alternatives: “not at all” (scored as 1), “a little” (scored as 2), “quite a bit” (scored as 3), and “very much” (scored as 4), except for the global QOL scale which ranges from “very poor” (scored as 1) to “excellent” (scored as 7). All QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES18 responses were transformed linearly to scores ranging from 0 to 100.

Statistical analysis

Review Manager Version 5.3 (Copenhagen: the Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014) was used to perform meta-analysis. The data can be synthesized only when the number of studies exceeds two. Measurement data reported as mean SD/SE were adopted. The results were presented as weighted mean differences [95% confidence interval (CI)]. Heterogeneity was assessed by χ2 and I2. An I2<30% represented low heterogeneity, 30–50% moderate, 50–75% substantial, and 75–100% considerable heterogeneity [7, 22]. The statistical results used fixed-effect models for low and moderate heterogeneity, random-effect models for substantial and considerable heterogeneity. The study design and risk of bias are shown in Table 1. The definitions of direction, clinical relevance, and duration of HRQL change were same as those described by Jacobs et al. [13].
Table 1

The study design and risk of bias of studies included in the meta-analysis

The first author

Study design

Risk of bias

Sequence generation

Allocation concealment

Blinding patient/personnel

Incomplete outcome data

Blinding outcome

Selective outcome reporting

Other source of bias

Barbour et al. [17]

Cohort

High

High

High

Unclear

High

Low

Low

Wang et al. [19]

Cohort

High

High

High

Unclear

High

Low

Low

Maas et al. [20]

RCT

Low

High

High

Low

High

Low

Low

Wang et al. [15]

Cohort

High

High

High

Unclear

High

Low

Low

Parameswaran et al. [16]

Case series

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

High

Low

Low

Nafteux et al. [18]

Cohort

High

High

High

Unclear

High

Low

High

Results

Selected studies

A flowchart of the literature screening process is shown in Fig. 1. The initial search yielded 1337 articles, of which 1306 were excluded based on their titles. Fifteen duplicated articles were then manually excluded on the basis of their titles. Three articles were excluded because of not being written in English. Eight articles were further excluded on the basis of their abstracts or full texts, of which two were conference abstracts [23, 24]; one was comment [25], one was systematic review [14], two presented their results only in graphical formats [26, 27], one presented their results only in percent of patients [28], one was related to the reliability and validity of the questionnaire [22], and one article was included based on the cross-reference search [17]. Six articles finally met the criteria of inclusion [1520], and two reported data form the same hospital by the same first author [15, 19]. Although they reported the same dataset, two studies from Zhongshan Hospital were included in the analysis because one analyzed more aspects of HRQL [15, 19]. However, all the patients included in these studies were counted only once, and only the most recent and complete data sets were selected.
Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Flowchart of literature identification and screening process

Characteristics of studies and patients

The selected trials included a total of six studies that were published between 2010 and 2016 (Table 2), of which two were retrospective studies [15, 19], three were prospective ones [1618], and only one was a randomized controlled trial (RCT) [20]. One study was done in Australia [17], one in Belgium [18], two in China [15, 19], one in the UK [16], and the last one in the Netherlands [20]. Five studies used both EORTC QLQ C30 and the disease-specific OES18 questionnaires. One study was performed not only using EORTC QLQ C30 and the disease-specific OES18, but also SF36. The HRQL was the primary outcome for all studies. Patients were all enrolled consecutively. The measure times of HRQL were preoperation (baseline), 3-, 6-, 12-, and/or 24-month postoperation. One study aimed to assess HRQL after MIE [16], and five studies aimed to compare HRQL in patients after MIE and open esophagectomy [15, 1720].
Table 2

Studies characteristics: study setting and feature

Study

Year

Country

Center

Randomized

Prospective data

Consecutive

HRQL as primary outcome

Preoperative HRQL assessment

SF36

OES18

QLQ C30

Timing HRQL measures

Barbour et al. [17]

2016

Australia

Princess Alexandra Hospital

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Baseline, 3,6,9,12,18,24 mo po

Wang et al. [19]

2015

China

Zhongshan Hospital

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Baseline, 1, 3,6,12,18,24 mo po

Maas et al. [20]

2015

Netherlands

VU University Medical Center

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Baseline, 1.5, 12 mon po

Wang et al. [15]

2010

China

Zhongshan Hospital

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Baseline, 0.5, 1, 4 6 mon po

Parameswaran et al. [16]

2010

UK

Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Baseline, 1.5, 3, 6, 12 mon po

