Efficacy, safety, and long-term results of endoscopic treatment for early stage adenocarcinoma of the esophagus with low-risk sm1 invasion

[Evidence for the extent and oncological benefit of lymphadenectomy for esophageal cancer]

The prognosis for esophageal cancer is determined in particular by the depth of infiltration (T stage) and lymph node metastasis (N status). In patients with locally advanced tumors, surgical resection is the current standard. The extent of the lymphadenectomy depends on the localization of the tumor, analogous to the choice of surgical technique. For adequate tumor staging and achievement of pN0 status, seven lymph nodes without tumor metastases are necessary by definition but the current guidelines recommend 20 lymph nodes as a benchmark in an expert consensus. Despite the importance of the lymph node status for the prognosis of the patient and the already standardized use of targeted imaging of sentinel lymph nodes in other oncological disciplines, there is neither a validated method nor sufficient evidence for the benefit of lymph node mapping in esophageal cancer. The discussion about the prognostic advantage of lymphadenectomy is particularly interesting in T1 early stage cancer. Due to the technical advances of interventional endoscopy in recent years, organ preservation using endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has not only become possible but also safe to carry out and thus established as the standard with better functional results; however, if one or more risk factors are present, endoscopic ablation is no longer defined as curative and should be supplemented by further treatment, usually non-organ-preserving resection. The step from organ-preserving interventional treatment with a low complication rate to a surgical procedure with significant mortality and morbidity as well as functional limitations seems immense and requires optimization, especially in view of the technical developments of surgery in recent years. This can either aim to identify the risk of lymph node metastases more precisely or to minimize the morbidity/mortality and functional limitations of additive treatment procedures. Approaches to this are currently the subject of research and have already been safely applied in individual pilot projects.

Reassessment reveals underestimation of infiltration depth in surgical resection specimens with lymph-node positive T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma

Background and study aims

Endoscopic resection (ER) has proven effective and safe for T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, uncertainty remains concerning risk-benefit return of esophagectomy for submucosal lesions (T1b). Surgical series in past decades have reported significant risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM) in T1b EAC, but these rates may be overestimated due to limitations in histological assessment of surgical specimens. We aimed to test this hypothesis by reassessing histological risk features in surgical specimens from T1b EAC cases with documented LNM.

Patients and methods

A retrospective cross-sectional study (1994-2005) was conducted. Patients who underwent direct esophagectomy without prior neoadjuvant therapy for suspected T1b EAC with LNM were included. Additional tissue sections were prepared from archival tumor blocks. A consensus diagnosis on tumor depth, differentiation grade, and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) was established by a panel of experienced pathologists.

Results

Specific depth of submucosal invasion (sm1 to sm3) was not specified in 10 of 11 archival case sign-out reports. LVI status was not reported in seven of 11 cases. Following reassessment, one patient was found to have deep tumor invasion into the muscularis propria (T2). The remaining 10 of 11 patients exhibited deep submucosal invasion (sm2-3), with five showing one or more additional risk features (poor differentiation and/or LVI).

Conclusions

Our findings highlight the potential for underestimating tumor depth of invasion and other high-risk features in surgical specimens. Despite the limited cohort size, our study confirmed a consistent high-risk histological profile across all cases. Caution is warranted when extrapolating LNM risk data from historic heterogeneous cross-sectional surgical cohorts to the modern ER era.

Surgical and endoscopic management of clinical T1b esophageal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Esophageal cancers that invade the submucosa (T1b) have increased risk for occult lymph node metastases. To avoid the morbidity and recovery from esophagectomy, patients with cT1bN0 tumors have been increasingly managed endoscopically. We hypothesized that tumor attributes could predict upstaging and outcome associated with surgical and endoscopic treatment. Our objective was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of esophagectomy across different cT1bN0 tumor attributes.

METHODS

Treatment-naïve patients who underwent endoscopic management or esophagectomy for a clinical stage cT1bN0 esophageal cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2018 in the National Cancer Database were identified. Factors associated with upstaging were assessed by logistic regression. Adjusted survival was assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis of 528 propensity-matched pairs and accelerated time failure models, stratified across tumor attributes.

RESULTS

Overall, 1469 patients classified as cT1bN0 were identified; 926 underwent esophagectomy and 543 were managed endoscopically. In general, patients who were managed endoscopically were older (median, 71; interquartile range, 63-78; vs 66; interquartile range, 60-72; P < .0001) with smaller tumors compared with the patients who were managed with esophagectomy. Nodal upstaging was associated with lymphovascular invasion (odds ratio [OR], 6.88; confidence interval [CI], 4.39-10.77; P < .0001), poor tumor differentiation (OR, 2.77; CI, 1.30-5.88; P = .0081), and tumor size >1 cm (OR, 3.19; CI, 1.49-6.83, P = .0028). Overall survival was better among propensity-matched patients who underwent esophagectomy (5-year 68.4% vs 59.7% endoscopic, P < .001). However, accelerated time failure models suggested similar outcomes among patients with well-differentiated tumors managed surgically or endoscopically.

CONCLUSIONS

Esophagectomy was associated with improved survival for cT1bN0 esophageal cancer; however, endoscopic treatment may achieve similar survival in patients with favorable tumor attributes. Further study is warranted.

Analyzing risk factors and constructing a predictive model for superficial esophageal carcinoma with submucosal infiltration exceeding 200 micrometers

OBJECTIVE

Submucosal infiltration of less than 200 μm is considered an indication for endoscopic surgery in cases of superficial esophageal cancer and precancerous lesions. This study aims to identify the risk factors associated with submucosal infiltration exceeding 200 micrometers in early esophageal cancer and precancerous lesions, as well as to establish and validate an accompanying predictive model.

METHODS

Risk factors were identified through least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and multivariate logistic regression. Various machine learning (ML) classification models were tested to develop and evaluate the most effective predictive model, with Shapley Additive Explanations (SHAP) employed for model visualization.

RESULTS

Predictive factors for early esophageal invasion into the submucosa included endoscopic ultrasonography or magnifying endoscopy> SM1(P<0.001,OR = 3.972,95%CI 2.161-7.478), esophageal wall thickening(P<0.001,OR = 12.924,95%CI,5.299-33.96), intake of pickled foods(P=0.04,OR = 1.837,95%CI,1.03-3.307), platelet-lymphocyte ratio(P<0.001,OR = 0.284,95%CI,0.137-0.556), tumor size(P<0.027,OR = 2.369,95%CI,1.128-5.267), the percentage of circumferential mucosal defect(P<0.001,OR = 5.286,95%CI,2.671-10.723), and preoperative pathological type(P<0.001,OR = 4.079,95%CI,2.254-7.476). The logistic regression model constructed from the identified risk factors was found to be the optimal model, demonstrating high efficacy with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.922 in the training set, 0.899 in the validation set, and 0.850 in the test set.

CONCLUSION

A logistic regression model complemented by SHAP visualizations effectively identifies early esophageal cancer reaching 200 micrometers into the submucosa.

Expert assessment of infiltration depth and recommendation of endoscopic resection technique in early Barrett cancer

BACKGROUND

Early Barrett cancer can be curatively treated by endoscopic resection. The choice of the resection technique, however-endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or submucosal dissection (ESD)-largely depends on the assumed infiltration depth as judged by the endoscopist. However, the accuracy of endoscopic diagnosis of the degree of cancer infiltration is not known.

