Results of a two-phased clinical study evaluating a new multiband mucosectomy device for early Barrett's neoplasia: a randomized pre-esophagectomy trial and a pilot therapeutic pilot study

Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for early esophageal adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allow endoscopic resection of early esophageal adenocarcinoma. The choice between the two techniques takes into account the morphology of the lesion, and the experience of the endoscopist. The aim of this study was to compare EMR to ESD for the treatment of early esophageal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

Patients who underwent an endoscopic resection for esophageal adenocarcinomas between March 2015 and December 2019 were included. ESD was compared to EMR in terms of clinical, procedural, histologic, and oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

85 patients were included: 57 ESD and 28 EMR. The median (IQR) diameter of the lesion was 20(15-25) mm in the ESD group, and 15(8-16) mm in the EMR group, p<0.01. ESD allowed en bloc resection in 100% of cases, and EMR in 39% of cases, p<0.001. The R0 and curative resection rate in the ESD group versus the EMR group were 88% and 67%, respectively, versus 21% and 11%, p<0.001. We recorded one severe adverse event, in the EMR group. After a median (IQR) follow-up of 27.5 (14.5-38.7) months, the local recurrence rate was 23% vs. 18% (p=0.63), and the overall survival 89% vs. 86% (p=0.72), in the ESD and EMR groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

ESD was as safe as EMR and allowed higher en bloc, R0 and curative resection rates. Although these results did not translate into long-term outcomes, these data prompt for a broader adoption of ESD for the resection of esophageal lesions suspected of harboring early esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Outcome after endoscopic treatment for dysplasia and superficial esophageal cancer - a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Dysplasia and superficial esophageal cancer should initially be treated endoscopically. Little is known about post-procedural health-related quality of life (HRQL). The aim of this study was to present our results with endoscopic treatment and post-procedural HRQL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From June 2014 to December 2018, all patients treated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and/or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), T1a and a minority of patients with T1b at Oslo University Hospital were prospectively included. In June 2019, all patients alive were scored according to the Ogilvie dysphagia score as well as the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OG25 for assessment of HRQL.

RESULTS

Eighty-six patients were treated out of whom 22 (26%) had LGD, 44 (51%) HGD, 13 (15%) T1a, and six patients (7%) T1b. Histology revealed adenocarcinoma in 18 (21%) and squamous cell carcinoma in one (1%), respectively. The mean follow-up was 22.9 months. Tumor regression or downstaging was archived in 78% of the patients with LGD, 66% of patients with HGD and in 89% of patients with T1a/b. Five patients (6%) had esophagectomy. There were few and no serious complications. The 90-days mortality was 1%. Fifty-two patients (88%) experienced no dysphagia (Ogilvie score 0). There was no difference in 11 out of the 15 variables in QLQ-C30 when compared to a non-cancerous reference population.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic treatment is safe and efficient for treatment of dysplasia and superficial esophageal cancer. The two-years post-procedural level of HRQL and dysphagia was satisfactory.

Risk factors for serious adverse events associated with multiband mucosectomy in Barrett's esophagus: an international multicenter analysis of 3827 endoscopic resection procedures

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Multiband mucosectomy (MBM) is a widely used technique for the treatment of Barrett's esophagus (BE). However, large multicenter studies enabling a generalizable estimation of the risk of serious adverse events, such as perforation and postprocedural bleeding, are lacking. The aim of this study was to estimate the rate of, and risk factors for, serious adverse events associated with MBM.

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis, consecutive patients who underwent MBM for treatment of BE in 14 tertiary referral centers in Europe, the United States, Canada, and Australia were included. Primary outcomes were perforation and postprocedural bleeding rate. Potential risk factors were identified by logistic regression.

RESULTS

Between 2001 and 2016, a total of 3827 MBM procedures were performed in 2447 patients (84% male, mean age 66 years, median BE length C2M4). Perforation occurred in 17 procedures (0.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-0.7), of which 15 could be treated endoscopically or conservatively. Female gender was an independent risk factor for perforation (odds ratio [OR], 2.77; 95% CI, 1.02-7.57; P = .05). Postprocedural bleeding occurred after 35 procedures (0.9%; 95% CI, 0.6-1.3). The number of resections (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.25; P < .001) was significantly associated with postprocedural bleeding.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study show that MBM for BE is safe with a low risk of serious adverse events. In addition, most of the adverse events could be managed endoscopically or conservatively. The number of resections was an independent risk factor for postprocedural bleeding.