Endoscopic management and follow-up of patients with a submucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma

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.

Risk of metastasis among patients diagnosed with high-risk T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma who underwent endoscopic follow-up

Esophagectomy and lymphadenectomy have been the standard of care for patients at high risk (HR) of lymph node metastasis following a diagnosis of early esophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) after endoscopic resection (ER). However, recent cohorts suggest lymph node metastasis risk is lower than initially estimated, suggesting organ preservation with close endoscopic follow-up is a viable option. We report on the 3- and 5-year risk of lymph node/distant metastasis among patients diagnosed with early HR-T1 OAC undergoing endoscopic follow-up. Patients diagnosed with HR-T1a or T1b OAC following ER at a tertiary referral center were identified and retrospectively analyzed from clinical records between 2010 and 2021. Patients were included if they underwent endoscopic follow-up after resection and were divided into HR-T1a, low risk (LR)-T1b and HR-T1b cohorts. After ER, 47 patients underwent endoscopic follow-up for early HR OAC. In total, 39 patients had an R0 resection with a combined 3- and 5-year risk of LN/distant metastasis of 6.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.8-25] and 10.9% (95% CI, 3.6-30.2%), respectively. There was no significant difference when stratifying by histopathological subtype (P = 0.64). Among those without persistent luminal disease on follow-up, the 5-year risk was 4.1% (95% CI, 0.6-26.1). Two patients died secondary to OAC with an all-cause 5-year survival of 57.5% (95% CI, 39.5-71.9). The overall risk of LN/distant metastasis for early HR T1 OAC was lower than historically reported. Endoscopic surveillance can be a reasonable approach in highly selected patients with an R0 resection and complete luminal eradication, but clear, evidence-based surveillance guidelines are needed.

Evolution of the treatment of esophageal cancer: artificial intelligence and the role of sentinel lymph node assessment in esophageal cancer

Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy has revolutionized the staging and prognosis of breast cancer and melanoma. Because of the complicated lymphatic network around the esophagus, the utility of SLN biopsy for esophageal cancer is less clear. The accuracy of SLN mapping in esophageal cancer depends on tumor site, disease stage, use of neoadjuvant therapy, and patient characteristics. SLN biopsy may improve staging and result in less morbidity in patients with early esophageal cancer, compared with radical lymphadenectomy and esophagectomy. A recent study that investigated hybrid tracers in sentinel node navigation surgery (SNNS) demonstrated promising results for the detection of peritumoral SLNs. However, evidence that firmly establishes the concept of the SLN for esophageal cancer is still lacking. Big data analytics and artificial intelligence have been associated with improvements in the detection and prognosis of esophageal cancer. This review considers the roles of the evolving technologies of SLN biopsy and artificial intelligence, which together have the potential to further improve prognoses and outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer. Additional investigation is necessary to establish standardized protocols and to determine the long-term effectiveness of these approaches in settings involving neoadjuvant therapy and advanced-stage disease.

History and evidence for state of the art of lymphadenectomy in esophageal cancer surgery

The current curative multimodal treatment of advanced esophageal cancers consists of neoadjuvant or perioperative chemo(radio)therapy followed by a radical surgical resection of the primary tumor and a 2- or 3-field lymphadenectomy. One of the most important predictors of long-term survival of esophageal cancer patients is lymph node involvement. The distribution pattern of lymph node metastases in esophageal cancer is unpredictable and depends on the primary tumor location, histology, T-stage and application of neoadjuvant or perioperative treatment. The optimal extent of the lymphadenectomy remains controversial; there is no global consensus on this topic yet. Some surgeons advocate an aggressive and extended lymph node dissection to remove occult metastatic disease, to optimize oncological outcomes. Others promote a more restricted lymphadenectomy, since the benefit of an extended lymphadenectomy, especially after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, has not been clearly demonstrated, and morbidity may be reduced. In this review, we describe the development of lymphadenectomy, followed by a summary of current evidence for lymphadenectomy in esophageal cancer treatment.