METHODS

Three to four high-quality images (both in overview and close-up) from 202 of early Barrett esophagus cancer cases (82% men, mean age 66.9 years) were selected from our endoscopy database (73.3% stage T1a and 26.7% in stage T1b). Images were shown to 9 Barrett esophagus experts, with patients' clinical data (age, sex, Barrett esophagus length) and biopsy results. The experts were asked to predict infiltration depth (T1b vs. T1a), and to suggest the appropriate endoscopic resection technique (EMR or ESD, or surgery). Interobserver variability (kappa values) was also determined for these parameters.

RESULTS

Overall positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) to diagnose T1b versus T1a infiltration were 40.7% (95% CI: 36.7, 44.8) and 79.8% (95% CI: 77.5, 81.9), respectively; kappa value was 0.41. Paris classification (kappa 0.51) and suggested treatment also varied between experts. In a post hoc analysis, only the correlation between lesions classified as invisible or flat according to the Paris classification (IIB; 25% of all cases) and the suggested resection technique was better: In this subgroup, EMR was recommended in >80% of cases, with a high complete (basal R0) resection rate (mean of 88.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Precise endoscopic distinction between mucosal and submucosal involvement of Barrett esophagus cancer by experts as a basis for choosing the resection technique has limited predictive values and high interobserver variability. It seems that mainly invisible/flat lesions may result in good resection outcomes when treated by EMR, but this stratification strategy has to be assessed in further studies.

"Find Your Y": histological differences in early stage (pT) and post-treatment (ypT) oesophageal adenocarcinoma with implications for salvage endoscopic resection

AIMS

Current guidelines offer limited strategies for managing recurrent/persistent oesophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Salvage endoscopic mucosal/submucosal resection (ER) shows promise in oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, however its success in EAC is limited. We aimed to elucidate histological characteristics influencing salvage ER success in patients with low-stage, pretreated EAC.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 272 EAC tumours postoesophagectomy from five US centres and collected clinicopathological data including discontinuous growth (DG), defined as separate tumour foci ≥2 mm from the main tumour. We selected 101 patients with low-stage disease and divided them into treatment-naïve (n=70) and neoadjuvant therapy (n=31) groups. We compared the two groups and differences in clinical, histological and outcome characteristics were identified.

RESULTS

In the entire cohort (n=272), DGs were identified in 22% of cases. Multivariate analysis revealed DGs as an independent prognostic factor for recurrence and positive oesophagectomy margins. Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and background intestinal metaplasia predicted DG presence and absence, respectively. Compared with the treatment-naïve low T-stage subgroup, the pretreated subgroup exhibited higher incidence of poorly differentiated carcinoma (16% vs 46%, p=0.007), larger tumours (14 vs 30 mm, p<0.001), higher tumour, node, metastases stage (7% vs 30%, p=0.004), more nodal disease (7% vs 36%, p<0.001) and frequent DGs (1% vs 13%, p=0.030).

CONCLUSIONS

In treated low T-stage EACs, DGs may contribute to suboptimal outcomes following salvage ER. Presence of LVI (as a surrogate for DGs) and poor differentiation in the absence of intestinal metaplasia in biopsy samples may serve as histological poor prognosticators in treated patients with EAC being considered for salvage ER.

Towards personalized management of early esophageal adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to discuss recent advancements in the endoscopic management of early esophageal adenocarcinoma (T1 EAC).

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with high-risk EAC (defined by the presence of deep submucosal invasion, and/or lymphovascular invasion, and/or poor differentiation) have a higher risk of lymph node metastases than those with low-risk EAC. However, more recent, endoscopically-focused studies report a lower risk of lymph node metastases and distant metastases for high-risk EAC than previously assumed. Instead of referring all high-risk EAC patients for esophagectomy after a radical endoscopic resection, an alternative approach involving regular upper endoscopy with endoscopic ultrasound may allow for detection of intra-luminal recurrence and lymph node metastases at an early and potentially curable stage.

SUMMARY

Endoscopic resection of mucosal and submucosal EAC might prove to be safe and curative for selected cases in the future, when followed by a strict follow-up protocol. Despite the promising results of preliminary studies, there is an ongoing need for personalized strategies and new risk stratification methods to decide on the best management for individual patients with high-risk T1 EAC.

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Endoscopic Eradication Therapy of Barrett's Esophagus and Related Neoplasia

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) can be effective in eradicating BE and related neoplasia and has greater risk of harms and resource use than surveillance endoscopy. This clinical practice guideline aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the use of EET in BE and related neoplasia.

METHODS

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients, conducted an evidence review, and used the Evidence-to-Decision Framework to develop recommendations regarding the use of EET in patients with BE under the following scenarios: presence of (1) high-grade dysplasia, (2) low-grade dysplasia, (3) no dysplasia, and (4) choice of stepwise endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or focal EMR plus ablation, and (5) endoscopic submucosal dissection vs EMR. Clinical recommendations were based on the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on 5 recommendations for the use of EET in BE and related neoplasia. Based on the available evidence, the panel made a strong recommendation in favor of EET in patients with BE high-grade dysplasia and conditional recommendation against EET in BE without dysplasia. The panel made a conditional recommendation in favor of EET in BE low-grade dysplasia; patients with BE low-grade dysplasia who place a higher value on the potential harms and lower value on the benefits (which are uncertain) regarding reduction of esophageal cancer mortality could reasonably select surveillance endoscopy. In patients with visible lesions, a conditional recommendation was made in favor of focal EMR plus ablation over stepwise EMR. In patients with visible neoplastic lesions undergoing resection, the use of either endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection was suggested based on lesion characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

This document provides a comprehensive outline of the indications for EET in the management of BE and related neoplasia. Guidance is also provided regarding the considerations surrounding implementation of EET. Providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to guide future research opportunities.

Updated German guideline on diagnosis and treatment of squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus

Diagnosis and therapy of esophageal carcinoma is challenging and requires a multidisciplinary approach. The purpose of the updated German guideline "Diagnosis and Treatment of Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus-version 3.1" is to provide practical and evidence-based advice for the management of patients with esophageal cancer. Recommendations were developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel based on an extensive and systematic evaluation of the published medical literature and the application of well-established methodologies (e.g. Oxford evidence grading scheme, grading of recommendations). Accurate diagnostic evaluation of the primary tumor as well as lymph node and distant metastases is required in order to guide patients to a stage-appropriate therapy after the initial diagnosis of esophageal cancer. In high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia or mucosal carcinoma endoscopic resection shall be performed. Whether endoscopic resection is the definitive therapeutic measure depends on the histopathological evaluation of the resection specimen. Esophagectomy should be performed minimally invasive or in combination with open procedures (hybrid technique). Because the prognosis in locally advanced esophageal carcinoma is poor with surgery alone, multimodality therapy is recommended. In locally advanced adenocarcinomas of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction, perioperative chemotherapy or preoperative radiochemotherapy should be administered. In locally advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the esophagus, preoperative radiochemotherapy followed by complete resection or definitive radiochemotherapy without surgery should be performed. In the case of residual tumor in the resection specimen after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and R0 resection of squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, adjuvant immunotherapy with nivolumab should be given. Systemic palliative treatment options (chemotherapy, chemotherapy plus immunotherapy, immunotherapy alone) in unresectable or metastastic esophageal cancer depend on histology and are stratified according to PD-L1 and/or Her2 expression.