Nafteux et al. [18]

2011

Belgium

UZ Gasthuisberg

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Baseline, 1–3, 4–6, 10–12 mon po

The number of patients included in the selected trials was 1034, of which 848 were males. The range of mean ages reported by different papers was 56 to 67 years. The indication for surgery was esophageal adenocarcinoma in 442 patients, squamous cell carcinoma in 576 patients, and others in 16 patients. The pathological TNM stages were stage 0 and stage I in 279 cases, stage II in 444 cases, stage III in 262 cases, and stage IV in 36 cases. All patients received neoadjuvant chemo- or chemoradiotherapy in one study [20]; no patients received in two studies [15, 18]; and partial patients received in three studies [16, 17, 19]. All patients received a combination of general and epidural anesthesia during the operation. In the first 3–5 days after surgery, patients received epidural or intravenous analgesia. The follow-up duration after esophagectomy, as reported in the articles, was between 6 and 72 months. The characteristics of the patients included in each study are described in Table 3.
Table 3

Patient characteristics

Study

Recruitment period

Intervention

Cases

M/F

Median/mean age (range)

Pathology (adeno/SCC/other)

TNM stage

Tumor site (U/M/L/GEJ)

ASA grade

Mean/median follow up (months)

Neoadjuvant treatment (no/CT/CRT)

Barbour et al. [17]

1988–2011

TAMK

377

316/61

64 (27–84)

299/78/0

51/80/125/121/0(0/I/II/III/IV)

0/42/299/36

275/102 (1&2/3&4)

27

175/87/115

Wang et al. [19]

2004–2013

MIE

444

362/82

56 (32–77)

0/444/0

62/254/100/28 (0&I/II/III/IV)

63/244/137/0

321/107/16 (1/2/3)

27

364/22/58

Maas et al. [20]

2009–2011

MIE

59

43/16

62 (34–75)

35/24/0

1/4/26/11/4/9/4 (0/I/II/III/IV/No residual tumor of LN. matas./no surgery)

N/A

10/34/14/1 (1/2/3/4)

12

0/5/54

Wang et al. [15]

2007–2008

MIE

27

19/8

60.7 ± 9.3

1/25/1

6/14/4/3/0 (0&I/IIa/IIb/III/IV)

4/17/6//0

N/A

6

27/0/0

Parameswaran et al. [16]

2005–2007

MIE

62

56/6

67 (49–80)

55/5/2

3/7/21/27/4 (0/I/II/III/IV)

N/A

N/A

12

0/48/0

Nafteux et al. [18]

2005–2010

MIE

65

52/13

63.1(41–82)

52/N/A/13

10/55/0/0/0 (0/I/II/III/IV)

N/A

N/A

72

65/0/0

TAMK thoracoscopically assisted McKeown esophagectomy, MIE minimally invasive esophagectomy, Adeo adenocarcinoma, SCC squamous cell carcinoma N/A not applicable

Thoracosopy + laparoscopy or laparotomy + cervical or thoracic anastomosis

Thoracosopy + laparoscopy or laparotomy + cervical anastomosis

HRQL change

Twenty-four HRQL outcomes were included in our meta-analysis. Mean difference with 95% confidence intervals are reported in Table 4, which also reflects the average HRQL change.
Table 4

Change in 24 HRQL outcomes after MIE at 3,6,12 and 24 months follow-up

 

Baseline vs. 3 months

Baseline vs. 6 months

Baseline vs. 12 months

Baseline vs. 24 months

Patients

MD

Heterogeneity

Patients

MD

Heterogeneity

Patients

MD

Heterogeneity

Patients

MD

Heterogeneity

(groups)

(clinical relevance)

Tau2

Chi 2

I2(%)

(groups)

(clinical relevance)

Tau2

Chi 2

I2(%)

(groups)

(clinical relevance)

Tau2

Chi 2

I2(%)

(groups)

(clinical relevance)

Tau2

Chi 2

I2(%)

Physical function

1753

-14.36 [-11.77, -16.95]

2.88

P=0.09

58

1841

-9.32 [-5.36, -13.28]

11.17

P=0.001

81

1787

-7.42 [-4.80, -10.03]

3.29

P=0.10

53

1489

-4.31 [-3.27, -5.36]

1.87

P=0.17

46

3

Medium

   

4

Small

   

4

Small

   

2

Trivial

   

Role function

919

-18.55 [-3.14, -33.97]

