Comparison of the short-term and long-term outcomes of surgical treatment versus endoscopic treatment for early esophageal squamous cell neoplasia larger than 2 cm: a retrospective study

Efficacy of endoscopic therapy for T1b esophageal cancer and construction of prognosis prediction model: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of endoscopic therapy on the long-term survival outcomes of T1b oesophageal cancer (EC) is unclear, this study was designed to clarify the survival outcomes of endoscopic therapy and to construct a model for predicting the prognosis in T1b EC patients.

METHODS

This study was performed using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2004 to 2017 of patients with T1bN0M0 EC. Cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between endoscopic therapy group, esophagectomy group and chemoradiotherapy group, respectively. Stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting was used as the main analysis method. The propensity score matching method and an independent dataset from our hospital were used as sensitivity analysis. The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression (Lasso) was employed to sift variables. A prognostic model was then established and was verified in two external validation cohorts.

RESULTS

The unadjusted 5-year CSS was 69.5% (95% CI, 61.5-77.5) for endoscopic therapy, 75.0% (95% CI, 71.5-78.5) for esophagectomy and 42.4% (95% CI, 31.0-53.8) for chemoradiotherapy. After stabilized inverse probability treatment weighting adjustment, CSS and OS were similar in endoscopic therapy and esophagectomy groups ( P =0.32, P =0.83), while the CSS and OS of chemoradiotherapy patients were inferior to endoscopic therapy patients ( P <0.01, P <0.01). Age, histology, grade, tumour size, and treatment were selected to build the prediction model. The area under the curve of receiver operating characteristics of 1, 3, and 5 years in the validation cohort 1 were 0.631, 0.618, 0.638, and 0.733, 0.683, 0.768 in the validation cohort 2. The calibration plots also demonstrated the consistency of predicted and actual values in the two external validation cohorts.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic therapy achieved comparable long-term survival outcomes to esophagectomy for T1b EC patients. The prediction model developed performed well in calculating the OS of patients with T1b EC.

Value of EUS in determining infiltration depth of early carcinoma and associated precancerous lesions in the upper gastrointestinal tract

Objective

The objective is to evaluate the value of EUS in the determination of infiltration depth of early carcinoma and precancerous lesions in the upper gastrointestinal tract and to analyze the various factors affecting the accuracy of EUS.

Methods

One hundred and sixty-three patients diagnosed with early gastric cancer or early esophageal cancer, and associated precancerous lesions, who were seen in our hospital in the recent 10 years were selected. These patients received EUS before endoscopic submucosal dissection or surgery. With a pathological diagnosis as the gold standard, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and misjudgment rate of EUS in determining the invasion depth were evaluated using the pathological stratification (mucosa, M1/2; muscularis mucosa, M3; submucosa, [SM]; and muscularis propria) or TN stratification (mucosa, T1a; SM, T1b), and the possible causes of miscalculation were analyzed.

Results

Based on the pathological stratification, the overall accuracy of EUS was 78.5%, and the overestimation and underestimation rates were 17.8% and 3.7%, respectively. Based on the TN stratification, the overall accuracy of EUS was 81%, and the overestimation and underestimation rates were 16.6% and 2.5%, respectively. There was a significant difference between the groups in terms of overestimation and underestimation rates (P < 0.05), indicating that EUS was more likely to overestimate the depth. Univariate analysis showed that the factors affecting accuracy included lesion size, macroscopic features, sunken mucosa, mucosa with granular and nodular changes, and ulceration. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that larger lesions, mucosa with granular and nodular changes, and ulceration were independent risk factors for the overestimation of infiltration depth by EUS.

Conclusion

EUS is highly accurate in determining the infiltration depth of early cancer and precancerous lesions in the upper gastrointestinal tract. It also has a good reference value for treatment selection and prognostication. However, attention should be paid to its overestimation, especially accompanied by the aforementioned factors.

Repeat endoscopic submucosal dissection as salvage treatment for local recurrence of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after initial endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Local recurrence of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) after endoscopic resection does not have an established treatment. The efficacy and safety of repeat endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for recurrent ESCC were determined in the study.

METHODS

Forty-three consecutive patients with 45 locally recurrent superficial ESCC lesions undergoing repeat ESD and 909 first ESD lesions for propensity score matching (PSM) at Zhongshan Hospital between January 2011 and January 2020 were retrospectively enrolled. After PSM (1:2), operation-related parameters were compared between repeat ESD and first ESD. In the repeat ESD group, the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests were used for identification of risk factors for local recurrence after repeat ESD.

