Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs. endoscopic mucosal resection for early Barrett's neoplasia in the West: a retrospective study

Endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for Barrett's-associated neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature

BACKGROUND

The role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the treatment of Barrett esophagus-associated neoplasia (BEN) has been evolving. We examined the efficacy and safety of ESD and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for BEN.

METHODS

A database search was performed for studies reporting efficacy and safety outcomes of ESD and EMR for BEN. Pooled proportional and comparative meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

47 studies (23 ESD, 19 EMR, 5 comparative) were included. The mean lesion sizes for ESD and EMR were 22.5 mm and 15.8 mm, respectively; most lesions were Paris type IIa. For ESD, pooled analysis showed rates of en bloc, R0, and curative resection, and local recurrence of 98%, 78%, 65%, and 2%, respectively. Complete eradication of dysplasia and intestinal metaplasia were achieved in 94% and 59% of cases, respectively. Pooled rates of perforation, intraprocedural bleeding, delayed bleeding, and stricture were 1%, 1%, 2%, and 10%, respectively. For EMR, pooled analysis showed rates of en bloc, R0, and curative resection, and local recurrence of 37%, 67%, 62%, and 6%, respectively. Complete eradication of dysplasia and intestinal metaplasia were achieved in 94% and 75% of cases. Pooled rates of perforation, intraprocedural bleeding, delayed bleeding, and stricture were 0.1%, 1%, 0.4%, and 8%, respectively. The mean procedure times for ESD and EMR were 113 and 22 minutes, respectively. Comparative analysis showed higher en bloc and R0 resection rates with ESD compared with EMR, with comparable adverse events.

CONCLUSION

ESD and EMR can both be employed to treat BEN depending on lesion type and size, and center expertise.

Recurrence following successful eradication of neoplasia with endoscopic mucosal resection compared with endoscopic submucosal dissection in Barrett's esophagus: a retrospective comparison

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are effective treatments for Barrett's neoplasia. However, little is known about recurrence rates following these techniques. We compared long-term neoplasia recurrence rates following EMR and ESD.

METHODS

This study included patients with Barrett's neoplasia (high grade dysplasia/adenocarcinoma) treated between July 2019 and December 2023 at a tertiary referral center in Canada. Outcomes were residual neoplasia at first follow-up, complete remission of neoplasia (CRN), and neoplasia recurrence following CRN.

RESULTS

157 patients were included (87 EMR, 70 ESD). Compared with EMR, the ESD group had larger lesions (median 2 vs. 3 cm, P<0.05), more adenocarcinoma (85.1% vs. 94.3%, P = 0.07), and deeper submucosal invasion (T1a: 71.6% vs. 75.8%; T1b-SM1: 25.7% vs. 6.1%; T1b≥SM2: 2.7% vs. 18.2%; P<0.05). Among 124 patients with follow-up (71 EMR, 53 ESD), 84.9% of ESD-treated patients had curative resections (i.e. R0 resection with low risk for lymph node metastasis), whereas 94.4% of EMR-treated patients had deep margin R0 resection of low risk lesions. At first follow-up, residual neoplasia (14.1% vs. 11.3%) and CRN (97.2% vs. 100%) were similar in the EMR and ESD groups, but neoplasia recurrence following CRN was significantly higher with EMR (13% vs. 1.9%, P<0.05), with cumulative probability of recurrence at 3 years of 18.3% vs. 4.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Neoplasia recurrence following CRN was significantly higher following EMR compared with ESD, suggesting that ESD may be superior to EMR in preventing neoplasia recurrence in Barrett's esophagus.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs. endoscopic mucosal resection in the treatment of early Barrett's neoplasia: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic resection is the preferred approach to treat early Barrett's neoplasia, reducing the need for surgical interventions. However, the best choice between endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) remains unclear. The study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EMR vs. ESD for early Barrett's neoplasia.

