Selection of surgical approach for esophageal cancer at esophagogastric junction
Editorial Commentary

Selection of surgical approach for esophageal cancer at esophagogastric junction

Jari V. Räsänen, Juha T. Kauppi

Division of General Thoracic and Esophageal Surgery, Heart and Lung Center, Helsinki University Hospital and Helsinki University, Hus, Finland

Correspondence to: Jari V. Räsänen, MD, PhD. Division of General Thoracic and Esophageal Surgery, Heart and Lung Center, Helsinki University Hospital and Helsinki University, Po. Box 340, 00029 Hus, Finland. Email:

Received: 18 August 2019; Accepted: 21 August 2019; Published: 29 August 2019.

doi: 10.21037/shc.2019.08.10

The incidence of gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEJAC) in Western countries has increased over the last few decades (1). Some increase in the incidence of GEJAC has been seen in Asia as well (2,3).

There is much controversy in the definition and in the choice of optimal surgical treatment for GEJAC. Even the definition of gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) is not clear. Since the 1996 the Siewert classification system has been used for diagnosis, reporting, and research on these tumors. The Siewert classification defines the GEJ as the most proximal end of the gastric folds, and it identifies 3 types of tumors based on where the lesion’s epicenter is located: type I, between 1 and 5 cm above the GEJ; type II, between 1 cm above and 2 cm below the GEJ; type III, between 2 and 5 cm below the GEJ (4). The drawback is that the accuracy of pathologic determination of Siewert classification is confirmed by preoperative endoscopic determination in only 70% of cases, and by preoperative radiographic determination in only 72% (5).

The common agreement is that for locally advanced GEJAC, operative resection is necessary for long-term survival. Although there are several surgical treatment options available for the treatment GEJAC, one principle is universally accepted. That principle, which Siewert et al. presented in 2000, is the importance to achieve microscopically clear resection margins (R0 resection). Siewert et al. showed the correlation of the long-term survival and R0 resection on 1,002 patients (6). This finding has been confirmed by others (7,8).

Surgical resection: Siewert class I

Another generally accepted principle is a proper resection of all regional lymph nodes. Data from previous studies have shown that Siewert type I tumors most commonly spread to the upper abdominal and lower posterior mediastinal nodes (9,10). This leads to the consensus of the need for esophageal resection and mediastinal lymph node dissection for type I tumors—a position supported almost unanimously by experts in a recent international survey (11). The two most popular methods to achieve resection of a distal esophageal cancer are transthoracic and transhiatal esophagectomies. Transthoracic esophagectomy is performed through a right thoracotomy and laparotomy (Ivor Lewis or Tanner-Lewis esophagectomy). In addition, the sharp dissection of lymph nodes is performed both in upper abdomen and mediastinum. Then the gastric conduit is brought through the posterior mediastinum and the anastomosis is performed in the chest, or in case of a very long tumor, in the neck (McKeown approach). The advantage of thoracic anastomosis is lower leak rates, but if a leak occurs, the morbidity is higher in case of the chest anastomosis. Overall, the thoracotomy approach is associated with higher peri-procedural morbidity and mortality than transhiatal approach (11,12). The modern way of decreasing the morbidity is to employ total or partly minimally invasive surgery (13,14).

Transhiatal esophagectomy includes a blunt mobilization of the intrathoracic esophagus from the esophageal hiatus and from a left cervical incision to the thoracic inlet without the need for thoracotomy. The advantage of the transhiatal technique is that it avoids thoracotomy while achieving a complete removal of the esophagus. Potential disadvantages include a limited periesophageal and mediastinal lymphadenectomy especially subcarinal, and the risk of causing tracheobronchial or vascular injury during blunt dissection of the esophagus (particularly for locally advanced tumors). A cervical anastomosis is associated with a higher rate of anastomotic leakage than an intrathoracic anastomosis (12% vs. 5%, respectively), although the cervical anastomotic leak is generally confined to the cervical soft tissue with less risk of intrathoracic or mediastinal extension—and therefore the morbidity of a cervical leak is reported to be significantly lower (15). Disadvantages of cervical anastomosis include association with pharyngeal reflux, nocturnal aspiration, and prolonged swallowing dysfunction and hoarseness after surgery, mainly due to high incidence of recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy (16).