Management of high risk T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma following endoscopic resection

High-risk T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma (HR-T1 EAC) is defined as T1 cancer, with one or more of the following histological criteria: submucosal invasion, poorly or undifferentiated cancer, and/or presence of lympho-vascular invasion. Esophagectomy has long been the only available treatment for these HR-T1 EACs and was considered necessary because of a presumed high risk of lymph node metastases up to 46%. However, endoscopic submucosal disscection have made it possible to radically remove HR-T1 EAC, irrespective of size, while leaving the esophageal anatomy intact. Parallel to this development, new publications demonstrated that the risk of lymph node metastases for HR-T1 EAC may be even <24%. Therefore, indications for endoscopic treatment of HR-T1 EAC are being reconsidered and current research aims at finding the optimal management strategy for this indication, where watchful waiting may proof to be an acceptable strategy in selected patients. In this review, we will discuss the latest developments in this field.

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.

Feasibility and Safety of Tailored Lymphadenectomy Using Sentinel Node-Navigated Surgery in Patients with High-Risk T1 Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Selective lymphadenectomy using sentinel node-navigated surgery (SNNS) might offer a less invasive alternative to esophagectomy in patients with high-risk T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a new treatment strategy, consisting of radical endoscopic resection of the tumor followed by SNNS.

METHODS

In this multicenter pilot study, ten patients with a radically resected high-risk pT1cN0 EAC underwent SNNS. A hybrid tracer of technetium-99m nanocolloid and indocyanine green was injected endoscopically around the resection scar the day before surgery, followed by preoperative imaging. During surgery, sentinel nodes (SNs) were identified using a thoracolaparoscopic gammaprobe and fluorescence-based detection, and subsequently resected. Endpoints were surgical morbidity and number of detected and resected (tumor-positive) SNs.

RESULTS

Localization and dissection of SNs was feasible in all ten patients (median 3 SNs per patient, range 1-6). The concordance between preoperative imaging and intraoperative detection was high. In one patient (10%), dissection was considered incomplete after two SNs were not identified intraoperatively. Additional peritumoral SNs were resected in four patients (40%) after fluorescence-based detection. In two patients (20%), a (micro)metastasis was found in one of the resected SNs. One patient experienced neuropathic thoracic pain related to surgery, while none of the patients developed functional gastroesophageal disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

SNNS appears to be a feasible and safe instrument to tailor lymphadenectomy in patients with high-risk T1 EAC. Future research with long-term follow-up is warranted to determine whether this esophageal preserving strategy is justified for high-risk T1 EAC.

Measuring the Submucosal Depth of Invasion in Endoscopic Mucosal Resections for Barrett-associated Adenocarcinoma: Practical Issues and Relevance for the Decision for Esophagectomy

CONTEXT.—

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has made it possible for Barrett esophagus patients with superficial cancers to be treated without esophagectomy. Recent guidelines recommend measuring depth of invasion (DOI) in submucosal cancers based on reports that in low-risk cancers, submucosal invasion 500 μm or less is associated with low nodal metastasis rates. However, pathologists face challenges in reproducibly measuring DOI.

OBJECTIVE.—

To determine how often DOI measurements could impact treatment and to evaluate reproducibility in measuring submucosal DOI in EMR specimens.

DESIGN.—

Consecutive adenocarcinoma EMR cases were identified, including cases of "low histologic risk" submucosal cancer, as follows: those with negative deep margins, no high-grade histology (G3), and no lymphovascular invasion. Submucosal DOI was measured by 7 pathologists according to guidelines.

RESULTS.—

Of 213 cancer EMR cases, 46 were submucosa invasive and 6 cases were low histologic risk submucosal cancers for which measurement could impact decision-making. Of these low histologic risk cases, 3 were categorized as superficial, indicating that measurement would be a clinically actionable decision point in only 1.4% of adenocarcinoma EMRs. Interobserver agreement for in-depth categorization between 7 pathologists was moderate (κ = 0.42), and the range of measurements spanned the 500-μm relevant threshold in 40 of 55 measured samples (72.7%).

CONCLUSIONS.—

While therapeutic decisions would rarely have depended on DOI measurements alone in our cohort, interobserver variability raises concerns about their use as a sole factor on which to offer patients conservative therapy. Responsibly reporting and clinically using submucosal DOI measurements will require practical experience troubleshooting common histologic artifacts, as well as multidisciplinary awareness of the impact of variable specimen-handling practices.

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.

