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

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.

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.

Risk and pathologic factors of recurrence after endoscopic resection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The risk and pathologic factors of recurrence after endoscopic resection (ER) for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) are inconsistent across studies. We evaluated this in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

The data of recurrence in such patients were extracted from all studies. Risk ratios (RRs) were combined using random-effects meta-analysis to assess pooled recurrence rate and pathologic risk factors. Relapse-free survival was combined using the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate the relationship between various pathologic factors and recurrence time.

RESULTS

We identified 26 studies, with a total of 5100 patients and 321 with recurrences (pooled rate, 6.2%). The risk of recurrence was significantly higher in positive vertical margin (RR, 4.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.16-9.44), positive horizontal margin (RR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.57-4.13), lymphovascular invasion (LVI) (RR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.75-3.11; P < .001), lymphatic invasion (LI) (RR, 2.24; 95% CI, 1.24-4.06), and tumor invading submucosa of ≤200 μm (SM1) (RR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.32-2.21, compared to muscularis mucosa). Patients with LI (hazard ratio, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.24-4.90; P = .02) and LVI (HR, 2.36; 95% CI, 2.22-4.59; P = .0006) tended to have earlier recurrence after ER.

CONCLUSIONS

The recurrence rate of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma after ER is acceptable. Patients with positive margins, LVI, LI, and SM1 need to pay significant attention to the risk of recurrence. LI and VI should be evaluated separately. (PROSPERO CRD42023406309.).

Vertical tumor-positive resection margins and the risk of residual neoplasia after endoscopic resection of Barrett's neoplasia: a nationwide cohort with pathology reassessment

BACKGROUND

 This study evaluated the proportion of patients with residual neoplasia after endoscopic resection (ER) for Barrett's neoplasia with confirmed tumor-positive vertical resection margin (R1v).

METHODS

 This retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing ER for Barrett's neoplasia with histologically documented R1v since 2008 in the Dutch Barrett Expert Centers. We defined R1v as cancer cells touching vertical resection margins and Rx as nonassessable margins. Reassessment of R1v specimens was performed by experienced pathologists until consensus was reached regarding vertical margins.

RESULTS

 101/110 included patients had macroscopically complete resections (17 T1a, 84 T1b), and 99/101 (98%) ER specimens were histologically reassessed, with R1v confirmed in 74 patients (75%), Rx in 16%, and R0 in 9%. Presence/absence of residual neoplasia could be assessed in 66/74 patients during endoscopic reassessment (52) and/or in the surgical resection specimen (14), and 33/66 (50%) had residual neoplasia. Residual neoplasia detected during endoscopy was always endoscopically visible and biopsies from a normal-appearing ER scar did not detect additional neoplasia. Of 25 patients who underwent endoscopic follow-up (median 37 months [interquartile range 12-50]), 4 developed local recurrence (16.0%), all detected as visible abnormalities.

CONCLUSIONS

 After ER with R1v, 50% of patients had no residual neoplasia. Histological evaluation of ER margins appears challenging, as in this study 75% of documented R1v cases were confirmed during reassessment. Endoscopic reassessment 8-12 weeks after ER seems to accurately detect residual neoplasia and can help to determine the most appropriate strategy for patients with R1v.

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.

Advances in the Imaging of Esophageal and Gastroesophageal Junction Malignancies

Accurate imaging is key for the diagnosis and treatment of esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancers . Current imaging modalities, such as computed tomography (CT) and 18F-FDG (2-deoxy-2-[18F]fluoro-D-glucose) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT, have limitations in accurately staging these cancers. MRI shows promise for T staging and residual disease assessment. Novel PET tracers, like FAPI, FLT, and hypoxia markers, offer potential improvements in diagnostic accuracy. 18F-FDG PET/MRI combines metabolic and anatomic information, enhancing disease evaluation. Radiomics and artificial intelligence hold promise for early detection, treatment planning, and response assessment. Theranostic nanoparticles and personalized medicine approaches offer new avenues for cancer therapy.