METHODS

An electronic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Central Cochrane, EMBASE, and LILACS until November 2023. Studies comparing ESD vs. EMR in the treatment of patients with early Barrett's neoplasia were included. This study was performed according to the Preferred Report Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The ROBIN-I tool was used to analyze the risk of bias and GRADE to measure the quality of the evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 9352 patients from 15 observational studies were included. Patients undergoing ESD had significantly higher rates of en-bloc (odds ratio [OR] 25.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 13.82, 48.74; I2 = 52%; P < 0.00001) and R0 (OR 5.10, 95% CI 3.29, 7.91; I2 = 73%; P < 0.00001) with a higher risk of adverse events, including bleeding, stricture formation, and perforation. In a subgroup analysis of patients who did not receive radiofrequency ablation, ESD had a lower recurrence rate than EMR (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05, 0.94; I2 = 88%; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is more effective than EMR in treating early Barrett's neoplasia at the expense of higher adverse events rates.

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.

Endoscopic Resections for Barrett's Neoplasia: A Long-Term, Single-Center Follow-Up Study

Background and Objectives: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are both well-established and effective treatments for dysplasia and early cancer in Barrett's esophagus (BE). This study aims to compare the short- and long-term outcomes associated with these procedures in treating Barrett's neoplasia. Materials and Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study included 95 patients, either EMR (n = 67) or ESD (n = 28), treated for Barrett's neoplasia at Sahlgrenska University Hospital between 2004 and 2019. The primary outcome was the complete (en-bloc) R0 resection rate. Secondary outcomes included the curative resection rate, additional endoscopic resections, adverse events, and overall survival. Results: The complete R0 resection rate was 62.5% for ESD compared to 16% for EMR (p < 0.001). The curative resection rate for ESD was 54% versus 16% for EMR (p < 0.001). During the follow-up, 22 out of 50 patients in the EMR group required additional endoscopic resections (AERs) compared to 3 out of 21 patients in the ESD group (p = 0.028). There were few adverse events associated with both EMR and ESD. In both the stratified Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (Log-rank test, Chi-square = 2.190, df = 1, p = 0.139) and the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model (hazard ratio of 0.988; 95% CI: 0.459 to 2.127; p = 0.975), the treatment group (EMR vs. ESD) did not significantly impact the survival outcomes. Conclusions: Both EMR and ESD are effective and safe treatments for BE neoplasia with few adverse events. ESD resulted in higher curative resection rates with fewer AERs, indicating its potential as a primary treatment modality. However, the survival analysis showed no difference between the methods, highlighting their comparable long-term outcomes.

Ultra-minimally invasive endoscopic techniques and colorectal diseases: Current status and its future

Colorectal diseases are increasing due to altered lifestyle, genetic, and environmental factors. Colonoscopy plays an important role in diagnosis. Advances in colonoscope (ultrathin scope, magnetic scope, capsule) and technological gadgets (Balloon assisted scope, third eye retroscope, NaviAid G-EYE, dye-based chromoendoscopy, virtual chromoendoscopy, narrow band imaging, i-SCAN, etc.) have made colonoscopy more comfortable and efficient. Now in-vivo microscopy can be performed using confocal laser endomicroscopy, optical coherence tomography, spectroscopy, etc. Besides developments in diagnostic colonoscopy, therapeutic colonoscopy has improved to manage lower gastrointestinal tract bleeding, obstruction, perforations, resection polyps, and early colorectal cancers. The introduction of combined endo-laparoscopic surgery and robotic endoscopic surgery has made these interventions feasible. The role of artificial intelligence in the diagnosis and management of colorectal diseases is also increasing day by day. Hence, this article is to review cutting-edge developments in endoscopic principles for the management of colorectal diseases.

Endoscopic Resection of Malignancies in the Upper GI Tract: A Clinical Algorithm

Background

Malignancies in the upper gastrointestinal tract are amenable to endoscopic resection at an early stage. Achieving a curative resection is the most stringent quality criterion, but post-resection risk assessment and aftercare are also part of a comprehensive quality program.

Summary

Various factors influence the achievement of curative resection. These include endoscopic assessment prior to resection using chromoendoscopy and HD technology. If resectability is possible, it is particularly important to delineate the lateral resection margins as precisely as possible before resection. Furthermore, the correct choice of resection technique depending on the lesion must be taken into account. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is the standard for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and gastric carcinoma. In Western countries, it is becoming increasingly popular to treat Barrett's neoplasia over 2 cm in size and/or with suspected submucosal infiltration with en bloc resection instead of piece meal resection. After resection, risk assessment based on the histopathological resection determines the patient's individual risk of lymph node metastases, particularly in the case of high-risk lesions. This is categorized according to the current literature.

