Evolving changes in the management of early oesophageal adenocarcinoma in a tertiary centre

Management of Long-Segment Barrett's Esophagus

Background: Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a common gastrointestinal disorder with one of its most feared complications being Barrett's esophagus (BE). Currently, most of the recommendations of BE management are driven by the level of dysplasia. However, the length of BE might also be related to the risk of dysplasia/malignant transformation. We aimed to determine the appropriate management of BE based on its length. Materials and Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted with searches made on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Long-segment BE (LSBE) was defined as 3 cm or longer and short-segment BE (SSBE) as under 3 cm. Studies evaluating the behavior and management of SSBE and/or LSBE were included for analysis. Results: LSBE have greater risk of dysplasia or progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma compared to SSBE. Despite this greater risk, LSBE and SSBE are currently managed similarly based on the presence and degree of dysplasia. Endoscopic and ablative techniques may have higher level of success and less complications in SSBE, compared to LSBE. Decreasing time interval between surveillance may be a viable option for managing LSBE. Conclusions: Although many algorithms of monitoring and treatment of BE remain the same regardless of segment length, current evidence suggests that more aggressive management for LSBE might be needed due to its higher risk of malignant progression.

The role of esophagectomy in the management of Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia

Barrett's esophagus (BE) with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) has previously been a routine indication for esophagectomy. Recent advances in endoscopic therapy have resulted in a shift away from surgery. Current international guidelines recommend endoscopic therapy for BE with HGD irrespective of recurrence or progression of dysplasia. Current guidelines do not address the ongoing role of esophagectomy as an adjunct in the setting of failed endoscopic therapy. This review examines the role of esophagectomy as an adjunct to endoscopy in the management of patients with BE and HGD, with a specific focus on patients with persistent, progressive, or recurrent disease, disease resistant to endoscopic therapy, in patients with concomitant esophageal pathology, and in those patients in whom lifelong surveillance may not be possible or desired.

Changes in gut hormones, glycaemic response and symptoms after oesophagectomy

BACKGROUND

Oesophagectomy is associated with reduced appetite, weight loss and postprandial hypoglycaemia, the pathophysiological basis of which remains largely unexplored. This study aimed to investigate changes in enteroendocrine function after oesophagectomy.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 12 consecutive patients undergoing oesophagectomy were studied before and 10 days, 6, 12 and 52 weeks after surgery. Serial plasma total fasting ghrelin, and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1), insulin and glucose release following a standard 400-kcal mixed-meal stimulus were determined. CT body composition and anthropometry were assessed, and symptom scores calculated using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires.

RESULTS

At 1 year, two of the 12 patients exhibited postprandial hypoglycaemia, with reductions in bodyweight (mean(s.e.m.) 17·1(3·2) per cent, P < 0·001), fat mass (21.5(2.5) kg versus 25.5(2.4) kg before surgery; P = 0·014), lean body mass (51.5(2.2) versus 54.0(1.8) kg respectively; P = 0·003) and insulin resistance (HOMA-IR: 0.84(0.17) versus 1.16(0.20); P = 0·022). Mean(s.e.m.) fasting ghrelin levels decreased from postoperative day 10, but had recovered by 1 year (preoperative: 621·5(71·7) pg/ml; 10 days: 415·1(59·80) pg/ml; 6 weeks: 309·0(42·0) pg/ml; 12 weeks: 415·8(52·1) pg/ml; 52 weeks: 547·4(83·2) pg/ml; P < 0·001) and did not predict weight loss (P = 0·198). Postprandial insulin increased progressively at 10 days, 6, 12 and 52 weeks (mean(s.e.m.) insulin AUC_{0-30 min} : fold change 1·7(0·4), 2·0(0·4), 3·5(0·7) and 4·0(0·8) respectively; P = 0·001). Postprandial GLP-1 concentration increased from day 10 after surgery (P < 0·001), with a 3·3(1·8)-fold increase at 1 year (P < 0·001). Peak GLP-1 level was inversely associated with the postprandial glucose nadir (P = 0·041) and symptomatic neuroglycopenia (Sigstad score, P = 0·017, R²  = 0·45). GLP-1 AUC predicted loss of weight (P = 0·008, R²  = 0·52) and fat mass (P = 0·010, R²  = 0·64) at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

Altered enteroendocrine physiology is associated with early satiety, weight loss and postprandial hypoglycaemia after oesophagectomy.