The beneficial extent of lymphadenectomy for Siewert I tumors is under debate. On one hand it has been shown that when less than 8 lymph nodes are involved with cancer, GEJ surgery with more radical lymph node resection results in better survival (17,18). On the other hand in a randomized trial there was no overall survival benefit for extended transthoracic approach for GEJAC compared to transhiatal approach—although in a subgroup analysis they were able to demonstrate a substantial difference in survival in patients with Siewert type I cancer (51% in the RT approach group and 37% in the TH approach group; P=0.33). Based on these results, RT approach has been recommended for Siewert type I cancer and TH approach for Siewert type II cancer (19). Therefore, both approaches can be considered acceptable.

There are several retrospective series (20,21) and two prospective studies (13,22) showing that totally minimally invasive resection does not risk the radicality of lymph node dissection in the treatment of these tumors.

Surgical resection: Siewert class II

Siewert class II tumors are often considered as true gastroesophageal tumors. There is a lot of controversy in the definition and the treatment of these tumors. They are treated both as esophageal tumors and as gastric tumors with either transthoracic esophagectomy (23), transhiatal esophagectomy (15), a left thoracoabdominal esophagogastrectomy (24), or a total gastrectomy (TG) with extended distal esophageal resection (6). An international survey among the members of both esophageal and gastric societies showed that about two-thirds of surgeons who treat these tumors perform an extended gastrectomy, while the rest prefer an esophagectectomy and partial gastrectomy (12).

One recent study showed that the length of the proximal resection margin at least 3.8 cm’s ex vivo margin length (about 5 cm in vivo) correlates with improved survival regardless of approach (25). In contrast, an earlier study by Ito demonstrated the significance of at least 4 cm of macroscopically free stomach below the tumor (26). In order to achieve a good tumor free margin in the esophagus, the left thoracoabdominal esophagogastrectomy seems to be a bad choice based on a randomized controlled trial from the Japan Clinical Oncology Group. They compared the left thoracoabdominal esophagogastrectomy to transabdominal TG and stopped the study after the first interim analysis due to inferiority of the left thoracoabdominal resection in terms of safety (24).

Siewert’s group has been advocating for a TG with extended distal esophageal resection based on their findings that mediastinal nodes are involved in only 11% of patients with type II tumors (27). Their finding can be criticized based on the fact they performed only transhiatal lymph nodes dissection. Similarly, a recent report from seven centers in the USA favored gastrectomy based on the fact that a specific proximal margin did not play any significant role for survival of patients with Siewert type II and type III tumors (28). Another report from two large data sets in the USA concluded the tumor biology and the use of multimodality therapy are determinants of oncologic outcome for cardia cancer, rather than either gastrectomy or esophagectomy (29). On the contrary, Leers et al. found that the prevalence and distribution of lymph node metastases in patients with adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus and gastroesophageal junction were similar and an esophagectomy was similarly effective treatment for both types of tumors (30).

Results of a Dutch trial comparing transhiatal esophagectomy (TH) to transthoracic esophagectomy (RT) showed no overall survival benefit for RT approach compared to TH approach for patient with type II tumors (P=0.81). However, the same study suggested significantly better survival for transthoracic approach on patients with at most 8 positive nodes, suggesting the patients with limited regional disease appear to benefit from the transthoracic approach (19). A systematic review of ten cohort studies comparing the gastrectomy and esophagectomy in treatment of GEJ tumors found no statistically significant differences in the 5-year survival rates between esophagectomy (30–42%) and gastrectomy (18–38%) (31).

It is obvious that Siewert classification cannot univocally predict the nodal drainage in GEJAC of Siewert type II. Therefore, better classifications are expected based on tumors’ biological properties.

Surgical resection: Siewert class III

Siewert II type tumors were classified as esophageal cancer in the seventh TNM edition, and then were reclassified as gastric cancer in the eighth edition. Surgical goals are the same as for the other two Siewert type tumors, in other words an R0 resection and appropriate lymph node clearance, while minimizing procedural morbidity. The way of achieving these goals is under debate. Most surgeons, however advocate the need of TG for these patients (11,32).

Some investigators have proposed a proximal gastrectomy (PG) for Siewert III adenocarcinoma of the GEJ as an optimal treatment. Their motivation has been a presumed lower rate of complications such as esophagitis and strictures after PG compared to TG (33), while others have claimed the opposite (34). Two large meta-analyses showed significantly more reflux esophagitis and anastomotic strictures after PG compared with TG (35,36). Also, the patient-reported quality of life outcomes are contradictory. PG may reduce dumping and need for additional meals (37). On the other hand, it may cause higher rates of clinically significant reflux and nausea (38). A recent Swedish population-based register study concluded gastrectomy and oesophagectomy for Siewert II or III GEJAC’s seemed comparable regarding tumor-free resection margins, lymph nodes removal, and 5-year survival (39).