RESULTS

As compared with propensity score-matched first ESD, rates of complete resection (86.7% vs 97.8%, P = .02) and curative resection (86.7% vs 96.7%, P = .06) were lower and procedure duration (54.8 ± 21.7 minutes vs 46.2 ± 20.6 minutes, P = .67) and hospital stay (4.3 ± 1.8 days vs 2.9 ± 1.4 days, P = .25) were longer in the repeat ESD group. The en-bloc resection rate (93.3% vs 98.8%, P > .11) remained comparable. Adverse events including bleeding (4.4% vs 0%, P = .11), perforation (.0% vs .0%, P > .99), and stricture (6.7% vs 2.2%, P = .33) presented with no difference. The 5-year overall survival rate and recurrence-free survival rate for repeat ESD was 100% and 86.0%, respectively. Multiplicity was significantly associated with recurrence after repeat ESD (P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat esophageal ESD showed favorable short- and long-term outcomes and thus provides an alternative choice for recurrent superficial ESCC.

Comparison of Long-Term Survival Between cT1N0 Stage Esophageal Cancer Patients Receiving Endoscopic Dissection and Esophagectomy: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Endoscopic dissection (ED) shows relatively high clinical value in early esophageal cancer (cT1N0) such as lower incidence of postoperative complications and hospitalization costs and enhanced recovery. However, whether ED still has certain advantages over esophagectomy in terms of long-term survival remains unclear.

Purpose

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the long-term outcomes of ED and surgery in the treatment of cT1N0 esophageal cancer.

Methods

Several electronic databases including the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to April 7, 2022 for studies which compared the overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) of cT1N0 esophageal cancer patients receiving the ED or esophagectomy. The hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined and all statistical analysis was conducted through STATA 15.0 software.

Results

A total of 12 studies involving 3,732 patients were enrolled. No significant difference in the OS between ED and surgery groups was observed (HR = 0.78, 95% CI, 0.59–1.04, p = 0.089). However, the DSS of the ED group was significantly longer than that of the surgery group (HR = 0.56, 95% CI, 0.39–0.82, p = 0.003).

Conclusion

In overall, the current evidence manifested that the long-term survival of cT1N0 esophageal cancer patients undergoing ED was not worse than that of patients undergoing esophagectomy. ED may be considered as the primary treatment for cT1N0 esophageal carcinoma patients.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection vs. Surgery for Superficial Esophageal Squamous Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Esophageal cancer is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality across the world. Only one systematic review and meta-analysis has attempted to compare the morbidity and mortality outcomes in superficial esophageal squamous cancer patients undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and esophagectomy (ESO), but with several limitations. This study aimed at comparing the outcomes of hospital stay duration, procedure duration, recurrence, complications, all-cause mortality, short-term survival, and long-term survival in patients with superficial esophageal squamous cancer undergoing ESD and ESO.

Methods

Six databases (Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Scopus, and MEDLINE) were systematically searched according to PRISMA guidelines for eligible studies. With the available literature, we conducted a random-effect meta-analysis to evaluate weighted effect size and odds ratios to determine the comparative morbidity and mortality outcomes between patients with superficial esophageal squamous cancer undergoing ESD and ESO.

Results

We found 16 eligible studies detailing 5,213 and 8,049 age- and sex-matched patients undergoing ESD and ESO, respectively. Meta-analysis revealed reduced hospital stay (Hedge’s g: -1.22) and procedure duration (g: -4.54) for patients undergoing ESD. We also observed significantly reduced risks for complications (odds ratio: 0.35) and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.56) in patients undergoing ESD. Differences in recurrence (OR: 0.95), short-term outcomes (OR: 1.10), and long-term survival (OR: 0.81) outcomes were not significantly different between ESD and ESO.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis provides evidence concerning the improved morbidity and mortality outcomes in superficial esophageal squamous cancer patients undergoing ESD as compared to ESO. The findings herein may aid in developing clinical awareness and assisting best practice guideline development for managing superficial esophageal squamous cancer.

Registration

PROSPERO, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#searchadvanced, CRD42021286212.

Endoscopic resection versus esophagectomy for early esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

Background

Esophagectomy is the standard treatment for early-stage esophageal cancer but is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Thus, endoscopic resection is increasingly used as an alternative option. However, the literature is inconsistent regarding the efficacy of these treatments. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these two treatments.

Methods

A systematic electronic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was performed for studies comparing endoscopic resection and surgery for early-stage esophageal cancer. The overall survival, tumor recurrence, major adverse events, procedure-related mortality, and R0 resection rates were investigated. Forest plots were constructed based on the random-effects model.

Results

We found 15 studies involving 2,467 and 2,264 patients who underwent endoscopic resection and surgery, respectively. The meta-analysis showed that patients undergoing endoscopic resection had significantly fewer major adverse events (relative risk, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.33–0.64) and a lower procedure-related mortality rate (relative risk, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.10–0.73) than those undergoing surgery. The number of postprocedural stricture events did not significantly differ between the two treatments (relative risk, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.53–1.49). Endoscopic resection was associated with higher recurrence rates (relative risk, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.99–2.89) and lower R0 resection rates (relative risk, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.86–0.98) than surgery. There may be some advantage conferred by esophagectomy in the long-term survival outcomes (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.02–1.43).