Key Messages

This review presents clinical algorithms for endoscopic resection of esophageal SCC, Barrett's neoplasia, and gastric neoplasia. The algorithms include the pre-resection assessment of the lesion and the resection margins, the adequate resection technique for the respective lesion, as well as the post-resection risk assessment with an evidence-based recommendation for follow-up therapy and surveillance.

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.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection with versus without traction for pathologically staged T1B esophageal cancer: a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Positive vertical margins (VMs) are common after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of T1b esophageal cancer (EC) and are associated with an increased risk of recurrence. Traction during ESD provides better exposure of the submucosa and may allow deeper dissection, potentially reducing the risk of positive VMs. We conducted a retrospective multicenter study to compare the proportion of resections with positive VMs in ESD performed with versus without traction in pathologically staged T1b EC.

METHODS

Patients who underwent ESD revealing T1b EC (squamous or adenocarcinoma) at 10 academic tertiary referral centers in the United States (n = 9) and Brazil (n = 1) were included. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted. ESD using either traction techniques (tunneling, pocket) or traction devices (clip line, traction wire) were classified as ESD with traction (Tr-ESD) and those without were classified as conventional ESD without traction. The primary outcome was a negative VM. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess associations with negative VMs.

RESULTS

A total of 166 patients with pathologically staged T1b EC underwent Tr-ESD (n = 63; 38%) or conventional ESD without traction (n = 103; 62%). Baseline factors were comparable between both groups. On multivariable analysis, Tr-ESD was found to be independently associated with negative VMs (odds ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-4.91; P = .037) and R0 resection (odds ratio, 2.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-6.23; P = .008).

CONCLUSION

Tr-ESD seems to be associated with higher odds of negative VMs than ESD without traction for pathologically staged T1b EC, and future well-conducted prospective studies are warranted to establish the findings of the current study.

The 2022 top 10 list of endoscopy topics in medical publishing: an annual review by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Editorial Board

Using a systematic literature search of original articles published during 2022 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and other high-impact medical and gastroenterology journals, the 10-member Editorial Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy composed a list of the 10 most significant topic areas in GI endoscopy during the study year. Each Editorial Board member was directed to consider 3 criteria in generating candidate lists-significance, novelty, and global impact on clinical practice-and subject matter consensus was facilitated by the Chair through electronic voting. The 10 identified areas collectively represent advances in the following endoscopic spheres: artificial intelligence, endoscopic submucosal dissection, Barrett's esophagus, interventional EUS, endoscopic resection techniques, pancreaticobiliary endoscopy, management of acute pancreatitis, endoscopic environmental sustainability, the NordICC trial, and spiral enteroscopy. Each board member was assigned a consensus topic area around which to summarize relevant important articles, thereby generating this précis of the "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2022.

Mechanisms of esophageal stricture after extensive endoscopic resection: a transcriptomic analysis

Background and study aims  Esophageal stricture is the most frequent adverse event after endoscopic resection for early esophageal neoplasia. Currently available treatments for the prevention of esophageal stricture are poorly effective and associated with major adverse events. Our aim was to identify transcripts specifically overexpressed or repressed in patients who have developed a post-endoscopic esophageal stricture, as potential targets for stricture prevention. Patients and methods  We conducted a prospective single-center study in a tertiary endoscopy center. Patients scheduled for an endoscopic resection and considered at risk of esophageal stricture were offered inclusion in the study. The healthy mucosa and resection bed were biopsied on Days 0, 14, and 90. A transcriptomic analysis by microarray was performed, and the differences in transcriptomic profile compared between patients with and without esophageal strictures. Results  Eight patients, four with esophageal stricture and four without, were analyzed. The mean ± SD circumferential extension of the mucosal defect was 85 ± 11 %. The transcriptomic analysis in the resection bed at day 14 found an activation of the interleukin (IL)-1 group (Z score = 2.159, P  = 0.0137), while interferon-gamma (INFγ) and NUPR1 were inhibited (Z score = -2.375, P  = 0.0022 and Z score = -2.333, P  = 0.00131) in the stricture group. None of the activated or inhibited transcripts were still significantly so in any of the groups on Day 90. Conclusions  Our data suggest that IL-1 inhibition or INFγ supplementation could constitute promising targets for post-endoscopic esophageal stricture prevention.

Outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) plus radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for nodular Barrett's esophagus

BACKGROUND

Although Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) was proven superior to Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) in achieving higher complete remission rates for neoplastic Barrett's Esophagus (BE), its safety with Radiofrequency Ablation (RFA) remains unstudied. We share our experience with ESD + RFA for nodular BE eradication.

METHODS

A retrospective study of all patients ≥18-years with nodular BE who underwent ESD + RFA between September 2015 and December 2020 at our tertiary center. Patients with advanced adenocarcinoma requiring esophagectomy were excluded. Primary outcomes included adverse events (AE) rates and complete eradication rates for adenocarcinoma (CE-EAC), dysplasia (CE-D), and intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM). Secondary outcomes included local recurrence rates following eradication.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients were included with a total of 22 ESDs performed and a median of 2 RFA sessions-per-patient [IQR: 1.25, 3]. Sixteen patients were males and/or white (88.9%) with a median BMI of 29.75 kg/m² [IQR: 26.9, 31.5]. Fourteen patients had long-segment BE (77.7%) while 16 had hiatal hernias (88.9%). Median resection size was 12.1 cm² [IQR: 5.6, 20.2]. AEs included one intraprocedural micro-perforation (4.5%) and 4 strictures (22.2%), only one of which developed post-RFA. All AEs were successfully treated endoscopically. Over a median of 42.5 months [IQR: 28, 59.25], CE-EAC was achieved in 13 patients (100%), CE-D in 15 patients (100%), and CE-IM in 14 patients (77.8%). Following eradication, 2 patients had recurrent dysplasia (2/15, 13.3%) and one had recurrent intestinal metaplasia (1/14, 7.1%).

CONCLUSION

In high-risk patients with long-segment neoplastic BE requiring extensive endoscopic resection, ESD + RFA offers excellent complete eradication rates with rare additional adverse events by RFA. Standard endoscopic surveillance following eradication remains important.

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.

Outcomes for endoscopic submucosal dissection of pathologically staged T1b esophageal cancer: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for T1b esophageal cancer (EC) and its recurrence rates remain unclear in the West. Using a multicenter cohort, we evaluated technical outcomes and recurrence rates of ESD in the treatment of pathologically staged T1b EC.

METHODS

We included patients who underwent ESD of T1b EC at 7 academic tertiary referral centers in the United States (n = 6) and Brazil (n = 1). We analyzed demographic, procedural, and histopathologic characteristics and follow-up data. Time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence rates.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients with pathologically staged T1b EC after ESD were included in the study. A preprocedure staging EUS was available in 54 patients and was Tis/T1a in 27 patients (50%) and T1b in 27 patients (50%). En-bloc resection rate was 92.4% (61/66) and R0 resection rate was 54.5% (36/66). Forty-nine of 66 patients (74.2%) did not undergo surgery immediately after resection and went on to surveillance. Ten patients had ESD resection within the curative criteria, and no recurrences were seen in a 13-month (range, 3-18.5) follow-up period in these patients. Ten of 39 patients (25.6%) with noncurative resections had residual/recurrent disease. Of the 10 patients with noncurative resection, local recurrence alone was seen in 5 patients (12.8%) and metastatic recurrence in 5 patients (12.8%). On univariate analysis, R1 resection had a higher risk of recurrent disease (hazard ratio, 6.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-30.36; P = .023).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS staging of T1b EC has poor accuracy, and a staging ESD should be considered in these patients. ESD R0 resection rates were low in T1b EC, and R1 resection was associated with recurrent disease. Patients with noncurative ESD resection of T1b EC who cannot undergo surgery should be surveyed closely, because recurrent disease was seen in 25% of these patients.