175.01

P<0.00001

95

1007

-10.01 [3.93, -23.94]

187.29

P<0.00001

95

899

-9.07 [0.04, -18.18]

48.02

P=0.01

77

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

3

Medium

   

4

Small

   

3

Small

        

Emotional function

919

0.83 [8.45, -6.79]

36.33

P=0.003

82

1007

3.47 [8.88, -1.94]

19.65

P=0.02

68

899

2.05 [6.05, -1.95]

1.78

P=0.32

11

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

3

Trivial

   

4

Trivial

   

3

Trivial

        

Cognitive function

919

-3.78 [4.16, -11.71]

41.8

P=0.0003

88

1007

-2.02 [5.32, -9.36]

46.43

P<0.0001

87

899

-4.14 [2.29, -10.57]

19.97

P=0.07

62

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

3

Small

   

4

Small

   

3

Small

        

Social function

919

-11.31 [4.43, -27.05]

183.61

P<0.00001

95

1007

-4.38 [8.20, -16.97]

149.24

P<0.00001

93

911

-6.56 [2.03, -15.14]

41.72

P=0.02

75

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

3

Medium

   

4

Trivial

   

3

Trivial

        

Global QoL

1753

-7.26 [-5.88, -8.64]

3.85

P=0.15

48

1740

-4.94 [-2.95, -6.94]

1.04

P=0.25

28

1758

-0.52 [4.67, -5.72]

21.2

P=0.0002

85

1489

0.11 [1.58, -1.36]

1.37

P=0.24

27

3

Small

   

3

Trivial

   

4

Trivial

   

2

Trivial

   

Dyspnea

1753

-12.06 [-15.97, -8.15]

7.67

P=0.02

74

1740

-10.48 [-15.13, -5.84]

12.28

P=0.003

83

1692

-8.98 [-13.20, -4.76]

9.56

P=0.01

77

1489

-6.37 [-7.23, -5.52]

2.87

P=0.09

65

3

Medium

   

3

Small

   

3

Small

   

2

Small

   

Pain

1753

-13.85 [-17.30, -10.40]

5.81

P=0.05

67

1845

-11.36 [-14.48, -8.23]

4.82

P=0.09

53

1853

-5.04 [-10.96, 0.87]

33.42

P<0.00001

86

1489

-5.76 [-12.71, 1.18]

23.29

P=0.0003

92

3

Medium

   

4

Small

   

5

Small

   

2

Small

   

Fatigue

1753

-20.60 [-24.12, -17.08]

5.74

P=0.06

64

1841

-13.68 [-19.58, -7.78]

26.49

P=0.0001

86

1787

-9.27 [-15.27, -3.27]

27.38

P=0.0001

85

1489

-6.48 [-10.74, -2.21]

7.79

P=0.02

80

3

Large

   

4

Medium

   

4

Small

   

2

Small

   

Insomnia

919

-7.64 [-11.52, -3.76]

2.53

P=0.28

21

906

-4.48 [-8.34, -0.63]

 

P=0.22

35

852

-5.82 [-10.08, -1.56]

0.05

P=0.82

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

3

Small

   

3

Small

   

2

Small

        

Anorexia

919

-18.36 [-32.27, -4.45]

129.55

P=0.0005

87

1007

-6.71 [-16.85, 3.43

87.85

P=0.0002

85

899

-4.29 [-9.73, 1.15]

8.92

P=0.21

36

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

3

Medium

   

4

Small

   

3

Small

        

Nausea and Vomiting

919

-10.43 [-19.51, -1.35]

56.71

P<0.0001

91

1007

-6.06 [-13.10, 0.97]

41.88

P<0.0001

86

899

-5.20 [-12.20, 1.81]

28.32

P=0.02

75

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

3

Small

   

4

Small

   

3

Trivial

        

Constipation

919

-4.27 [-7.21, -1.33]

1.48

P=0.48

0

1243

-5.42 [-8.26, -2.58]

3.22

P=0.20

38

804

-3.10 [-6.31, 0.10]

 

P=0.90

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

3

Trivial

   

3

Small

   

2

Trivial

        

Diarrhea

919

-12.42 [-20.99, -3.85]

43.7

P=0.01

77

906

-13.44 [-23.53, -3.34]

65.62

P=0.002

84

804

-12.69 [-15.97, -9.41]

 

P=0.40

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

3

Small

   

3

Small

   

2

Small

        

Financial

169

-7.18 [-13.71, -0.65]

