Rule, William G.

110 Background: Anastomotic leaks can occur after esophagectomy and optimal management after minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) is not well defined. We reviewed endoscopic management of leaks after MIE in patients undergoing trimodality therapy at Mayo Clinic Arizona. Methods: Records of patients undergoing MIE from November, 2006 to February, 2015 were reviewed after appropriate IRB approval. Results: 148 patients underwent MIE including 136 (91.8%) thoracic and 12 (8.1%) cervical anastomoses. Clinically significant anastomotic leaks were observed in 13 (8.8%) patients with 2 (16%) cervical and 11 (8%) thoracic anastomosis at a median of 6.1 days (0-14). 11 (11%) patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy experienced esophageal leak and 2 who did not receive chemoradiotherapy (4%). For treatment of anastomotic leaks, 10 patients underwent VATS with pleural space irrigation and chest tube replacement, and 11 patients underwent stent deployment at the anastomosis for repair. Stents were placed such that the fistula/leak was in the fully covered portion with the greater portion of the stent residing in the esophageal remnant. Stents were removed at a mean of 54 days (28-114). In 2 patients, overgrowth into the stent body required stent-in-stent placement (fully covered) with removal of both stents. Stents were successful at sealing all leaks. Conclusions: Leaks after MIE represent a small, but significant, morbidity in MIE. The majority can be managed by endoscopic stent placement. Stenting is an effective management tool for postoperative leaks in locally advanced esophageal malignancies.

158 Background: Esophageal cancer patients (pts) require multidisciplinary management involving thoracic and general surgeons, medical and radiation oncologists, gastroenterologists and psychiatrists. Pts navigate complex medical discussions and endure challenges to nutrition, body image, swallowing mechanics, energy level and weight, mood, and performance status. Coordination of care is complicated by multiple sites of pt entry, complex scheduling requirements, and incomplete information at multidisciplinary consultation. A nurse navigator to coordinate the patient experience may optimize treatment and improve outcomes, quality of life and patient satisfaction. Methods: The nurse navigator evaluates all pt records prior to initial appointment and coordinates scheduling, records acquisition, testing and specialty appointments. The nurse navigator serves as a liaison with pts throughout the course of care and provides a patient navigation book (PNB) as a central source for patient-directed information and record keeping. Benchmarks compared before and after creation of the nurse navigator position include: (1) time from appointment request to multidisciplinary evaluation and start of treatment; (2) completeness of medical records and data (scans, pathology slides); (3) patient awareness of support services for themselves and caregivers; (4) utilization of the PNB; (5) number and frequency of interim hospitalizations and emergency room visits; (6) patient, caregiver, and physician satisfaction. Results: From January to July 2012, 27 gastroesophageal cancer pts have been followed by the nurse navigator. Most of these patients remain on active treatment, hence benchmark analysis is ongoing. Metrics thus far suggest improvement in time to treatment start and awareness of patient resources, use of the PNB and patient satisfaction. Conclusions: Esophageal cancer pts undergo complex and toxic multimodality therapy with curative intent. A dedicated nurse navigator may improve the patient experience, optimize adherence to guideline based therapy and appropriate timeframes and provide continuity to pts undergoing multidisciplinary treatment.

AbstractTo examine, in a prospective fashion, the utilization and efficacy of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) in patients with resected desmoplastic melanoma (DM). Adult patients with resected, margin‐negative, and nonmetastatic DM were eligible for this single‐arm prospective phase II study. Patients were to receive postoperative RT, 30 Gy in five fractions, to the operative bed with 2‐ to 3‐cm margins (depending on the tumor location). Nodal basin RT was not allowed. The primary study endpoint was the 2‐year local recurrence rate (LRR). Secondary endpoints included the incidence of regional and distant metastatic disease, progression‐free survival, overall survival (OS), and treatment‐related toxicity. Twenty patients with a single de novo DM lesion meeting trial eligibility criteria were enrolled and treated. The 2‐year LRR was 10%, with two patients demonstrating a LR within 2 years of completion of protocol therapy. No regional or distant failures occurred. OS at 2 and 5 years was 95 and 77%, respectively. There were no grade 3 or higher acute or late adverse events that were related to the protocol therapy. Adjuvant RT after wide local excision (WLE) for DM is efficacious and well tolerated. It should be considered for DM patients after margin‐negative WLE. Additional study is needed to further refine low‐risk patient populations that can potentially have adjuvant RT omitted as part of the treatment plan.