Risk of lymph node metastasis in T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis

Patients with early (T1) esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) are increasingly having definitive local therapy endoscopically. Endoscopic resection is not able to pathologically stage or treat lymph node metastasis (LNM). Accurate identification of patients having nodal metastasis is critical to select endoscopic therapy over surgery. This study aimed to define the risk of LNM in T1 EAC. A meta-analysis of studies of patients who underwent surgery and lymphadenectomy with assessment of LNM was performed according to PRISMA. Main outcome was probability of LNM in T1a and T1b disease. Secondary outcomes were risk factors for LNM and rate of LNM in submucosal T1b (SM1, SM2, and SM3) disease. Registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022341794). Twenty cohort studies involving 2264 patients with T1 EAC met inclusion criteria: T1a (857 patients) with 36 (4.2%) node positive and T1b (1407 patients) with 327 (23.2%) node positive. Subgroup analysis of T1b lesions was available in 10 studies (405 patients). Node positivity for SM1, SM2, and SM3 was 16.3%, 16.2%, and 29.4%, respectively. T1 substage (odds ratio [OR] 7.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.45-13.38, P < 0.01), tumor differentiation (OR 2.82, 95% CI 2.06-3.87, P < 0.01), and lymphovascular invasion (OR 13.65, 95% CI 6.06-30.73, P < 0.01) were associated with LNM. T1a disease demonstrated a 4.2% nodal metastasis rate and T1b disease a rate of 23.2%. Endoscopic therapy should be reserved for T1a disease and perhaps select T1b disease, which has a moderately high rate of nodal metastasis. There were inadequate data to stratify T1b SM disease into 'low-risk' and 'high-risk' based on tumor differentiation and lymphovascular invasion.

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.

Curative criteria for endoscopic treatment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma

The incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma has been increasing rapidly in the Western world. A well-known risk factor for developing this type of tumour is reflux disease, which can cause metaplasia from the squamous cell mucosa to columnar epithelium (Barrett's Oesophagus) which can progress to dysplasia and eventually adenocarcinoma. With the rise of the incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma, research on the best way to manage this disease is of great importance and has changed treatment modalities over the last decades. The gold standard for superficial adenocarcinoma has shifted from surgical to endoscopic management when certain criteria are met. This review will discuss the different curative criteria for endoscopic treatment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Esophageal cancer - French intergroup clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, SFP, RENAPE, SNFCP, AFEF, SFR)

INTRODUCTION

This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of esophageal cancer (EC) published in July 2022, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org).

METHODS

This collaborative work was conducted under the auspices of several French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of EC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B and C), according to the level of evidence found in the literature until April 2022.

RESULTS

EC diagnosis and staging evaluation are mainly based on patient's general condition assessment, endoscopy plus biopsies, TAP CT-scan and 18F FDG-PET. Surgery alone is recommended for early-stage EC, while locally advanced disease (N+ and/or T3-4) is treated with perioperative chemotherapy (FLOT) or preoperative chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by immunotherapy for adenocarcinoma. Preoperative chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by immunotherapy or definitive chemoradiation with the possibility of organ preservation are the two options for squamous cell carcinoma. Salvage surgery is recommended for incomplete response or recurrence after definitive chemoradiation and should be performed in an expert center. Treatment for metastatic disease is based on systemic therapy including chemotherapy, immunotherapy or combined targeted therapy according to biomarkers testing such as HER2 status, MMR status and PD-L1 expression.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines are intended to provide a personalised therapeutic strategy for daily clinical practice and are subject to ongoing optimization. Each individual case should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

Diagnosis and management of Barrett esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