Discussion

Endoscopic resection is a minimally invasive and safe treatment for early-stage esophageal cancer. However, esophagectomy may be associated with better long-term survival.

Prediction of overall survival in patients with Stage I esophageal cancer: A novel web-based calculator

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In this study, we aimed to develop a convenient web-based calculator to predict the overall survival (OS) of patients with Stage I esophageal cancer (EC).

METHODS

Data of 1664 patients, between 2004 and 2015, were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression was employed to sift variables; subsequently, Cox proportional hazards regression model was built. We applied the enhanced bootstrap validation to appraise the discrimination and calibration of the model. Clinical benefit was measured using decision curve analysis (DCA). Thereafter, a web-based calculator based on the model, which could be used to predict the 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS rates, was developed.

RESULTS

Race, age, histologic type, grade, N stage, and therapeutic methods were selected. C-indices of the prediction model in the training and validation groups were 0.726 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.679-0.773) and 0.724 (95% CI, 0.679-0.769), respectively. Calibration curves showed good agreement between the groups. The DCA demonstrated that the prediction model is clinically useful.

CONCLUSIONS

The prediction model we developed showed a good performance in calculating the OS rates in patients with Stage I EC. The web-based calculator is available at https://championship.shinyapps.io/dynnomapp/.

Endoscopic resection versus esophagectomy for patients with small-sized T1N0 esophageal cancer: A propensity-matched study

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic resection (ER) has been rapidly adopted in the treatment of early-stage esophageal cancer. We aimed to compare the outcomes of ER with esophagectomy for patients with small-sized (≤2 cm) stage T1a and T1b esophageal cancer in a population-based cohort.

METHODS

We queried the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database for patients with T1N0M0 esophageal cancer who underwent ER or esophagectomy and generated a balanced cohort with 217 matched pairs using propensity score matching (PSM). Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox regression analysis were employed to investigate the matched cohort. Subgroup analyses of T stage were also performed.

RESULTS

We identified 702 patients; 309 (44.0 %) underwent ER, and 393 (56.0 %) underwent esophagectomy. In the unmatched cohort, patients who underwent ER were older, more likely to have a T1a stage, and less likely to receive lymph node sampling. In the entire matched cohort, multivariate analysis found esophagectomy were associated with better overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.62, 95 % CI: 0.40-0.96, p = 0.032) than ER, but no significant difference in esophageal cancer-specific survival (ECSS) (HR: 1.37, 95 % CI: 0.64-2.96, p = 0.420) between the two procedures. The results were similar for subgroup analyses of stage T1b patients. However, ER and esophagectomy were associated with similar OS (HR: 0.74, 95 % CI: 0.41-1.36; p = 0.334) and ECSS (HR: 3.69, 95 % CI: 0.95-14.39; p = 0.060) in patients with stage T1a disease.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with stage T1 esophageal cancer, ER was similar to esophagectomy in terms of oncologic outcomes. More prospective studies should be implemented to determine the optimal treatment for T1b esophageal cancer patients with risk factors.

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection and comparison to surgery for superficial esophageal squamous cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for superficial esophageal squamous cancer.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using PubMed, ProQuest and Cochrane Library databases. Primary outcomes were overall survival, disease-specific survival and recurrence-free survival at 5 years. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, recurrence and metastasis. Hazard ratios were calculated based on time to events for survival analysis, and odds radios were used to compare discrete variables.

RESULTS

A total of 3796 patients in 21 retrospective studies, including 5 comparative studies for ESD and esophagectomy were enrolled. The invasion depth was 52.0% for M1-M2, 43.2% for M3-SM1 and 4.7% for SM2 or deeper. The 5-year survival rate was: overall survival 87.3%, disease-specific survival 97.7%, and recurrence-free survival 85.1%, respectively. Pooled local recurrence of ESD was 1.8% and metastasis was 3.3%. In terms of the comparison between ESD and esophagectomy, there was no difference in the overall survival (86.4% versus 81.8%, hazard ratio = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.39-1.11) as well as disease-specific and recurrence-free survival. In addition, ESD was associated with fewer adverse events (19.8 % versus 44.0%, odds ratio = 0.3, 95% CI = 0.23-0.39).

CONCLUSIONS

For superficial esophageal squamous cancer, ESD may be considered as the primary treatment of for mucosal lesions, and additional treatment should be available for submucosal invasive cancers.

Methylated DNA Markers of Esophageal Squamous Cancer and Dysplasia: An International Study

BACKGROUND

Discovery of methylated DNA markers (MDM) of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) has sparked interest in assessing these markers in tissue. We evaluated MDMs in ESCC from three geographically and ethnically distinct populations, and explored the feasibility of assaying MDMs from DNA obtained by swallowed balloon devices.