Today's Mistakes and Tomorrow's Wisdom… in the Management of T1b Barrett's Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Given the limitation that endoscopic resection only enables local intraluminal treatment without lymphadenectomy, the standard treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) with invasion of the submucosa (T1b) has long been surgical esophageal resection. However, in recent literature, the risk of lymph node metastases (LNM) associated with T1b EAC appears to be lower than previously assumed, and endoscopic management is increasingly being considered a valid and less invasive alternative to surgery.

SUMMARY

Surgical esophageal resection performed after radical endoscopic resection of T1b EAC often does not show any residual tumor or LNM in the resected specimen. Given the morbidity and mortality associated with surgical esophageal resection, endoscopic management with strict surveillance protocols has been more widely applied provided that the initial tumor was radically removed by endoscopic resection, reserving surgery for those cases where the additional risk of surgical esophageal resection is justified. These are the cases where intraluminal recurrent neoplasia is found that cannot be retreated endoscopically or cases with locoregional LNM detected during follow-up. In the future, selection of patients who can safely be managed endoscopically and those who may benefit from additional surgery after endoscopic resection of T1b EAC may become more tailored, using risk prediction calculators or sentinel node navigated surgery.

KEY MESSAGES

Management of patients with T1b EAC is shifting from surgical treatment to less invasive endoscopic treatment strategies, including watchful waiting approaches. The risk of LNM of T1b EAC appears to be lower than long assumed. In the future, management of T1b EAC may become more individualized based on tools to predict LNM risk per patient case.

Today's Mistakes and Tomorrow's Wisdom in the Surgical Treatment of Barrett's Adenocarcinoma

Background

Barrett's esophagus is a premalignant condition caused by longstanding gastroesophageal reflux disease and may progress to low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and finally esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Summary

Barrett's adenocarcinoma can be treated either by endoscopic or surgical resection, depending on the clinical staging. Endoscopic resection is a safe and adequate treatment option for HGD, mucosal tumors, and low-risk submucosal tumors. Its role in the treatment of high-risk submucosal tumors and the role of organ-preserving sentinel node navigated surgery are still under investigation. Esophagectomy with neoadjuvant chemoradiation or perioperative chemotherapy is considered the standard of care for locally advanced Barrett's adenocarcinoma. Regarding operative technique, there is no proven superiority of one technique over another, although a minimally invasive transthoracic technique seems most commonly applied nowadays. In this review, state-of-the-art evidence and future expectations are presented regarding indications for resection, neoadjuvant or perioperative therapy, type of surgery, and postoperative follow-up for Barrett's adenocarcinoma.

Key Messages

In Barrett's adenocarcinoma, endoscopic resection is the standard treatment option for low-risk mucosal and submucosal tumors. For high-risk submucosal tumors, endoscopic submucosal dissection with close surveillance and sentinel node navigated surgery are currently being studied. For locally advanced cancer, a multimodal therapy including esophagectomy is the standard of care. Nowadays, in high-volume centers, a minimally invasive transthoracic esophagectomy with an intrathoracic anastomosis is the most common procedure for Barrett's adenocarcinoma.

Barrett’s esophagus: Review of natural history and comparative efficacy of endoscopic and surgical therapies

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Progression to cancer typically occurs in a stepwise fashion through worsening dysplasia and ultimately, invasive neoplasia. Established EAC with deep involvement of the esophageal wall and/or metastatic disease is invariably associated with poor long-term survival rates. This guides the rationale of surveillance of Barrett’s in an attempt to treat lesions at an earlier, and potentially curative stage. The last two decades have seen a paradigm shift in management of Barrett’s with rapid expansion in the role of endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) for management of dysplastic and early neoplastic BE, and there have been substantial changes to international consensus guidelines for management of early BE based on evolving evidence. This review aims to assist the physician in the therapeutic decision-making process with patients by comprehensive review and summary of literature surrounding natural history of Barrett’s by histological stage, and the effectiveness of interventions in attenuating the risk posed by its natural history. Key findings were as follows. Non-dysplastic Barrett’s is associated with extremely low risk of progression, and interventions cannot be justified. The annual risk of cancer progression in low grade dysplasia is between 1%-3%; EET can be offered though evidence for its benefit remains confined to highly select settings. High-grade dysplasia progresses to cancer in 5%-10% per year; EET is similarly effective to and less morbid than surgery and should be routinely performed for this indication. Risk of nodal metastases in intramucosal cancer is 2%-4%, which is comparable to operative mortality rate, so EET is usually preferred. Submucosal cancer is associated with nodal metastases in 14%-41% hence surgery remains standard of care, except for select situations.