1.06

P=0.30

6

167

-6.51 [-13.31, 0.29]

 

P=0.24

29

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2

Small

   

2

Small

             

Dysphagia §

919

6.70 [-17.38, 30.77]

440.55

P<0.00001

98

1007

7.11 [-12.89, 27.10]

398.73

P<0.00001

97

899

-4.51 [-14.17, 5.14]

57.58

P=0.005

81

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

3

Small

   

4

Small

   

3

Trivial

        

Eating Problem §

919

-5.85 [-34.21, 22.50]

616.02

P<0.00001

98

1007

-0.94 [-21.86, 19.97]

440.12

P<0.00001

97

899

-3.51 [-12.05, 5.04]

43.43

P=0.01

78

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

3

Small

   

4

Trivial

   

3

Trivial

        

Reflux §

804

-14.01 [-39.88, 11.86]

339.53

P<0.00001

97

915

-5.21 [-19.44, 9.01]

148.13

P<0.00001

95

788

-3.25 [-6.87, 0.37]

 

P=0.72

0

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2

Medium

   

3

Trivial

   

2

Trivial

        

Pain-OES18 §

804

0.46 [-3.91, 4.84]

6.49

P=0.09

64

896

2.13 [-2.65, 6.92]

11.24

P=0.05

66

788

0.31 [-3.08, 3.69]

1.14

P=0.29

9

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2

Trivial

   

3

Trivial

   

2

Trivial

        

Swallowing problem §

919

-6.36 [-14.87, 2.15]

45.68

P=0.003

83

906

-5.05 [-13.39, 3.29]

43.04

0.005

81

804

-6.40 [-17.92, 5.12]

61.41

P=0.004

88

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

3

Small

   

3

Small

   

2

Trivial

        

Dry mouth §

919

-5.82 [-11.64, -0.01]

13.73

P=0.13

51

906

-5.66 [-12.38, 1.06]

22.69

P=0.06

65

804

-9.19 [-13.24, -5.13]

 

P=0.30

5

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

3

Small

   

3

Small

   

2

Small

        

Taste problem §

919

-10.26 [-26.13, 5.61]

181.5

P<0.00001

93

906

-6.75 [-16.15, 2.65]

54.91

P=0.006

81

804

-8.42 [-12.46, -4.38]

 

P=0.28

14

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

3

Medium

   

3

Small

   

2

Small

        

Cough problem §

919

-15.35 [-25.20, -5.50]

56.49

P=0.02

76

906

-12.05 [-23.21, -0.88]

78.64

P=0.004

82

804

-11.01 [-18.89, -3.13]

19.56

P=0.13

55

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

3

Medium

   

3

Medium

   

2

Medium

        

Speech problem §

919

-9.94 [-12.68, -7.20]

 

P=0.15

48

906

-8.45 [-11.07, -5.84]

1.9

P=0.39

0

870

-3.16 [-9.25, 2.92]

17.59

P=0.08

60

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

3

Small

   

3

Small

   

3

Trivial

        

N/A not applicable (this means that no two patient groups were available to derive a summary estimate of HRQL change by meta-analysis)

MD Mean difference / mean change

The amount of patients in each analysis are the number of patients at baseline and the given follow-up time (e.g., the number of patients at 3 months follow-up represent the number of patients at baseline and the number of patients at 3 months follow-up, combined).

Mean difference; measured by the QLQ-C30

§Mean difference; measured by the QLQ-OES18

'Sufficiently' homogenous estimates are presented in bold (I2 ≤50% AND P≥ 0.1)

Primary outcomes

The direction and clinical relevance of HRQL change at 3-month follow-up are shown in Table 5. Patients’ physical function, role function, and global QOL deteriorated. All symptoms in QLQ-C30 and dry mouth, cough problem, and speech problem in QLQ-OES18 increased. However, the direction for other outcomes (three functional scales in QLQ-C30, four symptom scales, and two single items in QLQ-OES18) at 3-month follow-up were too heterogeneous to interpret.
Table 5

Main analysis for the direction, clinical relevance, and duration of change in 24 HRQL outcomes after MIE

HRQL outcome

HRQL change at 3-month follow-up

HRQL change at 3-, 6–12-,and/or 24 month follow-ups

Number of patients (Groups)

Amount of heterogeneity

Direction of HRQL change§,¶

Clinical relevance of HRQL change\\,††

Direction of HRQL change§,¶,‡‡

Duration of HRQL change§§

Physical function

1753 (3)