Endoscopic therapy versus esophagectomy for T1bN0M0 esophageal cancer: A population-based study using propensity score matching

Background

Endoscopic therapy is an optional strategy for the treatment of esophageal cancer (EC) under an early stage, especially stage T1a. However, its efficacy in the treatment of T1b EC has not been thoroughly assessed. We investigated the efficacy of esophagectomy, endoscopic therapy, as well as chemoradiotherapy in patients with T1bN0M0 EC.

Methods

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (SEER) was employed to identify patients diagnosed with T1bN0M0 EC. Patient demographics were compared among the endoscopic therapy, esophagectomy, and chemoradiotherapy groups. Our study employed Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression model to evaluate patient outcomes and long-term survival rates. The overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) rates were compared among patients with EC who underwent endoscopic therapy or esophagectomy, employing propensity score matching (PSM).

Results

A total of 820 patients diagnosed with T1bN0M0 EC were identified. The number of patients who received endoscopic therapy, esophagectomy, and chemoradiotherapy was 173, 556, and 91, respectively. Patients subjected to endoscopic therapy and esophagectomy had greatly longer OS and CSS than those who underwent chemoradiotherapy. Patients treated with esophagectomy had longer OS than endoscopic therapy patients, but there were no differences in CSS between the two groups. PSM generated 153 patient pairs among T1bN0M0 patients, demonstrating that both the esophagectomy and endoscopic therapy groups exhibited comparable OS and CSS rates.

Conclusion

Endoscopic therapy and esophagectomy were associated with a significant survival advantage compared with chemoradiotherapy in patients with T1bN0M0 EC. In contrast, after PSM, among the EC patients with stage T1bN0M0, OS and CSS did not differ after endoscopic therapy or esophagectomy. These results indicate that endoscopic therapy could be a viable alternative to esophagectomy in patients diagnosed with T1bN0M0 EC.

Ten-year follow-up of endoscopic mucosal resection versus esophagectomy for esophageal intramucosal adenocarcinoma in the setting of Barrett's esophagus: a Canadian experience

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an effective treatment for esophageal intramucosal adenocarcinoma (IMC), with similar recurrence and mortality rates versus esophagectomy in up to 5 years of follow-up. Long-term outcomes to 10 years have not been studied. This retrospective study investigates IMC eradication, recurrence, morbidity and mortality at 10 years following EMR versus esophagectomy in a single Canadian institution.

METHODS

Patients with IMC treated via esophagectomy or EMR from 2006 to 2015 were included. Post-EMR endoscopic follow-up occurred every 3 months for 1 year, every 6 months for 2 years and every 12 months thereafter. Categorical variables were expressed as percentages and continuous variables as mean with standard deviation or median and interquartile range. The student's t-test and Fischer's exact test were used for comparisons. Survival analysis utilized the Kaplan-Meier estimator and log-rank test.

RESULTS

Twenty-four patients were included. Patient and tumor characteristics were similar between groups. Median follow-up for EMR and esophagectomy were 85.2 months [IQR 64.8] and 126 months [IQR 54] respectively. A mean of 1.3 EMR (SD 1.1) were required for eradication, which was seen in 12 patients (12/14, 86%). No EMR-related complications occurred. Disease progression was seen in two patients (2/14, 14%); local recurrence was seen in 1 patient (1/14, 7%). Esophagectomy eradicated IMC in 10 patients (10/10, 100%); recurrence was seen in 2 (2/10, 20%, metastatic). Major, early esophagectomy-related morbidity affected 3 patients (3/10, 30%), and late morbidity was documented for 9 (9/10, 90%). Esophagectomy and EMR had similar recurrence rates (p = 0.554). Esophagectomy was associated with significantly more procedure-related morbidity (p < 0.001). There was no difference in mortality (p = 0.442) or disease-free survival (p = 0.512) between treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

EMR and esophagectomy for the treatment of IMC are associated with comparable recurrence rates and disease-free survival in 10-year follow-up. EMR is associated with significantly lower procedure-associated morbidity. EMR can be used to treat T1a distal esophageal adenocarcinoma with minimal procedure-related morbidity, and acceptable oncologic outcomes in long-term follow-up.

Multiple staging investigations may not change management in patients with high-grade dysplasia or early esophageal adenocarcinoma

The clinical value of multiple staging investigations for high-grade dysplasia or early adenocarcinoma of the esophagus is unclear. A single-center prospective cohort of patients treated for early esophageal cancer between 2000 and 2019 was analyzed. This coincided with a transition period from esophagectomy to endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) as the treatment of choice. Patients were staged with computed tomography (CT), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and 2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-d-glucose (FDG) positron emission tomography(PET)/CT. The aim of this study was to assess their accuracy and impact on clinical management. 297 patients with high-grade dysplasia or early adenocarcinoma were included (endoscopic therapy/EMR n = 184; esophagectomy n = 113 [of which a 'combined' group had surgery preceded by endoscopic therapy n = 23]). Staging accuracy was low (accurate staging EMR: CT 40.1%, EUS 29.6%, FDG-PET/CT 11.0%; Esophagectomy: CT 43.3%, EUS 59.7%, FDG-PET/CT 29.6%; Combined: CT 28.6%, EUS46.2%, FDG-PET/CT 30.0%). Staging inaccuracies across all groups that could have changed management by missing T2 disease were CT 12%, EUS 12% and FDG-PET/CT 1.6%. The sensitivity of all techniques for detecting nodal disease was low (CT 12.5%, EUS 12.5%, FDG-PET/CT0.0%). Overall, FDG-PET/CT and EUS changed decision-making in only 3.2% of patients with an early cancer on CT and low-risk histology. The accuracy of staging with EUS, CT and FDG-PET/CT in patients with high-grade dysplasia or early adenocarcinoma of the esophagus is low. EUS and FDG-PET/CT added relevant staging information over standard CT in very few cases, and therefore, these investigations should be used selectively. Factors predicting the need for esophagectomy are predominantly obtained from EMR histology rather than staging investigations.

Safety and Efficacy of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the Management of Gastric Tube Cancers After Esophagectomy: A Systematic Review

Esophagectomy is the proposed standard of care for resectable primary esophageal cancers and recurrent lesions in the reconstructed gastric tube (GT); however, it carries significant morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has established its role in the management of primary esophageal cancers with growing evidence of its safety in resecting recurrent primary lesions in GT. Our study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ESD in the management of recurrent, localized primary esophageal cancers in GT. We searched PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Scopus, and clinical trial registries from inception to March 2023 for articles evaluating the safety and efficacy of ESD in the management of recurrent cancerous lesions in GT. Our primary outcome was the en bloc resection rate. Secondary outcomes were curative resection rate, complete resection rate, intra-procedural complication rate, post-procedure complication rate, and five-year survival rate. Seven studies with a total of 165 patients undergoing 192 ESDs were included in the review. The pooled en bloc resection rate was 92.5% (95% CI: 87.7-95.6), which was reported in all seven studies. Pooled complete resection rate was 78.9% (95% CI: 64.5-88.5) per three studies, pooled curative resection rate was 73.9% (95% CI: 63.5-82.2) per four studies, and pooled intra-procedural complication rate was 10.2% (95% CI: 1.5-46.3), which was reported in four studies. Only three studies reported a five-year survival rate that was 65.5% (95% CI: 56.0-73.9). ESD is safe and efficacious in the management of GT cancer after esophagectomy.