Factors predicting occurrence and therapeutic choice in malignant colorectal polyps: a study of 13 years of colonoscopic polypectomy

Colorectal carcinoma represents a major cause of mortality and 0.2–12% of resected colonic polyps have malignant cells inside. We performed a retrospective study of patients with resected polyps during a period of 13 years. A total of 905 patients had 2033 polyps removed; 122 polyps (109 patients) had malignant cells. Prevalence of malignant polyps with submucosal invasion was 1.23% and for all polyps with malignant cells was 6%; malignant polyps had a larger size (23.44 mm mean diameter) vs benign polyps (9.63 mm); the risk of malignancy was increased in polyps larger than 10 mm, in lateral spreading lesions and in Paris types 0-Ip, 0-Isp, in sigmoid, descending colon and rectum, in sessile serrated adenoma and traditional serrate adenoma subtypes of serrated lesions and in tubulovillous and villous adenoma. In 18 cases surgery was performed, in 62 patients only colonoscopic follow-up was made and in 35 patients no colonoscopic follow-up was recorded. From initially endoscopic resected polyps, recurrence was noted in seven (11.3%) cases; there was a trend toward association with depth of invasion, piecemeal resection, right and rectum location, sessile and lateral spreading type and pathological subtype. In surgical group, post-therapeutic staging was available in 11 cases; nodal involvement was noted in three (27.27%) cases; none had lymphatic or vascular invasion in endoscopically resected polyps. Four patients with no macroscopic local recurrence underwent surgery with no residual tumor. The rate of metastasis was 16.67% in surgical group and 1.61% in endoscopic group. Evaluation of lymph node (LN) invasion was available for 11 operated patients, with LN invasion (N1) in three patients, local residual tumoral tissue in one patient with incomplete resection and no residual tumor (R0 resection) in four patients with endoscopic resection before surgery.

Measuring depth of invasion of submucosa - invasive adenocarcinoma in oesophageal endoscopic specimens: how good are we?☆

AIMS

Emerging data support that submucosa-invasive (pT1b) esophageal adenocarcinomas are cured via endoscopic resection, provided that invasion measures ≤500 μm, they lack other histological features predictive of nodal metastasis and have negative margins. Hence, pathologists' measurement of the depth of submucosal invasion in endoscopic resections may dictate further management (i.e. endoscopic follow-up versus oesophagectomy). In this study, we assessed the interobserver agreement in measuring the depth of submucosal invasion in oesophageal endoscopic resections.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Six subspecialised gastrointestinal (GI) pathologists from five academic centres independently measured the depth of submucosal invasion in μm from the deepest muscularis mucosae on 37 oesophageal endoscopic resection slides (round 1 scoring). A consensus meeting with a systematic approach for measuring and discussion of pitfalls was undertaken and remeasuring (round 2 scoring) was conducted. Interobserver agreement was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen's kappa statistics. A lack of agreement was seen among the six reviewers with a poor ICC for both rounds: 1 [0.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.26-0.56] and 2 (0.49, 95% CI = 0.34-0.63). When measurements were categorised as < or >500 μm, the overall agreement among the six reviewers was only fair for both rounds: 1 (kappa = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.22-0.53) and 2 (kappa = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.12-0.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows a lack of agreement among gastrointestinal pathologists in measuring the depth of submucosal invasion in oesophageal endoscopic resections despite formulating a consensus approach for scoring. If important management decisions continue to be based upon this parameter, more reproducible and concrete guidelines are needed.

Feasibility of sentinel node navigated surgery in high-risk T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma patients using a hybrid tracer of technetium-99 m and indocyanine green

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy is standard of care for T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) with a high risk of lymph node metastasis. Sentinel node navigation surgery (SNNS) is a well-known concept to tailor the extent of lymphadenectomy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of SNNS with a hybrid tracer (technetium-99 m/indocyanine green/nanocolloid) for patients with high-risk T1b EAC.