Substantial

Deterioration

Unclear

Deterioration

Unclear

Role function

919 (3)

Considerable

Deterioration

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Emotional function

919 (3)

Considerable

Unclear

Unclear

No change

No change

Cognitive function

919 (3)

Considerable

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Social function

919 (3)

Considerable

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Global QoL

1753 (3)

Moderate

Deterioration

Small

Deterioration

6 months

Dyspnea

1753 (3)

Substantial

Increase

Unclear

Increase

Unclear

Pain

1753 (3)

Substantial

Increase

Unclear

Increase

Unclear

Fatigue

1753 (3)

Substantial

Increase

Unclear

Increase

Unclear

Insomnia

919 (3)

Low

Increase

Small

Increase

>12 months¶¶

Anorexia

919 (3)

Considerable

Increase

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Nausea and Vomiting

919 (3)

Considerable

Increase

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Constipation

919 (3)

Low

Increase

Trivial

Increase

12 months

Diarrhea

919 (3)

Considerable

Increase

Unclear

Increase

Unclear

Financial

169 (2)

Low

Increase

Small

N/A

N/A

Dysphagia

919 (3)

Considerable

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Eating Problem

919 (3)

Considerable

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Reflux

804 (2)

Considerable

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Pain-OES18

804 (2)

Substantial

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Swallowing problem

919 (3)

Considerable

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Dry mouth

919 (3)

Substantial

Increase

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Taste problem

919 (3)

Considerable

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Unclear

Cough problem

919 (3)

Considerable

Increase

Unclear

Increase

Unclear

Speech problem

919 (3)

Moderate

Increase

Small

Increase

12 months

The number of patients included at baseline and the number of patients included at 3-month follow-up, combined

We used the I2 statistic to describe the percentage of inconsistency attributable to heterogeneity and not chance. An I2 of <30% represents low heterogeneity, 30–50% moderate, 50–75% substantial, and 75–100% considerable heterogeneity

§The direction of HRQL change was clear if the estimate was “sufficiently” homogenous (i.e., χ2 P ≥ 0.1 and I2 low or moderate) or, when the estimate was not “sufficiently” homogenous, if both the summary estimate and confidence intervals reported the same direction [e.g., − 5,00 (− 10,00; − 2,00)]

For functioning scores, “deterioration” indicates that the follow-up scores were lower than baseline scores. For symptom scales, “increase” indicates that the follow-up scores were higher than baseline scores

\\The clinical relevance of HRQL change was clear if the estimate was “sufficiently” homogenous (i.e., χ2 P ≥ 0.1 and I2 low or moderate)

††A large change indicates a clear clinical relevance. A medium change indicates a clinical relevance, but to a lesser extent. A small change indicates a subtle but nevertheless clinically relevant effect. A trivial change indicates either a change of unlikely clinical relevance, or no change

‡‡The direction of HRQL change was clear if at least three estimates of change were obtained, two of which were “sufficiently” homogenous (i.e., χ2 P ≥ 0.1 and I2 low or moderate), and if the summary estimates showed the same direction of change. If none of the estimates were “sufficiently” homogenous, we determined that the direction of HRQL change was clear if the summary estimates and confidence intervals at 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-ups showed the same direction of change [e.g., − 5,00 (− 10,00; − 2,00)]

§§The duration of HRQL change was clear if at least three estimates of HRQL change were obtained (e.g., at 3-, 9-, and 12-month follow-ups). Two of these estimates had to be “sufficiently” homogenous (i.e., χ2 P ≥ 0.1 and I2 low or moderate)

The duration of HRQL change lasted longer if the clinical relevance of the last sufficiently homogenous estimate was not trivial or if subsequent estimates were not “sufficiently homogenous”

The global QOL, insomnia, financial problem, and speech problem changes were small, which showed clinical relevance at 3-month follow-up. However, other HRQL outcomes (five functional scales, three general symptom scales and four single items in QLQ-C30, and four symptom scales and four single items in QLQ-OES 18) did not show clinical relevance.

Secondary outcomes

The direction and duration of HRQL change at 3-, 6-, 12-, and/or 24-month follow-ups are reported in Table 5. The directions of patients’ physical function and global QOL deteriorated, and emotional function had no change. The directions of dyspnea, pain, fatigue, insomnia, constipation, diarrhea, cough problem, and speech problem were increased. However, the direction for other outcomes (three functional scales and two single items in QLQ-C30 and four symptom scales and three single items in QLQ-OES 18) at 3-, 6-, 12-, and/or 24-month follow-ups were too heterogeneous to interpret.