[Current status in Barrett's esophagus]

Barrett's esophagus has been an important issue in clinical medicine for many years. In the 70 s of the last century, the association between gastroesophageal reflux disease and BE was detected. Only ten years later, the association between BE and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus was reported. Starting in the 90s in Europe, endoscopic resection and ablation have seen an expanding role in the management of BE. In analogy with other diseases, patients are undergoing individualized surveillance and treatment strategies. In non-neoplastic Barrett's esophagus, surveillance intervals are clearly defined by national and European guidelines. Only in case of malignant transformation of BE which may range from low-grade dysplasia to high-grade dysplasia and early Barrett's cancer, endoscopic therapy is indicated. At present, there are emerging techniques of artificial intelligence. Due to these rapid developments in BE management, it is important to keep an eye on the current status of BE management.

Barrett's Esophagus: An Updated Review

Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is a change in the distal esophageal mucosal lining, whereby metaplastic columnar epithelium replaces squamous epithelium of the esophagus. This change represents a pre-malignant mucosal transformation which has a known association with the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a risk factor for BE, other risk factors include patients who are Caucasian, age > 50 years, central obesity, tobacco use, history of peptic stricture and erosive gastritis. Screening for BE remains selective based on risk factors, a screening program in the general population is not routinely recommended. Diagnosis of BE is established with a combination of endoscopic recognition, targeted biopsies, and histologic confirmation of columnar metaplasia. We aim to provide a comprehensive review of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, screening and advanced techniques of detecting and eradicating Barrett’s esophagus.

State-of-the-art management of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus

Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) has become a standard of care for treatment of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE) and early Barrett's neoplasia. EET mainly consists of removal of any visible lesions via endoscopic resection and eradication of all remaining Barrett's mucosa using endoscopic ablation. Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection are the two available resection techniques. After complete resection of all visible lesions, it is crucial to perform endoscopic ablation to ensure complete eradication of the remaining Barrett's segment. Endoscopic ablation can be done either with thermal techniques, including radiofrequency ablation and argon plasma coagulation, or cryotherapy techniques. The primary end point of EET is achieving complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) to decrease the risk of dysplastic recurrence after successful EET. After CRIM is achieved, a standardized endoscopic surveillance protocol needs to be implemented for early detection of BE recurrence.

Measuring the Submucosal Depth of Invasion in Endoscopic Mucosal Resections for Barrett-associated Adenocarcinoma: Practical Issues and Relevance for the Decision for Esophagectomy

CONTEXT.—

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has made it possible for Barrett esophagus patients with superficial cancers to be treated without esophagectomy. Recent guidelines recommend measuring depth of invasion (DOI) in submucosal cancers based on reports that in low-risk cancers, submucosal invasion 500 μm or less is associated with low nodal metastasis rates. However, pathologists face challenges in reproducibly measuring DOI.

OBJECTIVE.—

To determine how often DOI measurements could impact treatment and to evaluate reproducibility in measuring submucosal DOI in EMR specimens.

DESIGN.—

Consecutive adenocarcinoma EMR cases were identified, including cases of "low histologic risk" submucosal cancer, as follows: those with negative deep margins, no high-grade histology (G3), and no lymphovascular invasion. Submucosal DOI was measured by 7 pathologists according to guidelines.

RESULTS.—

Of 213 cancer EMR cases, 46 were submucosa invasive and 6 cases were low histologic risk submucosal cancers for which measurement could impact decision-making. Of these low histologic risk cases, 3 were categorized as superficial, indicating that measurement would be a clinically actionable decision point in only 1.4% of adenocarcinoma EMRs. Interobserver agreement for in-depth categorization between 7 pathologists was moderate (κ = 0.42), and the range of measurements spanned the 500-μm relevant threshold in 40 of 55 measured samples (72.7%).

CONCLUSIONS.—

While therapeutic decisions would rarely have depended on DOI measurements alone in our cohort, interobserver variability raises concerns about their use as a sole factor on which to offer patients conservative therapy. Responsibly reporting and clinically using submucosal DOI measurements will require practical experience troubleshooting common histologic artifacts, as well as multidisciplinary awareness of the impact of variable specimen-handling practices.

Barrett Esophagus: A Review

IMPORTANCE

Barrett esophagus is characterized by the replacement of normal esophageal squamous cell epithelium with columnar metaplasia and affects approximately 5% of people in the US and approximately 1% worldwide. Approximately 3% to 5% of patients with Barrett esophagus will be diagnosed with esophageal adenocarcinoma in their lifetime.

OBSERVATIONS

Barrett esophagus affects approximately 2.3% to 8.3% of people with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and approximately 1.2% to 5.6% of people without GERD. Characteristics associated with Barrett esophagus include older age (prevalence of approximately 1.1% in individuals older than 50 years compared with 0.3% in those 50 years or younger), male sex, and smoking (prevalence of approximately 12% in people who smoke cigarettes compared with 1.1% in those who do not smoke cigarettes). The histopathology of Barrett esophagus progresses from metaplasia to dysplasia and, without treatment, can progress to adenocarcinoma. People with Barrett esophagus have approximately a 0.2% to 0.5% annual rate of developing esophageal adenocarcinoma. Management of Barrett esophagus primarily consists of acid-suppressive medications to reduce underlying GERD symptoms and surveillance endoscopy every 3 to 5 years. In patients with Barrett esophagus and dysplasia or early cancer, endoscopic therapy consisting of resection and ablation successfully treats 80% to 90% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Barrett esophagus affects approximately 5% of people in the US and approximately 1% worldwide and is associated with an increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma. First-line therapy for Barrett esophagus consists of proton-pump inhibitors for control of reflux symptoms, but their role in chemoprevention is unclear. Surveillance with upper endoscopy is recommended by practice guidelines to monitor for progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma, but randomized clinical trials are lacking.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022

ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based).ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.For Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD.

Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus: An Updated ACG Guideline

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a common condition associated with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease. BE is the only known precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma, a highly lethal cancer with an increasing incidence over the last 5 decades. These revised guidelines implement Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to propose recommendations for the definition and diagnosis of BE, screening for BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma, surveillance of patients with known BE, and the medical and endoscopic treatment of BE and its associated early neoplasia. Important changes since the previous iteration of this guideline include a broadening of acceptable screening modalities for BE to include nonendoscopic methods, liberalized intervals for surveillance of short-segment BE, and volume criteria for endoscopic therapy centers for BE. We recommend endoscopic eradication therapy for patients with BE and high-grade dysplasia and those with BE and low-grade dysplasia. We propose structured surveillance intervals for patients with dysplastic BE after successful ablation based on the baseline degree of dysplasia. We could not make recommendations regarding chemoprevention or use of biomarkers in routine practice due to insufficient data.