METHODS

In this prospective, multicenter pilot study, 5 patients with high-risk T1b EAC were included. The tracer was injected endoscopically around the endoscopic resection scar the day before surgery, followed by preoperative imaging (lymphoscintigraphy/SPECT-CT). During surgery, first the SNs were localized and resected based on preoperative imaging and intraoperative gammaprobe- and fluorescence-based detection, followed by esophagectomy. Primary endpoints were the percentage of patients with detectable SNs, concordance between preoperative and intraoperative SN detection, and the additive value of indocyanine green.

RESULTS

SNs could be identified and resected in all patients (median 3 SNs per patient, range 2-7). There was a high concordance between preoperative and intraoperative SN detection. In 2 patients additional peritumoral SNs were identified with fluorescence-based detection. None of the resected lymph nodes showed signs of (micro)metastases and no nodal metastases were detected in the surgical resection specimen.

CONCLUSIONS

SNNS using technetium-99 m/indocyanine green/nanocolloid seems feasible and safe in patients with high-risk T1b EAC. Indocyanine green fluorescence seems to be of additive value for detection of peritumoral SNs. Whether this approach can optimize selection for esophagectomy needs to be studied in future research.

Measuring Quality in Barrett's Esophagus: Time to Embrace Quality Indicators

Endoscopic eradication therapy is a safe and effective therapy that has revolutionized the management of patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE)-related neoplasia. Despite this, there remains significant heterogeneity in clinical practice with consequent variation in patient outcomes. The aim of this article was to align consensus statements based on the best available evidence and expert opinion from the United States and United Kingdom to develop robust and measurable quality indicators that help to ensure patients with BE-related neoplasia receive the highest possible quality of care uniformly.

Role of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the Management of Barrett's Related Neoplasia

Endoscopic resection has been proven to be safe and highly effective for removing early neoplastic lesions in Barrett esophagus. It enables accurate histopathological assessment and is therefore considered as the cornerstone in the endoscopic work-up for patients with Barrett neoplasia. Various techniques are available to perform endoscopic resection. Multiband mucosectomy is the most commonly used resection technique. However, endoscopic submucosal dissection is gaining ground in the Western world. Endoscopic resection for low-risk submucosal lesions already is fully justified. Future studies have to point out whether endoscopic resection and subsequent follow-up are also justified in selected patients with high-risk submucosal tumors.

Organ Preservation after Endoscopic Resection of Early Esophageal Cancer with a High Risk of Lymph Node Involvement

Simple Summary

Virtually all early (T1) esophageal cancers can be resected endoscopically. However, the presence of histologic criteria on the resection specimen (deep submucosal invasion, lymphovascular involvement, poor tumor differentiation) are believed to be associated with a high risk (> 10%) of lymph node involvement. Therefore, the presence of such histoprognostic criteria currently require an esophagectomy. However, some patients are unfit for surgery or decline surgery, and undergo close follow-up or chemoradiotherapy. We analyzed the outcomes of these patients. We included 41 patients, of which thirteen (32%) were closely monitored, and 28 (68%) were treated by chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone. After a mean follow-up of 19 and 28 months, cancer specific survival was 100% and 96%, respectively. Our study shows that close follow-up may be an alternative to esophagectomy after endoscopic resection of an early esophageal cancer with a predicted high risk of lymph node involvement.

Abstract

Background: Esophagectomy is recommended after endoscopic resection of an early esophageal cancer when pejorative histoprognostic criteria indicate a high risk of lymph node involvement. Our aim was to analyze the clinical outcomes of a non-surgical, organ preserving management in this clinical setting. Patients and Methods: This retrospective study was performed in two tertiary centers from 2015 to 2020. Patients were included if they had histologically complete resection of an early esophageal cancer, with poor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion or deep submucosal invasion. Endoscopic resection was followed by chemoradiotherapy or follow-up in case of surgical contraindications or patient refusal. Outcome measures were disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), cancer specific survival (CSS) and toxicity of chemoradiotherapy. Results: Forty-one patients (36 with squamous cell carcinoma and 5 with adenocarcinomas) were included. The estimated high risk of lymph node involvement was based on poor differentiation (10/41; 24%), lympho-vascular invasion (11/41; 27%), muscularis mucosa invasion or deep sub-mucosal invasion (38/41; 93%). Thirteen patients (13/41; 32%) were closely monitored, and 28 (28/41; 68%) were treated by chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone. In the close follow-up group, DFS, OS and CSS were 92%, 92% and 100%, respectively vs. 75%, 79% and 96%, respectively in the chemoradiotherapy group at the end of the follow-up. Serious adverse events related to chemoradiotherapy occurred in 10% of the patients. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: Our study shows that close follow-up may be an alternative to systematic esophagectomy after endoscopic resection of early esophageal cancer with a predicted high risk of lymph node involvement.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: prevalence of prior and concurrent Barrett's oesophagus in oesophageal adenocarcinoma patients

BACKGROUND

The proportions of patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) diagnosed by Barrett's oesophagus surveillance or with pre-existing Barrett's oesophagus are unclear.