The deterioration in global function lasted 6 months after surgery. The increase in constipation and speech problem lasted 12 months after surgery. And, symptoms of insomnia increased more than 12 months after surgery. However, the duration for other outcomes (four functional scales, three general symptom scales and three single items in QLQ-C30, and four symptom scales and four single items in QLQ-OES 18) were too heterogeneous to interpret.

Discussion

Several studies had shown that open esophagectomy has a negative impact on almost all aspects of HRQL, and it would take 9–12 months to return to levels before operation [2931]. Others reported that HRQL recovered more quickly after MIE than OE [15, 1720].

This is the first meta-analysis to estimate the clinical relevance and duration of change for 24 HRQL outcomes from short- to long-term after MIE. After MIE, patients’ emotional function has no change from short- to mid-term follow-up; global QOL deteriorated only at short-term follow-up. Symptoms of constipation and speech problem increased from short- to mid-term follow-up, and insomnia increased up to long-term follow-up. In addition, global QOL, most functional scales, and most symptoms have negative change at short-term follow-up and keep the trend to mid- and/or long-term follow-up. However, the clinical relevance and the duration of most change cannot be interpreted because of huge heterogeneity.

The clinical heterogeneity of the studies focusing on HRQL after esophagectomy has been presented in many studies. Levenstein et al. [32] assessed HRQL by an international comparison. The study showed that HRQL varied from one country to another because of differences in social, cultural, medical systems, race, family structure, and/or economic determinants with relevance to the patient-physician relationship, patient education, and therapeutic decision making, and other factors. Comorbidity, tumors located in the middle or upper esophagus, SCC histology, tumors in stages III and IV have been reported to be associated with worse HRQL. And, patients with early disease stages had better HRQL than those with more locally advanced disease [33, 34].

It is still controversial whether patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy had worse HRQL than those who underwent esophagectomy alone. Blazeby et al. [35] reported that patients who received palliative treatment had significantly worse pain, fatigue, appetite loss, constipation, and dysphagia. Other studies had shown that preoperative chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy had a temporarily negative impact on HRQL, which returned to baseline levels before surgery, and recovery of HRQL after esophagectomy was not impaired by neoadjuvant treatment [29, 36]. In contrast, Ariga et al. [37] observed that patients with squamous cell carcinoma who underwent definitive chemoradiation had similar general HRQL scores and lower diarrhea, appetite loss, and eating problem scores than those who had undergone surgery alone.

The surgical approach (MIE vs. OE) and the length of the postoperative time period have been presented that had a positive impact on patients’ postoperative QOL (global QOL, physical function, fatigue symptoms, pain symptoms, and dyspnea symptoms) [19]. And conservative, non-definitive treatments such as endoscopic treatment may cause more fear of recurrence than esophagectomy, which may have negative effect on HRQL [38].

It is impossible, up to now, to get enough homogeneous studies to analyze HRQL after MIE [13, 14]. In other words, the heterogeneities of studies included in our meta-analysis were unavoidable. Studies from five different countries were included. The tumor histology and tumor stage were different from one study to another. Whether neoadjuvant treatments were performed varied among the included studies.

Our study has some limitations. First, we selected more retrospective studies, and only one randomized controlled trial. Only one study aimed to assess the impact of MIE on HRQL, others aimed to compare HRQL between MIE an OE. Second, there were not enough studies available to investigate the influence of MIE on HRQL [39]. Third, we chose studies reported in English, but omitted non-English studies [40]. All these might lead to bias. Therefore, more randomized controlled trials are needed to validate HRQL after MIE.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis shows that the emotional function had no change after operation. The global function became worse during the early postoperative period; the symptoms of constipation, speech problem, and insomnia increased for a long time after operation.

Notes

Abbreviations

EORTC: 

European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer

HRQOL: 

Health-related quality of life

MIE: 

Minimally invasive esophagectomy

OE : 

Open esophagectomy

QLQ: 

Quality of life questionnaire

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank Hai-rong He for her help on the study design and data analysis. We also thank Zhengwang Wu (Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina), Shaoyi Du, Yiting Xu, Wenting Cui, and Teng Wan (Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, Xi’an Jiaotong University) for their language edit.

Funding

This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central University of China [No.08143004] in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, by the Funds for Science and Technology Project of Shaanxi Province of China [No. 2014 K11-02-03-07] in writing the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases.

