Endoscopic mucosal resection: early experience in British Columbia

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.

Safety and efficacy of multiband mucosectomy for Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review with pooled analysis

Background

According to guidelines, all visible lesions in Barrett’s esophagus (BE) should be endoscopically resected. Available methods of endoscopic resection include the cap-assisted technique and, more recently, multiband mucosectomy (MBM). Data on the efficacy and safety of MBM have yet to be systematically reviewed. We performed the first systematic review with pooled analysis to evaluate the outcomes of MBM in patients with BE.

Methods

Electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, EMBASE) were searched up to August 2019. Studies including patients with BE who underwent MBM were eligible. The primary outcome was the adverse events rate. Secondary outcomes were the proportions of complete resections and R0 resections. Outcomes were assessed by pooling data using a random or fixed-effect model, according to the degree of heterogeneity, to obtain a proportion with a 95% confidence interval.

Results

Fourteen studies were eligible (1334 procedures, 986 patients). The adverse event rate was 5.3%. Immediate and post-procedural bleeding, perforations and strictures occurred in 0.2%, 0.7%, 0.3% and 3.9% of procedures, respectively. Focal lesions were resected at a complete rate of 97.6% with an R0 resection rate of 94.1%.

Conclusion

MBM is a safe and effective technique for treating visible lesions in BE.

Endoscopic treatment of Barrett's esophagus: What can we learn from the Western perspective?

The incidence of Barrett's esophagus (BE)-related neoplasia in Western countries has increased in the past several decades and, even in Eastern countries, it appears to be increasing. Endoscopic therapies are the first-line treatment for BE-related neoplasia; however, there is still no standardized treatment strategy. Most of the data have been published from Western countries where the ultimate goal of treatment is complete eradication of BE mucosa removing subtle synchronous lesions and preventing metachronous neoplasia. A multimodality approach that combines endoscopic resection and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has been widely accepted in the West. In contrast, the lack of access to RFA treatment in the East has meant that endoscopic resection is the only feasible option. There is a wide divergence in treatment strategies for BE-related neoplasia between the East and the West. It is very important to consider these basic differences in the context of the currently available evidence to date. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to review the recent literature and to provide an overview of the endoscopic treatment options for BE.

Recurrence of intestinal metaplasia and early neoplasia after endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

 Conflicting data exist with regard to recurrence rates of intestinal metaplasia (IM) and dysplasia after achieving complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) in Barrett's esophagus (BE) patients.

AIM

 (i) To determine the incidence of recurrent IM and dysplasia achieving CE-IM and (ii) to compare recurrence rates between treatment modalities [radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with or without endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) vs stepwise complete EMR (SRER)].

METHODS

 A systematic search was performed for studies reporting on outcomes and estimates of recurrence rates after achieving CE-IM. Pooled incidence [per 100-patient-years (PY)] and risk ratios with 95 %CI were obtained. Heterogeneity was measured using the I² statistic. Subgroup analyses, decided a priori, were performed to explore heterogeneity in results.

RESULTS

 A total of 39 studies were identified (25-RFA, 13-SRER, and 2 combined). The pooled incidence of any recurrence was 7.5 (95 %CI 6.1 - 9.0)/100 PY with a pooled incidence of IM recurrence rate of 4.8 (95 %CI 3.8 - 5.9)/100 PY, and dysplasia recurrence rate of 2.0 (95 %CI 1.5 - 2.5)/100 PY. Compared to the SRER group, the RFA group had significantly higher overall [8.6 (6.7 - 10.5)/100 PY vs. 5.1 (3.1 - 7)/100 PY, P  = 0.01] and IM recurrence rates [5.8 (4.3 - 7.3)/100 PY vs. 3.1 (1.7 - 4)/100 PY, P  < 0.01] with no difference in recurrence rates of dysplasia. Significant heterogeneity between studies was identified. The majority of recurrences were amenable to repeat endoscopic eradication therapy (EET).

CONCLUSION

 The results of this study demonstrate that the incidence rates of overall, IM, and dysplasia recurrence rates post-EET are not inconsiderable and reinforce the importance of close surveillance after achieving CE-IM.

Efficacy and safety outcomes of multimodal endoscopic eradication therapy in Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia: a systematic review and pooled analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Focal EMR followed by radiofrequency ablation (f-EMR + RFA) and stepwise or complete EMR (s-EMR) are established strategies for eradication of Barrett's esophagus (BE)-related high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and/or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC)/intramucosal carcinoma (IMC). The objective of this study was to derive pooled rates of efficacy and safety of individual methods in a large cohort of patients with BE and to indirectly compare the 2 methods.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and major conference proceedings were searched. A systematic review and pooled analysis were carried out to determine the following outcomes in patients with BE undergoing either f-EMR + RFA or s-EMR: (1) complete eradication rates of neoplasia (CE-N) and intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM); (2) recurrence rates of cancer (EAC), dysplasia, and IM; (3) incidence rates of adverse events. Mixed logistic regression was performed as an exploratory analysis to examine differences in outcomes between the 2 methods.

