The role of endoscopic resection in early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma: Esophagectomy is associated with improved survival in patients presenting with clinical stage T1bN0 disease

Current status and perspectives of esophageal cancer: a comprehensive review

Esophageal cancer (EC) continues to be a significant global health concern, with two main subtypes: esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Prevention and changes in etiology, improvements in early detection, and refinements in the treatment have led to remarkable progress in the outcomes of EC patients in the past two decades. This seminar provides an in-depth analysis of advances in the epidemiology, disease biology, screening, diagnosis, and treatment landscape of esophageal cancer, focusing on the ongoing debate surrounding multimodality therapy. Despite significant advancements, EC remains a deadly disease, underscoring the need for continued research into early detection methods, understanding the molecular mechanisms, and developing effective treatments.

Predictors for lymph node metastasis and survival of patients with T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma treated with surgery and endoscopic therapy: an analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Limited data exist regarding the long-term outcomes of endoscopic therapy (ET) with or without chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Our aim was to identify the risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) in T1b EAC and assess how the chosen treatment modality affects overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS).

METHODS

We analyzed patients with histologically confirmed T1b EAC diagnosed between 2004 and 2018 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Focusing on T1bN0M0 staging, the patients were divided into 2 groups (ET [n = 174] and surgery [n = 769]), and OS and CSS rates were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 1418 patients with T1b EAC, 228 cases (16.1%) exhibited LNM at diagnosis. Notable risk factors for LNM included poorly differentiated tumor and lesion size ≥20 mm. For T1bN0M0 cases, ET was commonly performed from 2009 to 2018 (odds ratio [OR], 4.3), especially for patients aged ≥65 years (OR, 3.1) with tumor size <20 mm (OR, 2.3). During the median 50 months of follow-up, age ≥65 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.9), ET (HR, 1.5), and CRT (HR, 1.4) were associated with poorer OS. Factors linked to decreased CSS were age ≥65 years (subhazard ratio [SHR], 1.6), poorly differentiated tumors (SHR, 1.5), and CRT (SHR, 1.5).

CONCLUSIONS

In T1b EAC, tumor size ≥20 mm and poor differentiation are notable risk factors for LNM. ET exhibited comparable CSS outcomes to surgery for carefully selected T1bN0M0 lesions. CRT did not provide additional survival benefit for these lesions; however, large-scale studies are required to validate this finding.

Prognostic factors in clinicopathology of oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma: a single-centre longitudinal study of 347 cases over a 20-year period

Oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (EGA) includes oesophageal (EA), gastro-oesophageal junctional (GEJA), and gastric (GA) adenocarcinomas. The prognostic values of clinicopathological factors in these tumours remain obscure, especially for GEJA that has been inconsistently classified and staged. We studied the prognosis of EGA patients among the three geographic groups in 347 consecutive patients with a median age of 70 years (range 47-94). All patients were male, and 97.1% were white. Based on tumour epicentre location, EGAs were sub-grouped into EA (over 2 cm above the GEJ; n=3, 18.1%), GEJA (within 2 cm above and 3 cm below the GEJ; n=231, 66.6%), and GA (over 3 cm below the GEJ; n=53, 15.3%). We found that the median overall survival (OS) was the longest in EA (62.9 months), compared to GEJA (33.4), and GA (38.1) (p<0.001). Significant risk factors for OS included tumour location (p=0.018), size (p<0.001), differentiation (p<0.001), adenocarcinoma subtype (p<0.001), and TNM stage (p<0.001). Independent risk factors for OS comprised low-grade papillary adenocarcinoma [odds ratio (OR) 0.449, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.214-0.944, p<0.05), mixed adenocarcinoma (OR 1.531, 95% CI 1.056-2.218, p<0.05), adenosquamous carcinoma (OR 2.206, 95% CI 1.087-4.475, p<0.05), N stage (OR 1.505, 95% CI 1.043-2.171, p<0.05), and M stage (OR 10.036, 95% CI 2.519-39.993, p=0.001)]. EGA was further divided into low-risk (common well-moderately differentiated tubular and low-grade papillary adenocarcinomas) and high-risk (uncommon adenocarcinoma subtypes, adenosquamous carcinoma) subgroups. In this grouping, the median OS was significantly longer in the low-risk (83 months) than in the high-risk (10 months) subgroups (p<0.001). In conclusion, the prognosis of EGA patients was significantly better in EA than in GEJA or GA and could be stratified into low and high-risk subgroups with significantly different outcomes.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on monitoring and management of Barrett's oesophagus and stage I oesophageal adenocarcinoma

Barrett's oesophagus is the only known precursor to oesophageal adenocarcinoma, a cancer with very poor prognosis. The main risk factors for Barrett's oesophagus are a history of gastro-oesophageal acid reflux symptoms and obesity. Men, smokers and those with a family history are also at increased risk. Progression from Barrett's oesophagus to cancer occurs via an intermediate stage, known as dysplasia. However, dysplasia and early cancer usually develop without any clinical signs, often in individuals whose symptoms are well controlled by acid suppressant medications; therefore, endoscopic surveillance is recommended to allow for early diagnosis and timely clinical intervention. Individuals with Barrett's oesophagus need to be fully informed about the implications of this diagnosis and the benefits and risks of monitoring strategies. Pharmacological treatments are recommended for control of symptoms, but not for chemoprevention. Dysplasia and stage 1 oesophageal adenocarcinoma have excellent prognoses, since they can be cured with endoscopic or surgical therapies. Endoscopic resection is the most accurate staging technique for early Barrett's-related oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Endoscopic ablation is effective and indicated to eradicate Barrett's oesophagus in patients with dysplasia. Future research should focus on improved accuracy for dysplasia detection via new technologies and providing more robust evidence to support pathways for follow-up and treatment.

Esophagectomy versus observation following endoscopic submucosal dissection of pT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Management following endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of pT1b esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) remains controversial. This study compared pathological and survival outcomes of patients after endoscopic resection (ER) of pT1b EAC followed by either en bloc esophagectomy or observation.

METHODS

From 1/12 to 12/22, all patients with pT1b EAC treated with ER were identified from a prospectively maintained departmental database. ESD was curative (all of: Submucosal invasion < 500 μm; G1/2, LVI/PNI-; deep margin-) or non-curative (one or more of Submucosal invasion ≥ 500 μm; G3; LVI/PNI+; deep margin+). Patients were allocated to observation (OBS) or esophagectomy (SURG) based on patient factors/preference and pathological variables.

RESULTS

56/171 ERs met the inclusion criteria. ER was curative in 8/56 (14%) and non-curative in 48/56 (86%). OBS was undertaken after 8/27 (30%) curative and 19/27 (70%) non-curative resections. All 29 SURG patients had non-curative ERs and were younger, had lower Charlson comorbidity scores and had more deep margin + lesions than OBS patients. Post-esophagectomy, 15/29 (52%) had no residual disease within the surgical specimen while pT+N-/pT-N+/pT+N+ occurred in 5/3/6 (17%/10%/21%) patients. Of those with residual disease in the surgical specimen, 12/14 (86%) had deep margin + ERs; however, only ESD instead of EMR was independently associated with a lower risk of residual disease (OR 0.431, 95% CI - 0.016 to 1.234, p = 0.045). OBS and SURG patients had equivalent overall survival outcomes and recurrence was low in both groups even following non-curative ER. Follow-up was 28 months (0-102) and 30 months (0-97), respectively.

CONCLUSION

In select patients, including some of those with a non-curative ESD resection of pT1B EAC, surveillance alone may be appropriate. Alternatives beyond traditional pathological features is needed to direct patient care more accurately.