Authors’ contributions

YZ and JKF designed and wrote the manuscript. XMY and YFD extracted the data from each study and analyzed the data. DHG and XMY were major contributors in writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Thoracic Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, No. 277 West Yanta Road, Xi’an, 710061, China
(2)
Hospital 521 of China’s Ordnance Industry Group, Xi’an, 710065, China
(3)
School of Continuing Education of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, 710061, China
(4)
Department of Pathology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, 710061, China

References

  1. Rutegard M, Charonis K, Lu Y, Lagergren P, Lagergren J, Rouvelas I. Population-based esophageal cancer survival after resection without neoadjuvant therapy: an update. Surgery. 2012;152:903–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. van Hagen P, Hulshof MC, van Lanschot JJ, Steyerberg EW, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Wijnhoven BP, Richel DJ, Nieuwenhuijzen GA, Hospers GA, Bonenkamp JJ, et al. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal or junctional cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2074–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Miller KD, Siegel RL, Lin CC, Mariotto AB, Kramer JL, Rowland JH, Stein KD, Alteri R, Jemal A. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66:271–89.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Enzinger PC, Mayer RJ. Esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:2241–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Wu PC, Posner MC. The role of surgery in the management of oesophageal cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2003;4:481–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Sjoquist KM, Burmeister BH, Smithers BM, Zalcberg JR, Simes RJ, Barbour A, Gebski V, Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials G. Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12:681–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Jamieson GG, Mathew G, Ludemann R, Wayman J, Myers JC, Devitt PG. Postoperative mortality following oesophagectomy and problems in reporting its rate. Br J Surg. 2004;91:943–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Luketich JD, Pennathur A, Awais O, Levy RM, Keeley S, Shende M, Christie NA, Weksler B, Landreneau RJ, Abbas G, et al. Outcomes after minimally invasive esophagectomy: review of over 1000 patients. Ann Surg. 2012;256:95–103.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Yerokun BA, Sun Z, Jeffrey Yang CF, Gulack BC, Speicher PJ, Adam MA, D'Amico TA, Onaitis MW, Harpole DH, Berry MF, Hartwig MG. Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Population-Based Analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102:416–23.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Sihag S, Kosinski AS, Gaissert HA, Wright CD, Schipper PH. Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer: A Comparison of Early Surgical Outcomes From The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101:1281–8. discussion 1288-1289View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Yibulayin W, Abulizi S, Lv H, Sun W. Minimally invasive oesophagectomy versus open esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2016;14:304.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Zhou C, Zhang L, Wang H, Ma XX, Shi BH, Chen WK, He JJ, Wang K, Liu PJ, Ren Y. Superiority of Minimally Invasive Oesophagectomy in Reducing In-Hospital Mortality of Patients with Resectable Oesophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10Google Scholar
  13. Jacobs M, Macefield RC, Elbers RG, Sitnikova K, Korfage IJ, Smets EM, Henselmans I, van Berge Henegouwen MI, de Haes JC, Blazeby JM, Sprangers MA. Meta-analysis shows clinically relevant and long-lasting deterioration in health-related quality of life after esophageal cancer surgery. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:1097–115.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Scarpa M, Valente S, Alfieri R, Cagol M, Diamantis G, Ancona E, Castoro C. Systematic review of health-related quality of life after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17:4660–74.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Wang H, Feng M, Tan L, Wang Q. Comparison of the short-term quality of life in patients with esophageal cancer after subtotal esophagectomy via video-assisted thoracoscopic or open surgery. Dis Esophagus. 2010;23:408–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Parameswaran R, Blazeby JM, Hughes R, Mitchell K, Berrisford RG, Wajed SA. Health-related quality of life after minimally invasive oesophagectomy. Br J Surg. 2010;97:525–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Barbour AP, Mc Cormack OM, Baker PJ, Hirst J, Krause L, Brosda S, Thomas JM, Blazeby JM, Thomson IG, Gotley DC, Smithers BM. Long-Term Health-related Quality of Life Following Esophagectomy: A Nonrandomized Comparison of Thoracoscopically Assisted and Open Surgery. Ann Surg. 2016;Google Scholar
