Definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) has become a cornerstone in the treatment of locally advanced esophageal cancer; however, local control remains suboptimal, and persistent lesions or locoregional recurrences after treatment are not uncommon. For patients without distant metastases but with local failure, whether surgical intervention can still offer curative potential remains a major clinical dilemma. Salvage esophagectomy (SE) offers potential long-term survival for selected patients, but this procedure is performed in the context of severe fibrosis, impaired local blood supply, and obscured anatomical planes following chemoradiotherapy, resulting in significantly higher perioperative risk compared to primary esophagectomy. Consequently, controversies exist regarding patient selection, preoperative restaging, choice of surgical approach, extent of lymphadenectomy, gastrointestinal reconstruction, and perioperative management. In recent years, with the refinement of restaging modalities such as PET/CT, the accumulation of experience in high-volume centers, and emerging evidence from clinical studies, the clinical role of SE has gradually shifted from a "high-risk salvage measure" to a "selective curative strategy aimed at achieving long-term survival in carefully selected patients". Nevertheless, standardized guidelines for patient selection, technical approaches, and perioperative management are still lacking. Based on current evidence and clinical experience, experts organized by the Integrated Esophageal Cancer Committee of Chinese Anti-Cancer Association systematically reviewed key issues regarding SE, including its definition, indications, preoperative evaluation, choice of surgical approach, lymphadenectomy, gastrointestinal reconstruction, and perioperative management, and formulated a Chinese expert consensus. This consensus aims to provide guidance for standardized assessment, appropriate referral, individualized surgical decision-making, and optimized perioperative management of patients with locoregional failure after dCRT. Ultimately, this will increase the likelihood of R0 resection, reduce the risk of severe complications, and promote the safer, more judicious, and standardized implementation of SE in high-risk scenarios.

Objective Jejunal interposition is an important option for restoring gastrointestinal continuity in patients with complex esophageal cancer in whom the stomach is unavailable for reconstruction due to previous gastrectomy, tumor involvement, failed gastric conduit, or other constraints. Although the jejunum offers a caliber similar to the esophagus, a rich blood supply, and preserved peristaltic function, anatomical variations in mesenteric length and vascular arcades render long-segment and high-level reconstruction susceptible to excessive tension, mesenteric torsion, venous congestion, and inadequate distal perfusion. This consensus aims to provide standardized recommendations for the application of jejunal interposition in this specific patient population. Methods This consensus was developed in accordance with the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development and Chinese national guideline development standards, with reference to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation Ⅱ(AGREE Ⅱ), Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT), and Scientific, Transparent and Applicable Rankings (STAR) checklists. The project was registered on the international practice guidelines registry platform (PREPARE-2026CN1384). The working group systematically searched Chinese and English evidence addressing 12 clinical questions. Evidence was graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) 2009 system, with structured appraisal of risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision. Recommendations were formulated through two rounds of Delphi surveys and a face-to-face consensus meeting, with an agreement threshold of ≥75%. Results The consensus generated 12 recommendations covering indications, selection between jejunum and colon, preoperative assessment, surgical approach and reconstruction route, pedicled jejunal interposition (PJI), supercharged pedicled jejunal interposition (SPJ), indocyanine green (ICG) perfusion assessment, perioperative nutrition, management of anastomotic leakage, long-term follow-up, and special treatment scenarios. Given that the available direct evidence is predominantly derived from single-center retrospective cohorts and case series, recommendations extrapolated from general esophagectomy or other gastrointestinal surgical evidence are deliberately phrased with caution. Conclusion Jejunal interposition is a safe and effective approach for digestive tract reconstruction in patients with complex esophageal cancer in whom the stomach is unavailable. This consensus emphasizes that clinical decision-making should be individualized based on the patient's prior treatment history, reconstruction height, vascular anatomy, technical availability, and institutional experience in the Chinese context.