AIM

To estimate the prevalence of prior and concurrent Barrett's oesophagus diagnosis among patients with OAC or oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinomas (OGJAC).

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase to identify studies published 1966-1/8/2020 that examined the prevalence of prior (≥6 months) or concurrent Barrett's diagnosis (at cancer diagnosis) among OAC and OGJAC patients. Random effects models estimated overall and stratified pooled prevalence rates.

RESULTS

A total of 69 studies, including 33 002 OAC patients (53 studies) and 2712 patients with OGJAC (28 studies) were included. The pooled prevalence of prior Barrett's oesophagus diagnosis in OAC was 11.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.4%-15.6%). The prevalence of prior Barrett's oesophagus diagnosis was higher in single-centre resection studies (16.0%, 95% CI 8.7%-24.9%) than population-based cancer registry studies (8.4%, 95% CI 5.5%-11.9%). The prevalence of concurrent Barrett's oesophagus in OAC was 56.6% (95% CI 48.5%-64.6%). Studies with 100% early stage OAC had higher prevalence of concurrent Barrett's oesophagus (91.3%, 95% CI 82.4%-97.6%) than studies with <50% early OAC (39.7%, 95% CI 33.7%-45.9%). In OGJAC, the prevalence of prior and concurrent Barrett's oesophagus was 23.2% (95% CI 7.5%-44.0%) and 26.3% (95% CI 17.8%-35.7%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with OAC have Barrett's oesophagus. Our meta-analysis found ~12% of OAC patients had prior Barrett's diagnosis, but concurrent Barrett's oesophagus was found in ~57% at the time of OAC diagnosis. This represents a considerable missed opportunity for Barrett's oesophagus screening.

Outcomes of patients with submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma: a multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The treatment of submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) remains in evolution, with some evidence supporting endoscopic management of low-risk lesions. Using a multicenter cohort, we evaluated outcomes of patients with T1b EAC and predictors of survival.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed between 2001 and 2016 with T1b EAC were identified from 3 academic medical centers in the United States. Demographic, clinical, and outcome data were collected. Outcomes studied were overall and cancer-free survival. Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to assess independent predictors of survival.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-one patients were included, of whom 68 (48%) underwent esophagectomy and 73 (52%) were treated endoscopically. Most patients (85.8%) had high-risk histologic features. Thirty-day operative mortality was 2.9%. Median follow-up in the esophagectomy and endoscopic cohorts was 49.4 and 43.4 months, respectively. Patients treated endoscopically were older with higher comorbidity scores, with 46 (63%) achieving histologic remission. Nineteen patients (26.0%) also received chemoradiation. Five-year overall survival rates in the surgical and endoscopic cohorts were 89% and 59%, respectively, whereas 5-year cancer-free survival rates were 92% and 69%. Presence of high-risk histologic features was associated with reduced overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large multicenter study of patients with T1b EAC, esophagectomy was associated with improved overall but not cancer-free survival. High-risk histologic features were associated with poorer survival.

Radiofrequency Ablation of Barrett's Esophagus: Have We Gone Too Far, or Not Far Enough?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a premalignant condition of the esophagus associated with an increased risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a safe and effective first-line treatment for dysplastic BE and early stage EAC. This report reviews clinically relevant evidence published over the last 3 years regarding RFA for BE.

RECENT FINDINGS

Our use of this technology has simultaneously gone too far, in that many patients who may not derive a benefit from these treatments are receiving them, and not far enough, in that many patients who would be eligible for ablative therapy never undergo screening exams to assess them for dysplastic BE, or do not have endoscopic therapy considered part of the treatment of superficial invasive cancer. Research to better identify patients with BE, risk stratify those patients, improve the quality of RFA treatment, and inform surveillance practices has the potential to optimize the benefit of RFA, and minimize the harms, costs, and risks.