  18. Nafteux P, Moons J, Coosemans W, Decaluwe H, Decker G, De Leyn P, Van Raemdonck D, Lerut T. Minimally invasive oesophagectomy: a valuable alternative to open oesophagectomy for the treatment of early oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction carcinoma. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011;40:1455–63. discussion 1463-1454PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Wang H, Shen Y, Feng M, Zhang Y, Jiang W, Xu S, Tan L, Wang Q. Outcomes, quality of life, and survival after esophagectomy for squamous cell carcinoma: A propensity score-matched comparison of operative approaches. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;149:1006–14. discussion 1014-1005.e1004View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Maas KW, Cuesta MA, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Roig J, Bonavina L, Rosman C, Gisbertz SS, Biere SS, van der Peet DL, Klinkenbijl JH, et al. Quality of Life and Late Complications After Minimally Invasive Compared to Open Esophagectomy: Results of a Randomized Trial. World J Surg. 2015;39:1986–93.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Sys-tematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 27 Aug 2012.
  22. Castoro C, Scarpa M, Cavallin F, Saadeh L, Pinto E, Alfieri R, Cagol M, Da Roit A, Pizzolato E, Noaro G, Pozza G. Impact of hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for cancer on quality of life. Surg Endosc Other Interv Tech. 2016;30:S133.Google Scholar
  23. Cormack OM, Barbour A, Baker P, Hirst J, Thomas J, Blazeby J, Thomson I, Gotley D, Smithers B. Long-term health related quality of life outcomes following esophagectomy: A comparison between thorascopically assisted and open esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus. 2014;27:75A.Google Scholar
  24. Lundell L. Quality of Life after Minimally Invasive Versus Open Esophagectomy. World J Surg. 2015;39:2109–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Zeng J, Liu JS. Quality of life after three kinds of esophagectomy for cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:5106–13.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Shen H, Wang J, Li W, Yi W, Wang W. Assessment of health-related quality of life of patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma following esophagectomy using EORTC quality of life questionnaires. Mol Clin Oncol. 2015;3:133–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Sundaram A, Geronimo JC, Willer BL, Hoshino M, Torgersen Z, Juhasz A, Lee TH, Mittal SK. Survival and quality of life after minimally invasive esophagectomy: a single-surgeon experience. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:168–76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Fujita T, Okada N, Sato T, Mayanagi S, Kanamori J, Daiko H. Translation, validation of the EORTC esophageal cancer quality-of-life questionnaire for Japanese with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: analysis in thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy versus open esophagectomy. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2016;46:615–21.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Reynolds JV, McLaughlin R, Moore J, Rowley S, Ravi N, Byrne PJ. Prospective evaluation of quality of life in patients with localized oesophageal cancer treated by multimodality therapy or surgery alone. Br J Surg. 2006;93:1084–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Blazeby JM, Farndon JR, Donovan J, Alderson D. A prospective longitudinal study examining the quality of life of patients with esophageal carcinoma. Cancer. 2000;88:1781–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. de Boer AG, van Lanschot JJ, van Sandick JW, Hulscher JB, Stalmeier PF, de Haes JC, Tilanus HW, Obertop H, Sprangers MA. Quality of life after transhiatal compared with extended transthoracic resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:4202–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Levenstein S, Li Z, Almer S, Barbosa A, Marquis P, Moser G, Sperber A, Toner B, Drossman DA. Cross-cultural variation in disease-related concerns among patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:1822–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Viklund P, Lindblad M, Lagergren J. Influence of surgery-related factors on quality of life after esophageal or cardia cancer resection. World J Surg. 2005;29:841–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Djarv T, Lagergren J, Blazeby JM, Lagergren P. Long-term health-related quality of life following surgery for oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg. 2008;95:1121–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Blazeby JM, Williams MH, Brookes ST, Alderson D, Farndon JR. Quality of life measurement in patients with oesophageal cancer. Gut. 1995;37:505–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Blazeby JM, Sanford E, Falk SJ, Alderson D, Donovan JL. Health-related quality of life during neoadjuvant treatment and surgery for localized esophageal carcinoma. Cancer. 2005;103:1791–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Ariga H, Nemoto K, Miyazaki S, Yoshioka T, Ogawa Y, Sakayauchi T, Jingu K, Miyata G, Onodera K, Ichikawa H, et al. Prospective comparison of surgery alone and chemoradiotherapy with selective surgery in resectable squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009;75:348–56.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Rosmolen WD, Boer KR, de Leeuw RJ, Gamel CJ, van Berge Henegouwen MI, Bergman JJ, Sprangers MA. Quality of life and fear of cancer recurrence after endoscopic and surgical treatment for early neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus. Endoscopy. 2010;42:525–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley; 2009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Moher D, Pham B, Lawson ML, Klassen TP. The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2018

Advertisement