MR1 : ESGE recommends the following standards for Barrett esophagus (BE) surveillance:- a minimum of 1-minute inspection time per cm of BE length during a surveillance endoscopy- photodocumentation of landmarks, the BE segment including one picture per cm of BE length, and the esophagogastric junction in retroflexed position, and any visible lesions- use of the Prague and (for visible lesions) Paris classification- collection of biopsies from all visible abnormalities (if present), followed by random four-quadrant biopsies for every 2-cm BE length.Strong recommendation, weak quality of evidence. MR2:  ESGE suggests varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance are advised.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR3:  ESGE suggests that, if a patient has reached 75 years of age at the time of the last surveillance endoscopy and/or the patient's life expectancy is less than 5 years, the discontinuation of further surveillance endoscopies can be considered. Weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence. MR4:  ESGE recommends offering endoscopic eradication therapy using ablation to patients with BE and low grade dysplasia (LGD) on at least two separate endoscopies, both confirmed by a second experienced pathologist.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR5:  ESGE recommends endoscopic ablation treatment for BE with confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD) without visible lesions, to prevent progression to invasive cancer.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR6:  ESGE recommends offering complete eradication of all remaining Barrett epithelium by ablation after endoscopic resection of visible abnormalities containing any degree of dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. MR7:  ESGE recommends endoscopic resection as curative treatment for T1a Barrett's cancer with well/moderate differentiation and no signs of lymphovascular invasion.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR8:  ESGE suggests that low risk submucosal (T1b) EAC (i. e. submucosal invasion depth ≤ 500 µm AND no [lympho]vascular invasion AND no poor tumor differentiation) can be treated by endoscopic resection, provided that adequate follow-up with gastroscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and computed tomography (CT)/positrion emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in expert centers.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR9:  ESGE suggests that submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (tumor invasion > 500 µm into the submucosa), and/or (lympho)vascular invasion, and/or a poor tumor differentiation should be considered high risk. Complete staging and consideration of additional treatments (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and/or surgery) or strict endoscopic follow-up should be undertaken on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR10 A: ESGE recommends that the first endoscopic follow-up after successful endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) of BE is performed in an expert center.Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence. B:  ESGE recommends careful inspection of the neo-squamocolumnar junction and neo-squamous epithelium with high definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy during post-EET surveillance, to detect recurrent dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. C:  ESGE recommends against routine four-quadrant biopsies of neo-squamous epithelium after successful EET of BE.Strong recommendation, low level of evidence. D:  ESGE suggests, after successful EET, obtaining four-quadrant random biopsies just distal to a normal-appearing neo-squamocolumnar junction to detect dysplasia in the absence of visible lesions.Weak recommendation, low level of evidence. E:  ESGE recommends targeted biopsies are obtained where there is a suspicion of recurrent BE in the tubular esophagus, or where there are visible lesions suspicious for dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. MR11:  After successful EET, ESGE recommends the following surveillance intervals:- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of HGD or EAC:at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of LGD:at 1, 3, and 5 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

Thoracoscopic esophagectomy for thoracic esophageal cancer with right aortic arch and Kommerell diverticulum: a case report and literature review

Background

Esophageal carcinoma accompanied by a right aortic arch (RAA) is very rare. When combined with Kommerell diverticulum (KD), a right aortic arch forms a vascular ring encircling both the esophagus and trachea. Due to abnormal anatomy of the upper mediastinum, it is very difficult to dissociate the esophagus and its surrounding tissues, especially the left recurrent laryngeal nerve. Herein, we report a case of successful thoracoscopic esophagectomy in an esophageal cancer patient concurrent with a RAA and KD.

Case presentation

A 62-year-old male patient was diagnosed with esophageal squamous carcinoma in the middle esophagus at clinical stage I (cT1N0M0) according to UICC-TNM classification 8th edition. Further examinations revealed RAA and KD. Based on the three-dimensional CT (3D-CT) reconstruction, a Mckeown esophagectomy via a left thoracoscopic approach in semi-prone position was performed. During the operation, the left recurrent laryngeal nerve was accurately exposed and well protected. Postoperatively, severe complications, including anastomotic leakage and recurrent laryngeal nerve palsy, were not observed. The patient was discharged 12 days after the surgery.

Conclusion

Preoperative 3D-CT reconstruction is useful to clarify the vascular malformation in esophageal cancer patients with RAA, and helpful to formulate a reasonable surgical approach.

A novel risk classification system based on the eighth edition of TNM frameworks for esophageal adenocarcinoma patients: A deep learning approach

Objective

To develop and validate a deep learning predictive model with better performance in survival estimation of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).

Method

Cases diagnosed between January 2010 and December 2018 were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. A deep learning survival neural network was developed and validated based on 17 variables, including demographic information, clinicopathological characteristics, and treatment details. Based on the total risk score derived from this algorithm, a novel risk classification system was constructed and compared with the 8th edition of the tumor, node, and metastasis (TNM) staging system.