Objective:To investigate the expression of Per2 mRNA, HDAC1 mRNA and E-cadherin mRNA in esophageal cancer cells and their significance.Methods:The experimental study was conducted. Human normal esophageal epithelial cells as the control group and human esophageal cancer cell line KYSE-150 cells as the experimental group were cultured in vitro to logarithmic growth stage. Observation indicators: (1) the proliferation of cells; (2) the migration and invasion of cells; (3) the expression of Per2 mRNA, HDAC1 mRNA, and E-cadherin mRNA in cells of initial physiological state; (4) the expression of Per2 mRNA, HDAC1 mRNA, and E-cadherin mRNA after cells were treated with Per2-agonists or inhibitors; (5) the expression of Per2 mRNA and E-cadherin mRNA after cells were treated with HDAC1 inhibitors. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean± SD, the t test was used for comparison within groups and the t test or ANCOVA were used for comparison between groups. Results:(1) The proliferation of cells: the cell proliferation of the experimental group and control group were 0.90%±0.14% and 0.52%±0.08%, with a significant difference between the two groups ( t=5.166, P<0.05). (2) The migration and invasion of cells: the numbers of cell migration and invasion for the experimental group were 173±41 and 86±27, versus 50±15 and 21±9 for the control group, with significant differences between the two groups ( t=6.274, 5.153, P<0.05). (3) The expression of Per2 mRNA, HDAC1 mRNA, and E-cadherin mRNA in cells of initial physiological state: the expression of Per2 mRNA, HDAC1 mRNA, and E-cadherin mRNA in cells of initial physiological state for the experimental group was 11.7±2.7, 20.4±6.6, and 12.4±2.5, respectively, versus 2.4±0.5, 8.5±2.2, and 27.3±4.5 for the control group, with significant differences between the two groups ( t=5.782, 2.982, -5.034, P<0.05). (4) The expression of Per2 mRNA, HDAC1 mRNA, and E-cadherin mRNA after cells were treated with Per2-agonists or inhibitors: after cells were treated with Per2-agonists, the expression of Per2 mRNA, HDAC1 mRNA, and E-cadherin mRNA were 13.1±2.2, 22.4±6.2, 16.6±4.2 for the experimental group, and 9.9±3.1, 18.4±5.6, 15.3±2.3 for the control group, respectively. There was no significant difference in the expression of Per2 mRNA, HDAC1 mRNA, or E-cadherin mRNA of the experimental group between cells being treated with and without Per2-agonists ( t=-4.300, 10.087, -4.187, P>0.05). There were significant differences in the expression of Per2 mRNA, HDAC1 mRNA, and E-cadherin mRNA of the control group between cells being treated with and without Per2-agonists ( t=-4.846, 3.501, 9.294, P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the expression of Per2 mRNA or E-cadherin mRNA between the experimental group and control group after cells were treated with Per2-agonists ( F=1.000, 7.582, P>0.05), while there was a significant difference in the expression of HDAC1 mRNA between the two groups ( F=1.724, P<0.05). After cells were treated with Per2-inhibitors, the expression of Per2 mRNA, HDAC1 mRNA, and E-cadherin mRNA were 4.1±1.7, 7.5±2.2, 22.8±4.2 for the experimental group, and 3.1±0.9, 9.3±3.2, 28.4±5.8 for the control group, respectively. There were significant differences in the expression of Per2 mRNA, HDAC1 mRNA, and E-cadherin mRNA of the experimental group between cells being treated with and without Per2-inhibitors ( t=12.124, 5.105, -10.245, P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the expression of Per2 mRNA, HDAC1 mRNA, or E-cadherin mRNA of the control group between cells being treated with and without Per2-inhibitors ( t=-2.815, 1.568, -1.439, P>0.05). There were significant differences in the expression of Per2 mRNA and E-cadherin mRNA after cells were treated with Per2-inhibitors between the experimental group and control group ( F=22.965, 82.134, P<0.05), while there was no significant difference in the expressions of HDAC1 mRNA between the two groups ( F=6.416, P>0.05). (5) The expression of Per2 mRNA and E-cadherin mRNA after cells were treated with HDAC1 inhibitors: after cells were treated with HDAC1 inhibitors, the expression of Per2 mRNA and E-cadherin mRNA were 13.4±3.5, 24.2±3.4 for the experimental group, and 3.1±1.2, 26.8±5.2 for the control group, respectively. There was no significant difference in the expression of Per2 mRNA of the experimental group between cells being treated with and without HDAC1-inhibitors ( t=-3.959, P>0.05). There was a significant difference in the expression of E-cadherin mRNA of the experimental group between cells being treated with and without HDAC1-inhibitors ( t=-21.977, P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the expression of Per2 mRNA or E-cadherin mRNA of the control group between cells being treated with and without HDAC1-inhibitors ( t=-1.440, 1.058, P>0.05). After cells were treated with HDAC1-inhibitors, there was no significant difference in the expressions of Per2 mRNA between the experimental group and control group ( F=2.004, P>0.05), while there was a significant difference in the expression of E-cadherin mRNA between the two groups ( F=325.800, P<0.05). Conclusions:Human esophageal cancer cells have an elevated expression of Per2 mRNA and HDAC1 mRNA, and a reduced expression of E-cadherin mRNA. The overexpression of Per2 mRNA may activate the expression of downstream targeting protein HDAC1, and inhibit the expression of cell surface E-cadherin mRNA.

Background and purpose:Over-expression of Hypoxia-inducible factor-1? in tumors was known to be associated with resistance to radiation,chemotherapy and with the more malignant tumor phenotypes relative to increased invasiveness,metastatic potential.Furthermore,research has shown that HIF-1? over-expression is associated with aberrant P53 accumulation in human tumors.So we investigated the significance of HIF-1? expression and the relationships among expression of HIF-1?,P53 and P-gp in gastric carcinoma.Methods:The expressions of HIF-1?,P53 and P-gp were investigated by immunohistochemistry in 74 specimens of gastric carcinoma.Results:The positive percentage of P53 protein was higher in the group with HIF-1? positive than the one with HIF-1? negative(70.45% vs 30.0%).The positive rate of P-gp protein was also higher in HIF-1? positive group than in HIF-1? negative group(61.36% vs 36.67%),The positive expression of HIF-1? was significantly related to expression of P-53 and P-gp(r_(s)=0.372,0.256).The positive rate of P-gp protein was higher in P53 positive group than in P53 negative group.Spearman rank correlation test showed a positive correlation between P53 expression and P-gp(r_(s)=0.0283,P