Barrett’s esophagus: Review of natural history and comparative efficacy of endoscopic and surgical therapies

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Progression to cancer typically occurs in a stepwise fashion through worsening dysplasia and ultimately, invasive neoplasia. Established EAC with deep involvement of the esophageal wall and/or metastatic disease is invariably associated with poor long-term survival rates. This guides the rationale of surveillance of Barrett’s in an attempt to treat lesions at an earlier, and potentially curative stage. The last two decades have seen a paradigm shift in management of Barrett’s with rapid expansion in the role of endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) for management of dysplastic and early neoplastic BE, and there have been substantial changes to international consensus guidelines for management of early BE based on evolving evidence. This review aims to assist the physician in the therapeutic decision-making process with patients by comprehensive review and summary of literature surrounding natural history of Barrett’s by histological stage, and the effectiveness of interventions in attenuating the risk posed by its natural history. Key findings were as follows. Non-dysplastic Barrett’s is associated with extremely low risk of progression, and interventions cannot be justified. The annual risk of cancer progression in low grade dysplasia is between 1%-3%; EET can be offered though evidence for its benefit remains confined to highly select settings. High-grade dysplasia progresses to cancer in 5%-10% per year; EET is similarly effective to and less morbid than surgery and should be routinely performed for this indication. Risk of nodal metastases in intramucosal cancer is 2%-4%, which is comparable to operative mortality rate, so EET is usually preferred. Submucosal cancer is associated with nodal metastases in 14%-41% hence surgery remains standard of care, except for select situations.

Transition from esophagectomy to endoscopic therapy for early esophageal cancer

BACKGROUND

To assess the outcomes of patients with early esophageal cancer and high-grade dysplasia comparing esophagectomy, the historical treatment of choice, to endoscopic eradication therapy (EET).

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with early esophageal cancer/high-grade dysplasia, treated between 2000 and 2018 at a tertiary center. Primary outcomes were all-cause and disease-specific mortality assessed by multivariable Cox regression and a propensity score matching sub analysis, providing hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) adjusted for age, tumor grade (G1/2 vs. G3), tumor stage, and lymphovascular invasion. Secondary outcomes included complications, hospital stay, and overall costs.

RESULTS

Among 269 patients, 133 underwent esophagectomy and 136 received EET. Adjusted survival analysis showed no difference between groups regarding all-cause mortality (HR 1.85, 95% CI 0.73, 4.72) and disease-specific mortality (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.26, 4.65). In-hospital and 30-day mortality was 0% in both groups. The surgical group had a significantly higher rate of complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3 26.3% vs. endoscopic therapy 0.74%), longer in-patient stay (median 14 vs. 0 days endoscopic therapy) and higher hospital costs(£16 360 vs. £8786 per patient).

CONCLUSION

This series of patients treated during a transition period from surgery to EET, demonstrates a primary endoscopic approach does not compromise oncological outcomes with the benefit of fewer complications, shorter hospital stays, and lower costs compared to surgery. It should be available as the gold standard treatment for patients with early esophageal cancer. Those with adverse prognostic features may still benefit from esophagectomy.

Epidemiology of Early Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

Background/Aims

Endoscopic resection has become the preferred treatment approach for select early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC); however, the epidemiology of early stage disease has not been well defined.

Methods

Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data were analyzed to determine age-adjusted incidence rates among major epithelial carcinomas, including EAC, from 1973 to 2017. The percent change in incidence over time was compared according to tumor subtype. Early T-stage, node-negative EAC without metastasis was examined from 2004 to 2017 when precise T-stage data were available.

Results

The percent change in annual incidence from 1973 to 2017 was 767% for EAC. Joinpoint analysis showed that the average annual percent change in EAC from 1973 to 2017 was 5.11% (95% confidence interval 4.66, 5.56). The annual percent change appeared to plateau between 2004 and 2017; however, early EAC decreased from 2010 to 2017, with an annual percent change of -5.78%.

Conclusions

There has been a 7-fold increase in the incidence of EAC, which was significantly greater than that of the other major epithelial malignancies examined. More recently, the incidence of early EAC has been decreasing. Approximately one in five patients has node negative, potentially resectable early stage disease.

Individual risk calculator to predict lymph node metastases in patients with submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma: a multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Lymph node metastasis (LNM) is possible after endoscopic resection of early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). This study aimed to develop and internally validate a prediction model that estimates the individual risk of metastases in patients with pT1b EAC.

METHODS

A nationwide, retrospective, multicenter cohort study was conducted in patients with pT1b EAC treated with endoscopic resection and/or surgery between 1989 and 2016. The primary end point was presence of LNM in surgical resection specimens or detection of metastases during follow-up. All resection specimens were histologically reassessed by specialist gastrointestinal pathologists. Subdistribution hazard regression analysis was used to develop the prediction model. The discriminative ability of this model was assessed using the c-statistic.

RESULTS

248 patients with pT1b EAC were included. Metastases were seen in 78 patients, and the 5-year cumulative incidence was 30.9 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 25.1 %-36.8 %). The risk of metastases increased with submucosal invasion depth (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 1.08, 95 %CI 1.02-1.14, for every increase of 500 μm), lymphovascular invasion (SHR 2.95, 95 %CI 1.95-4.45), and for larger tumors (SHR 1.23, 95 %CI 1.10-1.37, for every increase of 10 mm). The model demonstrated good discriminative ability (c-statistic 0.81, 95 %CI 0.75-0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

A third of patients with pT1b EAC experienced metastases within 5 years. The probability of developing post-resection metastases was estimated with a personalized predicted risk score incorporating tumor invasion depth, tumor size, and lymphovascular invasion. This model requires external validation before implementation into clinical practice.

Measuring depth of invasion of submucosa - invasive adenocarcinoma in oesophageal endoscopic specimens: how good are we?☆

AIMS

Emerging data support that submucosa-invasive (pT1b) esophageal adenocarcinomas are cured via endoscopic resection, provided that invasion measures ≤500 μm, they lack other histological features predictive of nodal metastasis and have negative margins. Hence, pathologists' measurement of the depth of submucosal invasion in endoscopic resections may dictate further management (i.e. endoscopic follow-up versus oesophagectomy). In this study, we assessed the interobserver agreement in measuring the depth of submucosal invasion in oesophageal endoscopic resections.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Six subspecialised gastrointestinal (GI) pathologists from five academic centres independently measured the depth of submucosal invasion in μm from the deepest muscularis mucosae on 37 oesophageal endoscopic resection slides (round 1 scoring). A consensus meeting with a systematic approach for measuring and discussion of pitfalls was undertaken and remeasuring (round 2 scoring) was conducted. Interobserver agreement was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen's kappa statistics. A lack of agreement was seen among the six reviewers with a poor ICC for both rounds: 1 [0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.26-0.56] and 2 (0.49, 95% CI = 0.34-0.63). When measurements were categorised as < or >500 μm, the overall agreement among the six reviewers was only fair for both rounds: 1 (kappa = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.22-0.53) and 2 (kappa = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.12-0.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows a lack of agreement among gastrointestinal pathologists in measuring the depth of submucosal invasion in oesophageal endoscopic resections despite formulating a consensus approach for scoring. If important management decisions continue to be based upon this parameter, more reproducible and concrete guidelines are needed.