Management of Dysplastic Barrett's Esophagus and Early Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

While patients with Barrett's esophagus without dysplasia may benefit from endoscopic surveillance, those with low-grade dysplasia may be managed with either endoscopic surveillance or endoscopic eradication. Patients with Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia and/or intramucosal adenocarcinoma will generally require endoscopic eradication therapy. The management of Barrett's esophagus with dysplasia and early esophageal adenocarcinoma is predominantly endoscopic, with multiple effective methods available for the resection of raised neoplasia and ablation of flat neoplasia. High-dose proton-pump inhibitor therapy is advised during the treatment of Barrett's esophagus with dysplasia and early esophageal adenocarcinoma. After the endoscopic eradication of Barrett's esophagus and associated neoplasia, surveillance is required for the diagnosis and retreatment of recurrence or progression.

Clinical benefit of tunnel endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal squamous cancer: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial

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.).

Rio de Janeiro Global Consensus on Landmarks, Definitions, and Classifications in Barrett's Esophagus: World Endoscopy Organization Delphi Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Despite the significant advances made in the diagnosis and treatment of Barrett's esophagus (BE), there is still a need for standardized definitions, appropriate recognition of endoscopic landmarks, and consistent use of classification systems. Current controversies in basic definitions of BE and the relative lack of anatomic knowledge are significant barriers to uniform documentation. We aimed to provide consensus-driven recommendations for uniform reporting and global application.

METHODS

The World Endoscopy Organization Barrett's Esophagus Committee appointed leaders to develop an evidence-based Delphi study. A working group of 6 members identified and formulated 23 statements, and 30 internationally recognized experts from 18 countries participated in 3 rounds of voting. We defined consensus as agreement by ≥80% of experts for each statement and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool to assess the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations.

RESULTS

After 3 rounds of voting, experts achieved consensus on 6 endoscopic landmarks (palisade vessels, gastroesophageal junction, squamocolumnar junction, lesion location, extraluminal compressions, and quadrant orientation), 13 definitions (BE, hiatus hernia, squamous islands, columnar islands, Barrett's endoscopic therapy, endoscopic resection, endoscopic ablation, systematic inspection, complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia, complete eradication of dysplasia, residual disease, recurrent disease, and failure of endoscopic therapy), and 4 classification systems (Prague, Los Angeles, Paris, and Barrett's International NBI Group). In round 1, 18 statements (78%) reached consensus, with 12 (67%) receiving strong agreement from more than half of the experts. In round 2, 4 of the remaining statements (80%) reached consensus, with 1 statement receiving strong agreement from 50% of the experts. In the third round, a consensus was reached on the remaining statement.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed evidence-based, consensus-driven statements on endoscopic landmarks, definitions, and classifications of BE. These recommendations may facilitate global uniform reporting in BE.

Single operator experience of endoscopic submucosal dissection for Barrett's neoplasia in a North American academic center

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is carving out an increasing role in the treatment of Barrett's associated neoplasia. ESD provides the advantage of en-bloc resections and greater R0 resection rates. We aim to present outcomes from one of the largest single-center cohorts of esophageal ESD in North America.

METHODS

All patients undergoing esophageal ESD for Barrett's neoplasia between Oct 2016 and June 2020 at a Canadian tertiary care center were included. Demographic, procedural data, and lesion characteristics are presented. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients who underwent extensive resection (≥75% of esophageal circumference) and the patients who developed strictures.

RESULTS

Thirty-four patients were included in the series. The median lesion diameter was 5.7 cm and the median procedure time was 129 min. The en-bloc resection rate was 97%, and the R0 resection rate was 91%. Curative resection was achieved in 82% of patients. Upstaging in histology occurred in 59% of cases. Two adverse events occurred, and there were no perforations. Procedural outcomes were similar in patients with extensive resections, but those with ≥75% circumferential resection developed more strictures (65% vs. 6.3%, p < 0.01). Stricture formation was associated with extensive resection (odds ratio [OR]: 27.5, p < 0.01) and longer lesion diameter (OR: 1.7, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Our experience with ESD for Barrett's related neoplasia shows excellent en-bloc and R0 resection rate, and provides more accurate histological specimens. Curative resection is possible in the majority of cases, including those with extensive resections. Further investigation into stricture prophylaxis will be useful as near circumferential resections are attempted.