Fan X, Wu Q, Li R, Chen W, Xie H, Zhao X, Zhu S, Fan C, Li J, Liu M, Liu Z, Han Y. Clinical benefit of tunnel endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal squamous cancer: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial.
Gastrointest Endosc 2022;
96:436-444. [PMID:
35461890 DOI:
10.1016/j.gie.2022.04.016]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/10/2021] [Accepted: 04/12/2022] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely accepted as a primary treatment modality for dysplastic and early cancerous lesions of the GI tract. However, prolonged procedure time and life-threatening adverse events remain obstacles to the successful treatment of esophageal cancer. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of tunnel ESD (T-ESD) with conventional ESD (C-ESD) for superficial esophageal squamous neoplasms.
METHODS
A prospective, multicenter trial was conducted at 5 hospitals in China. Patients with esophageal squamous neoplasms were enrolled and randomly assigned to undergo C-ESD or T-ESD. Randomization was stratified by tumor location and circumference extent (<1/2 or ≥1/2). The primary endpoint was procedure time.
RESULTS
Between January and July 2018, 160 patients were enrolled. One hundred fifty-two patients (76 in the C-ESD group and 76 in the T-ESD group) were included in the final analysis. The median procedure time was 47.3 minutes (interquartile range, 31.7-81.3) for C-ESD and 40.0 minutes (interquartile range, 30.0-60.0) for T-ESD (P = .095). However, T-ESD specifically reduced the median procedure time 34.5% (29.5 minutes) compared with C-ESD for lesions ≥1/2 circumference (P < .001). Among the multiple secondary outcomes, muscular injury was less frequent in the T-ESD group compared with the C-ESD group (18.4% vs 38.2%, P = .007), but complete healing of artificial mucosal defect in 1-month follow-up was more common in the T-ESD group than the C-ESD group (95.9% vs 84.7%, P =.026).
CONCLUSIONS
Our study suggests that T-ESD results in shorter procedure time, specifically for lesions ≥1/2 circumference of the esophagus. In addition, T-ESD has a better safety profile indicated by less frequent muscular injury and improved healing of artificial mucosal defects caused by ESD procedures. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03404921.).
Collapse