Novel Transgastric Endoluminal Segmental Esophagectomy and Primary Anastomosis Technique: A Hybrid Transgastric Thoracoscopic Esophagectomy for the Treatment of High Grade Dysplasia and Early Esophageal Cancer in a Porcine Ex vivo Model

Multiple modalities are currently employed in the treatment of high grade dysplasia and early esophageal carcinoma. While they are the subject of ongoing investigation, surgery remains the definitive modality for oncological resection. Esophagectomy, however, is traditionally a challenging surgical procedure and carries a significant incidence of morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are considerably less invasive alternatives to esophagectomy in the diagnosis and treatment of high grade dysplasia, early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma. However, many early esophageal cancer patients, with favorable histology, who could benefit from endoscopic resection, are referred for formal esophagectomy due to lesion characteristics such as unfavorable lesion morphology or recurrence after previous endoscopic resection. In this study we present a novel, hybrid thoracoscopic transgastric endoluminal segmental esophagectomy with primary anastomosis for the potential treatment of high grade dysplasia and early esophageal cancer in a porcine ex vivo model as a proposed bridge between endoscopic resection and the relatively high mortality and morbidity formal esophagectomy procedure. The novel technique consists of thoracoscopic esophageal mobilization in addition to transgastric endoluminal segmental esophagectomy and anastomosis utilizing a standard circular stapler. The technique was found feasible in all experimental subjects. The minimally invasive nature of this novel procedure as well as the utility of basic surgical equipment and surgical skill is an important attribute of this method and can potentially make it a treatment option for many patients who would otherwise be referred for a formal esophagectomy.

Recommendations for Surveillance and Management of Recurrent Esophageal Cancer Following Endoscopic Therapies

With advancing endoscopic technology and screening protocols for Barrett disease, more patients are being diagnosed with early-stage esophageal cancer. These early-stage patients may be amendable to endoscopic therapies, such as endomucosal resection and ablation. These therapies may minimize morbidity, but the elevated risk of recurrence cannot be overlooked. This article reports outcomes and recommendations for surveillance and management of recurrent esophageal cancer following endoscopic therapies.

Comparative study of treatment options and construction nomograms to predict survival for early-stage esophageal cancer: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of several common treatment options on the long-term survival of patients with early-stage esophageal cancer and to construct nomograms for survival prediction.

METHOD

This study was performed using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (2004-2015) on patients with early-stage (pT1N0M0) esophageal cancer who underwent endoscopic local therapy (ET), radiotherapy (RT), esophagectomy (ES) or neoadjuvant therapy (NT). Multivariate Cox regression was used to explore which factors influenced patient survival, and these factors were then incorporated into propensity sore matching (PSM) and the construction of nomogram plots. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare whether there was a difference in long-term survival between the other three treatments and esophagectomy.

RESULT

Data from 4184 patients were included in this study. Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that age, grade, marital status, and treatment method were independent factors affecting survival. After matching, Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the ET group had better CSS than the ES group, but no difference in OS, while the NT and RT groups had worse OS and CSS than the ES group. In the nomogram prediction model, the c-indexes of the training and validation cohorts were 0.805 and 0.794, respectively. Additionally the ROC curve (5-year AUC = 0.877) and DCA curve showed that the model had a good predictive effect.

CONCLUSION

For early-stage esophageal cancer, the results of this study showed that ET is not inferior to ES. Based on the independent factors affecting prognosis identified in the study, we constructed and validated a predictive model for predicting long-term survival in patients with early-stage esophageal cancer.

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.

Current Trends in Endoscopic Diagnosis and Treatment of Early Esophageal Cancer

Simple Summary

Early esophageal cancer is diagnosed in the context of reflux disease, surveillance of Barrett’s metaplasia, or during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for other indications. High definition and virtual or dye chromoendoscopy are mandatory for the screening and evaluation of neoplasia. Endoscopic treatment options include endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Resection is considered curative if histopathology confirms low or absent risk of lymph node metastasis. Barrett’s high-grade dysplasia or early adenocarcinoma is treated by EMR or ESD, followed by ablation of Barrett’s epithelium to avoid metachronous cancer. ESD is the treatment of choice for squamous cell neoplasia. Excellent outcomes have been reported if the ESD of squamous cell cancer with slight submucosal infiltration and thus substantial risk for lymph node metastasis was combined with adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy. In contrast, infiltration of squamous cell cancer exceeding the lamina propria mucosae is not curative. However, despite a substantial risk of lymph node metastasis, excellent outcomes have recently been reported if endoscopic resection of tumors with up to 200 µm submucosal infiltration was combined with adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy.

Abstract

Diagnosis of esophageal adenocarcinoma mostly occurs in the context of reflux disease or surveillance of Barrett’s metaplasia. Optimal detection rates are obtained with high definition and virtual or dye chromoendoscopy. Smaller lesions can be treated with endoscopic mucosal resection. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an option for larger lesions. Endoscopic resection is considered curative (i.e., without significant risk of lymph node metastasis) if histopathology confirms en bloc and R0 resection of a well-differentiated (G1/2) tumor without infiltration of lymphatic or blood vessels and the maximal submucosal infiltration depth is 500µm. Ablation of remaining Barrett’s metaplasia is important, to reduce the risk of metachronous cancer. Esophageal squamous cell cancer is associated with different risk factors, and most of the detected lesions are diagnosed during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for other indications. Virtual high definition and dye chromoendoscopy with Lugol’s solution are used for screening and evaluation. ESD is the preferred resection technique. The criteria for curative resection are similar to Barrett’s cancer, but the maximum infiltration depth must not exceed lamina propria mucosae. Although a submucosal infiltration depth of up to 200 µm carries a substantial risk of lymph node metastasis, ESD combined with adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy gives excellent results. The complication rates of endoscopic resection are low, and the functional outcomes are favorable compared to surgery.

Epidemiology, Diagnosis, Staging and Multimodal Therapy of Esophageal and Gastric Tumors

Gastric and esophageal tumors are diverse neoplasms that involve mucosal and submucosal tissue layers and include squamous cell carcinomas, adenocarcinomas, spindle cell neoplasms, neuroendocrine tumors, marginal B cell lymphomas, along with less common tumors. The worldwide burden of esophageal and gastric malignancies is significant, with esophageal and gastric cancer representing the ninth and fifth most common cancers, respectively. The approach to diagnosis and staging of these lesions is multimodal and includes a combination of gastrointestinal endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasound, and cross-sectional imaging. Likewise, therapy is multidisciplinary and combines therapeutic endoscopy, surgery, radiotherapy, and systemic chemotherapeutic tools. Future directions for diagnosis of esophageal and gastric malignancies are evolving rapidly and will involve advances in endoscopic and endosonographic techniques including tethered capsules, optical coherence tomography, along with targeted cytologic and serological analyses.

Chemoradiation as a nonsurgical treatment option for early-stage esophageal cancers: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Complete tumor removal via esophagectomy or endoscopic excision has been associated with the greatest survival in early-stage esophageal cancer. However, patient health, anatomy, or goals of care may render patients ineligible for excision or resection. In this setting, chemoradiation (CRT) may be considered as a nonsurgical approach, however the outcomes associated with CRT in early-stage esophageal cancer are incompletely understood.