RESULTS

Nine studies (774 patients) of f-EMR + RFA and 11 studies (751 patients) of s-EMR were included. Patients undergoing f-EMR + RFA had high BE eradication rates (CE-N, 93.4%; CE-IM, 73.1%), whereas strictures occurred in 10.2%, bleeding in 1.1%, and perforations in 0.2% of patients. Recurrence of EAC, dysplasia, and IM was 1.4%, 2.6%, and 16.1%, respectively, in this group. Patients undergoing s-EMR also showed high BE eradication rates (CE-N, 94.9%; CE-IM, 79.6%) but a higher rate of adverse events (strictures in 33.5%, bleeding in 7.5%, and perforation in 1.3%). Recurrence of EAC, dysplasia, and IM was 0.7%, 3.3%, and 12.1%, respectively, in the s-EMR group. Mixed logistic regression showed that patients undergoing s-EMR might be more likely to develop esophageal strictures (odds ratio [OR], 4.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.61-13.85; P = .005), perforation (OR, 7.00; 95% CI, 1.56-31.33; P = .01), and bleeding (OR, 6.88; 95% CI, 2.19-21.62; P = 0.001) compared with f-EMR + RFA.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HGD/EAC, f-EMR followed by RFA seems to be equally effective as and safer than s-EMR.

Handling and Pathology Reporting of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a non-invasive alternative to surgery that is now frequently used for resection of early lesions in both upper and lower parts of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. One of the main advantages of these techniques is providing tissue for histopathological examination. Pathological examination of endoscopically resected specimens of GI tract is a crucial component of these procedures and is useful for prediction of both the risk of metastasis and lymph node involvement.

As the first step, it is very important for the pathologist to handle the EMR gross specimen in the correct way: it should be oriented, and then the margins should be labeled and inked accurately before fixation.

In the second step, the EMR pathological report should include all the detailed information about the diagnosis, grading, depth of invasion (mucosa only or submucosal involvement), status of the margins, and the presence or absence of lymphovascular invasion.

The current literature (PubMed and Google Scholar) was searched for the words "endoscopic mucosal resection" to find all relevant publications about this technique with emphasis on the pathologist responsibilities.

Factors associated with increased bleeding post-endoscopic mucosal resection

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to identify patient and procedure characteristics that correlate with increased likelihood of bleeding during and after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), and thus anticipate the need for preventative therapy.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational, descriptive study using a prospective EMR database, performed in a tertiary-care center. A total of 935 EMR of various locations within the gastrointestinal tract were collected. The main outcome measurement was early bleeding (occurring during the procedure) and delayed bleeding (occurring after the completion of the procedure and up to 30 days after).

RESULTS

Early bleeding occurred in 5.3% (50/935) of the procedures. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, esophageal EMR (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.2-5, P = 0.0009) and increase in lesion size (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.1-1.5, P = 0.003) were both associated with higher odds of early bleeding in EMR when controlling for age, gender and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)/clopidogrel use. Delayed bleeding occurred after 3.1% (n = 29) of the procedures. Of these, 86.2% (25/29) required hospital admission and endoscopic intervention to confirm and/or treat bleeding site. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, increased lesion size (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.5, P = 0.004) was associated with higher incidence of delayed bleeding post-EMR.

CONCLUSIONS

In experienced hands bleeding during and after EMR appears to be uncommon. Larger lesions are at increased risk of early and delayed bleeding.

Argon plasma coagulation for superficial esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma in high-risk patients

AIM: To evaluate the usefulness and safety of argon plasma coagulation (APC) for superficial esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma (SESC) in high-risk patients.

METHODS: We studied 17 patients (15 men and 2 women, 21 lesions) with SESC in whom endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and open surgery were contraindicated from March 1999 through February 2009. None of the patients could tolerate prolonged EMR/ESD or open surgery because of severe concomitant disease (e.g., liver cirrhosis, cerebral infarction, or ischemic heart disease) or scar formation after EMR/ESD and chemoradiotherapy. After conventional endoscopy, an iodine stain was sprayed on the esophageal mucosa to determine the lesion margins. The lesion was then ablated by APC. We retrospectively studied the treatment time, number of APC sessions per site, complications, presence or absence of recurrence, and time to recurrence.

RESULTS: The median duration of follow-up was 36 mo (range: 6-120 mo). All of the tumors were macroscopically classified as superficial and slightly depressed type (0-IIc). The preoperative depth of invasion was clinical T1a (mucosal cancer) for 19 lesions and clinical T1b (submucosal cancer) for 2. The median treatment time was 15 min (range: 10-36 min). The median number of treatment sessions per site was 2 (range: 1-4). The median hospital stay was 14 d (range: 5-68 d). Among the 17 patients (21 lesions), 2 (9.5%) had recurrence and underwent additional APC with no subsequent evidence of recurrence. There were no treatment-related complications, such as bleeding or perforation.

CONCLUSION: APC is considered to be safe and effective for the management of SESC that cannot be resected endoscopically because of underlying disease, as well as for the control of recurrence after EMR and local recurrence after chemoradiotherapy.

Barrett's esophagus

Barrett's esophagus is an acquired metaplastic abnormality in which the normal stratified squamous epithelium lining of the esophagus is replaced by an intestinal-like columnar epithelium. While in itself a benign and asymptomatic disorder, the clinical importance of this relatively common condition relates to its role as a precursor lesion to esophageal adenocarcinoma, the incidence of which has dramatically increased in Western populations in recent years. Although known to arise as a consequence of chronic gastroesophageal reflux, the cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying development Barrett's esophagus and its progression to cancer remain unclear.