Impact of the development of an endoscopic eradication program for Barrett's esophagus with high grade dysplasia or early adenocarcinoma on the frequency of surgery

Background and aims  The impact of the advent of an institutional endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) program on surgical practice for Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated high grade dysplasia (HGD) or suspected T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is unknown. The aims of this study are to evaluate the different endoscopic modalities used during development of our EET program and factors associated with the use of EET or surgery for these patients after its development. Methods  Patients who underwent primary endoscopic or surgical treatment for BE-HGD or early EAC at our hospital between January 1992 and December 2014 were retrospectively identified. They were categorized by their initial modality of treatment during the first year, and the impact over time for choice of therapy was assessed by multivariable logistic regression. Results  We identified 386 patients and 80 patients who underwent EET and surgery, respectively. EET included single modality therapy in 254 (66 %) patients and multimodal therapy in 132 (34 %) patients. Multivariable logistic regression showed that, for each subsequent study year, EET was more likely to be performed in patients who were older ( P  = 0.0009), with shorter BE lengths ( P  < 0.0001), and with a pretreatment diagnosis of HGD ( P  = 0.0054) compared to surgical patients. The diagnosis of EAC did not increase the utilization of EET compared to surgery as time progressed ( P  = 0.8165). Conclusion  The introduction of an EET program at our hospital increased the odds of utilizing EET versus surgery over time for initial treatment of patients who were older, had shorter BE lengths or the diagnosis of BE-HGD, but not in patients with EAC.

Endoscopic mucosal resection for staging and treatment of early esophageal carcinoma: a single institution experience

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has emerged for evaluation and treatment of esophageal nodules. We report our initial experience with EMR for T staging and management of early esophageal cancer.

METHODS

We reviewed patients undergoing EMR for esophageal adenocarcinoma between 2008 and 2013. The primary outcome measure was needed for esophagectomy. Secondary outcomes included complete eradication of adenocarcinoma, recurrence or persistence of cancer, nodal status for those undergoing esophagectomy, and complications of endoscopic treatment.

RESULTS

During the study period, 24 patients underwent EMR demonstrating carcinoma, and a grossly margin negative endoscopic resection was achieved in all cases. Ten patients (42 %) had evidence of submucosal invasion and were referred for esophagectomy. Patients with margin negative EMR (n = 10, 42 %) or positive radial margins (n = 4, 16 %) underwent endoscopic surveillance and treatment with radiofrequency ablation or repeat EMR as needed. Thirteen patients (93 %) with intramucosal cancer (IMC) have been successfully managed with ongoing endoscopic surveillance and treatment with a median follow-up of 15.5 months. One patient underwent esophagectomy due to recurrent IMC in the setting of long-segment multifocal high-grade dysplasia. There were no esophageal perforations, one patient developed a self-limited gastrointestinal hemorrhage following EMR, and one had an esophageal stricture following endoscopic management.

CONCLUSIONS

IMC can be successfully managed endoscopically and thus esophagectomy is avoided in a significant proportion of patients. Endoscopic management may be utilized in the setting of complete resection or radial margin involvement without evidence of submucosal invasion. Close endoscopic follow-up is of paramount importance even in those with negative margins, because recurrent disease may occur following EMR in these patients.

Appraisal of staging endoscopic ultrasonography in a modern high-volume esophageal program

BACKGROUND

Accurate pretreatment staging is essential to decision making for patients with esophageal and junctional cancers, particularly when choosing endoscopic therapy or a multimodal approach. As the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has been reported as variable, we assessed it prospectively in a large cohort from a high-volume center.

METHODS

The EUS data from 2007 to 2011 were reviewed and analyzed. We conducted a comparative analysis with computed tomography-positron emission tomography (CT-PET) staging and pathology. Survival was analyzed by Kaplan-Meier testing on EUS-predicted T- and N-stage cohorts.

RESULTS

Altogether, 222 patients underwent EUS. Among patients undergoing primary surgical resection, preoperative EUS diagnosed the T stage correctly in 71 % (55/77) of cases. Sensitivity and specificity for T1, T2, and T3 tumors were 94 and 89 %, 55 and 80 %, and 66 and 93 %, respectively. Mean maximum standard uptake volume on CT-PET correlated moderately with the EUS T stage (r = 0.42, p < 0.0001). EUS accuracy for nodal disease was 65 %. Survival was statistically better for the EUS T1 group than for those with T3 tumors (p = 0.01). Nodal metastases diagnosed on EUS predicted a significantly worse prognosis than EUS-negative nodes on both univariate and multivariate analyses (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.005 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant relation between EUS T and N stages and overall survival. EUS demonstrated 71 % accuracy for the overall T stage. Staging accuracy of EUS for large lesions was less effective than for T1 tumors, underlining the need for a multimodal investigative approach to stage esophageal tumors accurately.