Methods

The National Cancer Database was queried for treatment-naïve cT1/T2, N0, M0 esophageal cancer patients managed with concurrent multi-agent CRT (≥50 Gy) between 2004 and 2015. Medically inoperable patients were excluded. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to estimate 5-year overall survival (OS) from diagnosis in both stages.

Results

Of the 828 patients identified, 279 were cT1 and 549 were cT2. For cases after 2010, cT1 (N=124) was further stratified in cT1a (N=32, 25.8%) and cT1b (N=46, 37.1%). Kaplan-Meier estimates demonstrated a 5-year survival of 21.7% for cT1 and 25.9% for cT2. Sensitivity analyses were performed to mitigate competing survival risk from poor health. Among 589 comorbidity-free patients (i.e., Charlson = score zero), the 5-year survival with CRT was 23.4% for cT1 and 27.8% for cT2. Finally, a subset of patients who refused a recommended surgery were evaluated with 5-year survival cT1 =33.5% and cT2 =33.4%).

Conclusions

Up to a third of selected patients with early-stage esophageal cancer may be cured after CRT as definitive non-surgical treatment. However, cure rates may be underestimated in this setting, secondary to persistent health-related bias.

The modern management of Barrett's oesophagus and related neoplasia: role of pathology

Modern management of Barrett's oesophagus and related neoplasia essentially focuses upon surveillance to detect early low-risk neoplastic lesions and offering organ-preserving advanced endoscopic therapies, while traditional surgical treatments of oesophagectomy and lymph node clearance with or without chemoradiation are preserved only for high-risk and advanced carcinomas. With this evolution towards figless invasive therapy, the choice of therapy hinges upon the pathological assessment for risk stratifying patients into those with low risk for nodal metastasis who can continue with less invasive endoscopic therapies and others with high risk for nodal metastasis for which surgery or other forms of treatment are indicated. Detection and confirmation of neoplasia in the first instance depends upon endoscopic and pathological assessment. Endoscopic examination and biopsy sampling should be performed according to the recommended protocols, and endoscopic biopsy interpretation should be performed applying standard criteria using appropriate ancillary studies by histopathologists experienced in the pathology of Barrett's disease. Endoscopic resections (ERs) are both diagnostic and curative and should be performed by clinicians who are skilled with advanced endoscopic techniques. Proper preparation and handling of ERs are essential to assess histological parameters that dictate the curative nature of the procedure. Those parameters are adequacy of resection and risk of lymph node metastasis. The risk of lymph node metastasis is determined by depth invasion and presence of poor differentiation and lymphovascular invasion. Those adenocarcinomas with invasion up to muscularis mucosae (pT1a) and those with superficial submucosal invasion (pT1b) up to 500 µ with no poor differentiation and lymphovascular invasion and negative margins may be considered cured by endoscopic resections.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Upper Gastrointestinal Neoplasia-a North American Perspective

OBJECTIVES

Organ-sparing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an acceptable treatment strategy for superficial neoplastic lesions of the esophagus and stomach. The adoption of this technique has lagged in North America compared with Asia, and we sought to report on our experiences with ESD for upper GI neoplasia.

METHODS

A prospectively entered database of all patients undergoing endoscopic resection of esophageal and gastric neoplasia at McGill University from 2009 to 2019 was queried for those who received ESD.

RESULTS

A total of 103 consecutive ESDs were identified from 2009 to 2019. Seventy-one (69%) patients were male and the median age was 72 (range: 38-90). Sixty-one (59%) cases were esophageal and 42 (41%) gastric. Forty-nine (48%) were performed in the endoscopy suite under local sedation only. Perforation occurred in 9 patients (7 esophageal and 2 stomach), of which 3 required operative repair. Histology was principally invasive carcinoma (79, 77%), with 17 (16%) dysplastic lesions (e.g., HGD), 1 (1%) neuroendocrine tumor, and 7 (7%) benign lesions. En bloc resection was achieved in 90 (87%), and the complete resection rate was 74 (72%), with 51 (50%) of procedures fulfilling the criteria for curative resection. At medium of 23-month (2-199) follow-up of these 51 curative resections, one case of recurrent carcinoma was found at follow-up and was managed with repeat endoscopic resection. Non-curative ESDs were found 45 (R1 resection = 29: risk of lymph node metastasis = 16), 21 had active surveillance, and 24 were resected.

CONCLUSION

ESD is a viable, effective, and safe therapeutic and staging modality for superficial lesions of the stomach and esophagus.

Endoscopic mucosal resection for early esophageal carcinoma is effective and safe but necessitates continued surveillance

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is used for the treatment of early esophageal cancer (EEC).

METHODS

This a retrospective study aimed to study the efficacy, safety, and the recurrence rate of EEC following EMR.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients who had undergone EMR for early EEC (T1a andT1b lesions) from 2006 to 2015 were included. EMR alone was considered curative in 51 patients who had T1a lesion. Complete remission was achieved in 50 (98%) patients. Mean number of sessions of EMR was 1.14. Cancer recurred locally in 6 (12%) of 50 patients at a median follow-up of 48 (18-72) months. Endoscopic treatment alone achieved complete remission at last follow up in 47 of 50 patients (94%) who had initial EMR with complete remission, or in 47 of all 51 patients (92%) in whom EMR was considered curative for EC. The Kaplan-Meier cancer-free survival following complete remission with EMR was 94.2% at 1 year and 88.4% at 5 years. Patients with complete eradication of Barrett's had lower risk of recurrence of adenocarcinoma (AC) compared with patients who had persistent Barrett's (p = 0.01). EMR alone was not considered curative in 19 patients, 16 with T1b AC and 3 with T1a squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) invading the muscularis mucosa (m3). Two major adverse events were noted: delayed bleeding requiring hospitalization, and perforation that was closed endoscopically.

CONCLUSION

EMR is effective and safe for the management of early EC. The risk of cancer recurrence, albeit small, warrants surveillance. Complete eradication of Barrett's should be attempted in all patients after EMR of AC.

The management and long-term outcomes of endoscopic and surgical treatment of early esophageal adenocarcinoma

Endoscopic resection (ER) for early (pT1) esophageal adenocarcinoma can be justified if the rate of coexisting lymph node (LN) metastasis is less than the mortality rate from esophagectomy. This study examines endoscopic and surgical outcomes, histological assessment of submucosal (sm) disease, factors influencing LN metastasis, and the safety of treating pT1b disease endoscopically. Histopathological reexamination recorded thickness, width and depth of sm invasion, grade, presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI), resection margin status and tumor stage. Multivariate analysis was employed to evaluate the factors influencing survival and LN metastasis. Rate of LN metastasis for pT1 low-risk (LR: sm invasion < 500 μm, G1-2, no LVI) or high-risk (HR: sm invasion >500 μm, G3-4 or LVI) disease were analyzed. Ninety three patients underwent ER and 96 underwent esophagectomy. We demonstrate conflicting histological methods of sm disease reporting, which may explain the difference in LN metastasis rate between reported surgical & endoscopic series. Multivariate analysis confirmed age, T stage, and presence of LN metastases were the independent factors predicting poor prognosis. Tumor thickness as well as grade, T stage, LVI were predictors of LN metastasis. Rates of LN metastasis are <2% in LR sm1 disease, and >15% in HR sm1 disease. Pathological reporting of sm invasion should be updated for uniform analysis of endoscopic and surgical specimens. Following rigorous histopathological examination and within a close endoscopic follow-up regimen, pT1a and pT1b LRsm1 disease may be treated with curative intent endoscopically, whereas pT1b HRsm1-sm3 disease should be offered surgery.