Although there are a lot of controversies in the choice of optimal surgical treatment of all types of GEJAC’s one common principle is univocally accepted by surgeons: if possible, no residual disease should be left behind after the surgical resection of GEJAC. The patient should achieve the best possible survival and the best possible quality of life after surgery. In practice this means for all 3 types of GEJAC’s need for about 4 cm tumor free margin in the stomach, and about 5 cm tumor free margin in the esophagus. Therefore, in most cases, an esophagectomy (either open or minimally invasive transthoracic or transhiatal) is needed for Siewert type I tumors and gastrectomy (or PG) for Siewert type III tumors. On the contrary, the optimal surgical option for tumors of Siewert type II is a matter of debate and no definitive recommendation cannot given based on the evidence available.




Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Ethical Statement: The authors are accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.


  1. Buas MF, Vaughan TL. Epidemiology and risk factors for gastroesophageal junction tumors: understanding the rising incidence of this disease. Semin Radiat Oncol 2013;23:3-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  2. Kim Jin-Jo. Epidemiology of Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma in Korea. J Gastric Cancer 2018;18:328-38. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  3. Tachimori Y, Ozawa S, Numasaki H, et al. Registration Committee for Esophageal Cancer of the Japan Esophageal Society. Comprehensive registry of esophageal cancer in Japan, 2012. Esophagus 2019;16:221-45. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  4. Siewert JR, Stein HJ. Classification of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction. Br J Surg 1998;85:1457-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  5. Grotenhuis BA, Wijnhoven BP, Poley JW, et al. Preoperative assessment of tumor location and station-specific lymph node status in patients with adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction. World J Surg 2013;37:147-55. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  6. Rüdiger Siewert J, Feith M, Werner M, et al. Adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: results of surgical therapy based on anatomical/topographic classification in 1,002 consecutive patients. Ann Surg 2000;232:353-61. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  7. Mariette C, Castel B, Balon JM, et al. Extent of oesophageal resection for adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction. Eur J Surg Oncol 2003;29:588-93. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  8. Mattioli S, Di Simone MP, Ferruzzi L, et al. Surgical therapy for adenocarcinoma of the cardia: modalities of recurrence and extension of resection. Dis Esophagus 2001;14:104-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  9. Siewert JR. Adenocarcinoma of the esophago‐gastric junction. Gastric Cancer 1999;2:87-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  10. Hulscher JB, van Sandick JW, de Boer AG, et al. Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1662-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  11. Haverkamp L, Seesing MF, Ruurda JP, et al. Worldwide trends in surgical techniques in the treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancer. Dis Esophagus 2017;30:1-7. [PubMed]
  12. Hulscher JB, Tijssen JG, Obertop H, et al. Transthoracic versus transhiatal resection for carcinoma of the esophagus: a meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;72:306-13. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  13. 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. Lancet 2012;379:1887-92. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  14. Briez N, Piessen G, Bonnetain F, et al. Open versus laparoscopically-assisted oesophagectomy for cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled phase III trial - the MIRO trial. BMC Cancer 2011;11:310. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  15. Orringer MB, Marshall B, Iannettoni MD. Transhiatal esophagectomy: clinical experience and refinements. Ann Surg 1999;230:392-400. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  16. Boshier PR, Anderson O, Hanna GB. Transthoracic versus transhiatal esophagectomy for the treatment of esophagogastric cancer: a meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2011;254:894-906. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  17. Peyre CG, Hagen JA, DeMeester SR, et al. Predicting systemic disease in patients with esophageal cancer after esophagectomy: a multinational study on the significance of the number of involved lymph nodes. Ann Surg 2008;248:979-85. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  18. Johansson J, DeMeester TR, Hagen JA, et al. En bloc vs transhiatal esophagectomy for stage T3 N1 adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus. Arch Surg 2004;139:627-31. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  19. Omloo JM, Lagarde SM, Hulscher JB, 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;246:992-1000. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  20. Klevebro F, Scandavini CM. Single center consecutive series cohort study of minimally invasive versus open resection for cancer in the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction. Dis Esophagus 2018. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  21. Kauppi J, Räsänen J, Sihvo E, et al. Open versus minimally invasive esophagectomy: clinical outcomes for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma. Surg Endosc 2015;29:2614-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  22. van der Sluis PC, van der Horst S, May AM, et al. Robot-assisted Minimally Invasive Thoracolaparoscopic Esophagectomy Versus Open Transthoracic Esophagectomy for Resectable Esophageal Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Surg 2019;269:621-30. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  23. Mariette C, Piessen G, Briez N, et al. Oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma: which therapeutic approach? Lancet Oncol 2011;12:296-305. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  24. Kurokawa Y, Sasko M, Sano T, et al. Ten-year follow-up results of a randomized clinical trial comparing left thoracoabdominal and abdominal transhiatal approaches to total gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction or gastric cardia. Br J Surg 2015;102:341-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  25. Barbour AP, Rizk NP, Gonen M, et al. Lymphadenectomy for adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ): impact of adequate staging on outcome. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14:306-16. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  26. Ito H, Clancy TE, Osteen RT, et al. Adenocarcinoma of the gastric cardia: what is the optimal surgical approach? J Am Coll Surg 2004;199:880-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  27. Feith M, Stein HJ, Siewert J. Adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: surgical therapy based on 1602 consecutive resected patients. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2006;15:751-64. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  28. Postlewait LM, Squires MH 3rd, Kooby DA, et al. The importance of the proximal resection margin distance for proximal gastric adenocarcinoma: a multi-institutional study of the US gastric cancer collaborative. J Surg Oncol 2015;112:203-7. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  29. Martin JT, Mahan A, Zwischenberger JB, et al. Should gastric cardia cancers be treated with esophagectomy or total gastrectomy? A comprehensive analysis of 4,996 NSQIP/SEER patients. J Am Coll Surg 2015;220:510-20. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  30. Leers JM, DeMeester SR, Chan N, et al. Clinical characteristics, biologic behavior, and survival after esophagectomy are similar for adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction and the distal esophagus. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009;138:594-602. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  31. Haverkamp L, Ruurda JP, van Leeuwen MS, et al. Systematic review of the surgical strategies of adenocarcinomas of the gastroesophageal junction. Surg Oncol 2014;23:222-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  32. Papachristou DN, Fortner JG. Adenocarcinoma of the gastric cardia. The choice of gastrectomy. Ann Surg 1980;192:58-64. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  33. Son MW, Kim YJ, Jeong GA, et al. Long-term outcomes of proximal gastrectomy versus total gastrectomy for upper-third gastric cancer. J Gastric Cancer 2014;14:246-51. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  34. Rosa F, Quero G, Fiorillo C, et al. Total vs proximal gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma of the upper third of the stomach: a propensity-score-matched analysis of a multicenter western experience (On behalf of the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer-GIRCG). Gastric Cancer 2018;21:845-52. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  35. Pu YW, Gong W, Wu YY, et al. Proximal gastrectomy versus total gastrectomy for proximal gastric carcinoma. A meta-analysis on postoperative complications, 5-year survival, and recurrence rate. Saudi Med J 2013;34:1223-8. [PubMed]
  36. Wen L, Chen XZ, Wu B, et al. Total vs. proximal gastrectomy for proximal gastric cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hepatogastroenterology 2012;59:633-40. [PubMed]
  37. Takiguchi N, Takahashi M, Ikeda M, et al. Long-term quality-of-life comparison of total gastrectomy and proximal gastrectomy by postgastrectomy syndrome assessment scale (PGSAS-45): a nationwide multi-institutional study. Gastric Cancer 2015;18:407-16. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  38. Karanicolas PJ, Graham D, Gonen M, et al. Quality of life after gastrectomy for adenocarcinoma: a prospective cohort study. Ann Surg 2013;257:1039-46. [Crossref] [PubMed]
  39. Kauppila JH, Wahlin K, Lagergren J. Gastrectomy compared to oesophagectomy for Siewert II and III gastro-oesophageal junctional cancer in relation to resection margins, lymphadenectomy and survival. Sci Rep 2017;7:17783. [Crossref] [PubMed]
doi: 10.21037/shc.2019.08.10
Cite this article as: Räsänen JV, Kauppi JT. Selection of surgical approach for esophageal cancer at esophagogastric junction. Shanghai Chest 2019;3:49.