METHODS

MDMs were assayed in ESCC and normal tissues obtained from the populations of United States, Iran, and China, and from exfoliative cytology specimens obtained by balloons in a Chinese population. Areas under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of MDMs discriminating ESCC from normal tissues were calculated. Random forest prediction models were built, trained on U.S. cases and controls, and calibrated to U.S.-only controls (model 1) and three-country controls (model 2). Statistical tests were used to assess the relationship between dysplasia and MDM levels in balloons.

RESULTS

Extracted DNA from 333 ESCC and 322 normal tissues was analyzed, in addition to archival DNA from 98 balloons. For ESCC, model 1 validated in Iranian and Chinese tissues with AUCs of 0.90 and 0.87, and model 2 yielded AUCs of 0.99, 0.96, and 0.94 in tissues from the United States, Iran, and China, respectively. In Chinese balloons, MDMs showed a statistically significant trend of increasing levels with increasing grades of dysplasia (P < 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

MDMs accurately discriminate ESCC from normal esophagus in tissues obtained from high- and low-incidence countries. Preliminary data suggest that levels of MDMs assayed in DNA from swallowed balloon devices increase with dysplasia grade. Larger studies are needed to validate these results.

IMPACT

MDMs coupled with minimally invasive collection methods have the potential for worldwide application in ESCC screening.

Endoscopic Resection for the Treatment of Superficial Esophageal Neoplasms

Superficial esophageal neoplasms (SENs) are being diagnosed increasingly frequently due to the screening endoscopy and advances in endoscopic techniques. Endoscopic resection (ER) is a relatively noninvasive treatment method with low morbidity and mortality that provides excellent oncologic outcomes. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is associated with higher rates of en bloc, complete and curative resections and lower rates of local recurrence than endoscopic mucosal resection. The most serious complication of ER is stricture, the treatment and prevention of which are crucial to maintain the patient’s quality of life. ER for SEN is feasible, effective, and safe and can be considered a first-line treatment for SENs in which it is technically feasible.

A retrospective cohort study of endoscopic therapy and esophagectomy for stage 1 esophageal cancer: less is more

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Current guidelines recommend consideration of endoscopic therapy (ET) when treating select stage I esophageal cancers. The proportion of esophageal cancers treated with ET compared with esophagectomy has increased over time. Overall and cancer-specific survival have not been shown to be superior with ET in prior population-based studies. We thus evaluated cancer-specific survival comparing patients treated with ET and esophagectomy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 2004 to 2015 of patients with node-negative, superficial (T1a/T1b), esophageal cancer treated with ET or esophagectomy. Competing-risks models were used to compare cancer-specific survival. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess overall survival. Subgroup analysis was performed comparing time periods 2004 to 2009 and 2010 to 2015.

RESULTS

Of 2133 included individuals, 772 (36.2%) underwent ET and 1361 (63.8%) underwent esophagectomy. Unadjusted 5-year survival for cancer-specific death was 87.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.2-90.5) for ET and 82.4% (95% CI, 80.0- 84.5) for esophagectomy (P = .002). Within the adjusted competing-risk model, cancer-specific survival was superior in patients treated with ET compared with esophagectomy (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.35-2.74; P < .001). From 2004 to 2009, the SHR for esophagectomy was 1.68 (95% CI, 1.07-2.66; P = .024); whereas from 2010 to 2015, the SHR for esophagectomy was 2.02 (95% CI, 1.08-3.76; P = .027).

CONCLUSIONS

ET was associated with improved cancer-specific survival compared with esophagectomy in stage I esophageal cancer. This advantage was more pronounced for patients treated after 2009, potentially because of increasing clinician expertise in performing ET and patient selection.

Current status of esophageal cancer treatment

Esophageal cancer (EC) remains one of the most common and aggressive diseases worldwide. This review discusses some debates in the modern management of the disease. Endoscopic procedures for early cancer (T1a−b) are now embedded in routine care and the challenge will be to more accurately select patients for endoscopic resection with or without adjuvant therapy. Perioperative multimodal therapies are associated with improved survival compared to surgery alone for locally advanced esophageal cancer. However, there is no global consensus on the optimal regimen. Furthermore, histological subtype (adenocarcinomavs. squamous cell cancer) plays a role in the choice for treatment. New studies are underway to resolve some issues. The extent of the lymphadenectomy during esophagectomy remains controversial especially after neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The ideal operation balances between limiting surgical trauma and optimizing survival. Minimally invasive esophagectomy and enhanced recovery pathways are associated with decreased morbidity and faster recovery albeit there is no consensus yet what approach should be used. Finally, immune checkpoint inhibitors present promising preliminary results in the novel treatment of advanced or metastatic EC but their widespread application in clinical practice is still awaited.