Update on endoscopic treatment of Barrett's oesophagus and Barrett's oesophagus-related neoplasia

Endoscopic therapy of early Barrett’s oesophagus–related neoplasia is the treatment of choice for low-grade-dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia and mucosal Barrett’s cancer. Low-grade-dysplasia without any visible lesion should be ablated, preferably with radiofrequency ablation. In cases with the presence of a visible lesion, high-grade dysplasia and early Barrett’s adenocarcinoma, endoscopic resection techniques like multiband ligation endoscopic resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection should be applied. After complete resection of all visible neoplastic lesions, ablation of the remaining Barrett’s oesophagus should be performed to prevent recurrence. Ablation techniques available are radiofrequency ablation, argon plasma coagulation and cryoablation.

Outcomes of patients with submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma: a multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The treatment of submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) remains in evolution, with some evidence supporting endoscopic management of low-risk lesions. Using a multicenter cohort, we evaluated outcomes of patients with T1b EAC and predictors of survival.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed between 2001 and 2016 with T1b EAC were identified from 3 academic medical centers in the United States. Demographic, clinical, and outcome data were collected. Outcomes studied were overall and cancer-free survival. Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to assess independent predictors of survival.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-one patients were included, of whom 68 (48%) underwent esophagectomy and 73 (52%) were treated endoscopically. Most patients (85.8%) had high-risk histologic features. Thirty-day operative mortality was 2.9%. Median follow-up in the esophagectomy and endoscopic cohorts was 49.4 and 43.4 months, respectively. Patients treated endoscopically were older with higher comorbidity scores, with 46 (63%) achieving histologic remission. Nineteen patients (26.0%) also received chemoradiation. Five-year overall survival rates in the surgical and endoscopic cohorts were 89% and 59%, respectively, whereas 5-year cancer-free survival rates were 92% and 69%. Presence of high-risk histologic features was associated with reduced overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large multicenter study of patients with T1b EAC, esophagectomy was associated with improved overall but not cancer-free survival. High-risk histologic features were associated with poorer survival.

Workload, Recurrence, Quality of Life and Long-term Efficacy of Endoscopic Therapy for High-grade Dysplasia and Intramucosal Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVE

To review the workload, type and frequency of recurrence, long-term quality of life (QOL), and late oncologic outcomes with endoscopic therapy.

BACKGROUND

The short-term oncologic efficacy of endoscopic resection (ER) and ablation for patients with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or intramucosal adenocarcinoma (IMC) is well-established in the literature.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed of the initial 40 patients who had endoscopic therapy from 2001 to 2010 at 1 center by 1 physician.

RESULTS

Initial pathology was HGD in 22 and IMC in 18 patients, but 9 patients (41%) with HGD progressed to invasive cancer during endotherapy. The median follow-up was 82 months. Four patients had an esophagectomy, and in the remaining 36 patients, 70 ERs and 111 ablations were performed. The median number of endoscopic sessions was 4 in patients with short segment compared with 7 in patients with long-segment Barrett's. Complete resolution of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) was achieved in 30 patients (83%) at a median of 21 months. In 18 patients (60%), CRIM was maintained, whereas 12 patients developed recurrence at a median of 14 months. Additional endotherapy (n = 11) led to CRIM again in 10 patients (83%). There were no cancer deaths when CRIM was achieved. Overall survival with endotherapy was 73% at 5 years and 67% at 10 years. Quality of life (QOL) was below population means in 4 of 8 areas, but alimentary satisfaction was good after endotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Endotherapy is successful in most patients, but multiple sessions are usually required and disease progression can occur. Once CRIM is achieved, recurrence is common and mandates continued endoscopic follow-up. QOL is impaired with endotherapy, but alimentary satisfaction and oncologic outcomes support esophageal preservation with endotherapy for patients with HGD or IMC.

Pathological assessment of endoscopic resections of the gastrointestinal tract: a comprehensive clinicopathologic review

Endoscopic resection (ER) allows optimal staging with potential cure of early-stage luminal malignancies while maintaining organ preservation. ER and surgery are non-competing but complementary therapeutic options. In addition, histological examination of ER specimens can either confirm or refine the pre-procedure diagnosis. ER is used for the treatment of Barrett's related early carcinomas and dysplasias, early-esophageal squamous cell carcinomas and dysplasias, early gastric carcinomas and dysplasia, as well as low-risk submucosal invasive carcinomas (LR-SMIC) and, large laterally spreading adenomas of the colon. For invasive lesions, histological risk factors predict risk of lymph node metastasis and residual disease at the ER site. Important pathological risk factors predictive of lymph node metastasis are depth of tumor invasion, poor differentiation, and lymphovascular invasion. Complete resection with negative margins is critical to avoid local recurrences. For non-invasive lesions, complete resection is curative. Therefore, a systematic approach for handling and assessing ER specimens is recommended to evaluate all above key prognostic features appropriately. Correct handling starts with pinning the specimen before fixation, meticulous macroscopic assessment with orientation of appropriate margins, systematic sectioning, and microscopic assessment of the entire specimen. Microscopic examination should be thorough for accurate assessment of all pathological risk factors and margin assessment. Site-specific issues such as duplication of muscularis mucosa of the esophagus, challenges of assessing ampullectomy specimens and site-specific differences of staging of early carcinomas throughout the gastrointestinal tract (GI) tract should be given special consideration. Finally, a standard, comprehensive pathology report that allows optimal staging with potential cure of early-stage malignancies or better stratification and guidance for additional treatment should be provided.

Should endoscopic mucosal resection be attempted for cT2N0 esophageal cancer?

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) can be an effective therapy for superficial esophageal cancer. Many patients with cT2 invasion by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) receive surgery but are subsequently found to have superficial disease. The purpose of this study was to investigate the safety profile and the added value of attempting EMR for EUS-staged cT2N0 esophageal cancer. A retrospective review was performed at a single institution from 2008 to 2017. Patients who were staged cT2N0 by EUS were identified from a prospectively maintained surgical database. Among 75 patients identified for analysis, 30 underwent an attempt at EMR. No perforations or other immediate complications occurred. EMR was more likely to be attempted among older patients (P = 0.001) with smaller tumor size (P < 0.001) and diminished SUVmax (P = 0.001). At the time of treatment, EMR was successful in clearing all known disease among 17/30 patients, with 12 representing pT1a or less and 5 representing pT1b with negative margins. Among the 17 patients for whom EMR was able to clear all known disease, there were no recurrences or cancer-related deaths. Although all the patients were staged as cT2N0 by EUS, many patients were identified by EMR to have superficial disease. There were no perforations or other adverse events related to EMR. Furthermore, EMR cleared all known disease among 17 patients with no known recurrences or cancer-related deaths. The results indicate that EMR for cT2N0 esophageal cancer is a safe diagnostic option that is therapeutic for some.