Results

Of 7,764 EAC patients eligible for the study, 6,818 (87.8%) were men and the median (interquartile range, IQR) age was 65 (58-72) years. The deep learning model generated significantly superior predictions to the 8th edition staging system on the test data set (C-index: 0.773 [95% CI, 0.757-0.789] vs. 0.683 [95% CI, 0.667-0.699]; P < 0.001). Calibration curves revealed that the deep learning model was well calibrated for 1- and 3-year OS, most points almost directly distributing on the 45° line. Decision curve analyses (DCAs) showed that the novel risk classification system exhibited a more significant positive net benefit than the TNM staging system. A user-friendly and precise web-based calculator with a portably executable file was implemented to visualize the deep learning predictive model.

Conclusion

A deep learning predictive model was developed and validated, which possesses more excellent calibration and discrimination abilities in survival prediction of EAC. The novel risk classification system based on the deep learning algorithm may serve as a useful tool in clinical decision making given its easy-to-use and better clinical applicability.

Analysis of metastases rates during follow-up after endoscopic resection of early "high-risk" esophageal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

After endoscopic resection (ER) of early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), the optimal management of patients with high-risk histologic features for lymph node metastases (ie, submucosal invasion, poor differentiation grade, or lymphovascular invasion) remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate outcomes of endoscopic follow-up after ER for high-risk EAC.

METHODS

For this retrospective cohort study, data were collected from all Dutch patients managed with endoscopic follow-up (endoscopy, EUS) after ER for high-risk EAC between 2008 and 2019. We distinguished 3 groups: intramucosal cancers with high-risk features, submucosal cancers with low-risk features, and submucosal cancers with high-risk features. The primary outcome was the annual risk for metastases during follow-up, stratified for baseline histology.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty patients met the selection criteria. Median follow-up was 29 months (interquartile range, 15-48). Metastases were observed in 5 of 25 (annual risk, 6.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0-15) high-risk intramucosal cancers, 1 of 55 (annual risk, .7%; 95% CI, 0-4.0) low-risk submucosal cancers, and 3 of 40 (annual risk, 3.0%; 95% CI, 0-7.0) high-risk submucosal cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas the annual metastasis rate for high-risk submucosal EAC (3.0%) was somewhat lower than expected in comparison with previous reported percentages, the annual metastasis rate of 6.9% for high-risk intramucosal EAC is new and worrisome. This calls for further prospective studies and suggests that strict follow-up of this small subgroup is warranted until prospective data are available.

Extending treatment criteria for Barrett's neoplasia: results of a nationwide cohort of 138 endoscopic submucosal dissection procedures

BACKGROUND

The use of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is gradually expanding for treatment of neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aimed to report outcomes of all ESDs for BE neoplasia performed in the Netherlands.

METHODS

Retrospective assessment of outcomes, using treatment and follow-up data from a joint database.

RESULTS

130/138 patients had complete ESDs, with 126/130 (97 %) en bloc resections. Median (interquartile range (IQR)) procedure time was 121 minutes (90-180). Pathology findings were high grade dysplasia (HGD) (5 %) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) T1a (43 %) or T1b (52 %; 19 % sm1, 33 % ≥ sm2). Among resections of HGD or T1a EAC lesions, 87 % (95 %CI 75 %-92 %) were both en bloc and R0; the corresponding value for T1b EAC lesions was 49 % (36 %-60 %). Among R1 resections, 10/34 (29 %) showed residual cancer, all detected at first endoscopic follow-up. The remaining 24 patients (71 %) showed no residual neoplasia. Six of these patients underwent surgery with no residual tumor; the remaining 18 underwent endoscopic follow-up during median 31 months with 1 local recurrence (annual recurrence rate 2 %). Among R0 resections, annual local recurrence rate during median 27 months was 0.5 %.

CONCLUSION

In expert hands, ESD allows safe removal of bulky intraluminal neoplasia and submucosal cancer. ESD of the latter showed R1 resection margins in 50 %, yet only one third had persisting neoplasia at follow-up. To better stratify R1 patients with an indication for additional surgery, repeat endoscopy after healing of the ESD might be a helpful possible prognostic factor for residual cancer.