The influence of adjuvant radiation therapy after endoscopic resection on survival for early stage EC: an analysis of the surveillance epidemiology and end results (SEER) database

Background

Endoscopic resection (ER) followed by radiation therapy (RT) is a treatment option for early stage esophageal cancer (EC). We used the surveillance epidemiology and end results (SEER) database to investigate the influence of adjuvant RT after ER on survival for early stage EC.

Methods

The SEER database [1998-2013] was queried for locoregional cases of EC. Tumor staging was redefined with the 8th Edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/Union for International Cancer Control tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system. The T1-2 stage EC cases in which ER were followed by radiation or observation were included. Kaplan-Meier methods were performed to compare overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) between the patients who received radiation and those who did not. Subgroup analysis was made according to AJCC stage. A multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression model was used to identify independent covariates which may influence survival.

Results

The median survival of the no-radiation group was significantly longer than that of the radiation group [74 vs. 31 months; hazard risk (HR), 2.39; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.782-3.197; P<0.001]. In T1a stage subgroup, patients who did not receive RT had significantly better OS and CSS outcomes (OS: 90 vs. 31 months; HR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.766-4.773; P<0.001; CSS: 105 vs. 48 months; HR, 5.40; 95% CI, 2.636-8.226; P<0.001). In the T1b and T2 subgroup analyses, both the OS and CSS were not significantly different between the radiation group and the no-radiation group (all P>0.05). In multivariate regression analysis, radiation was not a significant factor for OS and CSS after adjustment for confounding factors (P>0.05).

Conclusions

Using SEER data, we revealed that RT after ER did not improve survival in early stage EC patients; specifically, RT did not benefit T1b and T2 patients and may lead to poorer survival in T1a patients. Our findings do not support the addition of RT after ER for early stage EC, especially T1a EC.

Endoscopic resection for early esophageal carcinoma

Endoscopic resection for early esophageal cancer is a very precise endoscopic surgical technique and having experience in endoscopic resection is mandatory to perform these kinds of procedures safely. In case of adequate resection and favorable histological outcome, long-term prognosis of the patient is excellent. The basic principle for endoscopic treatment of early adenocarcinoma is based on the fact that the risk of lymph node metastasis gradually increases with the depth of invasion. Inspection and evaluation of all mucosal and submucosal lesions need to be done carefully before endoscopic resection. Endoscopic resection of mucosal (T1m1-3) and superficial submucosal (T1sm1) adenocarcinoma can be curative as well as for superficial mucosal (T1m1-m2) squamous cell carcinoma. In Paris type I lesions in Barrett's esophagus and for early squamous cell carcinoma endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the preferred option. The risk of severe adverse events associated with endoscopic resection are low. Most adverse events are managed endoscopically and can be treated conservatively. Endoscopic radiofrequency ablation is the most widely used ablation technique for Barrett's epithelium and highly effective to achieve full remission of dysplasia and intestinal metaplasia. The role of radiofrequency ablation in the treatment armamentarium in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus has still to be determined.

Do pathologists agree with each other on the histological assessment of pT1b oesophageal adenocarcinoma?

Background

In early (T1) oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), the histological profile of an endoscopic resection specimen plays a pivotal role in the prediction of lymph node metastasis and the potential need for oesophagectomy with lymphadenectomy.

Objective

To evaluate the inter-observer agreement of the histological assessment of submucosal (pT1b) OAC.

Methods

Surgical and endoscopic resection specimens with pT1b OAC were independently reviewed by three gastrointestinal pathologists. Agreement was determined by intraclass correlation coefficient for continuous variables, and Fleiss' kappa (κ) for categorical variables. Bland–Altman plots of the submucosal invasion depth were made.

Results

Eighty-five resection specimens with pT1b OAC were evaluated. The agreement was good for differentiation grade (κ=0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68–0.87), excellent for lymphovascular invasion (κ=0.88, 95% CI 0.76–1.00) and moderate for submucosal invasion depth using the Paris and Pragmatic classifications (κ=0.60, 95% CI 0.49–0.72 and κ=0.42, 95% CI 0.33–0.51, respectively). Systematic mean differences between pathologists were detected for the measurement of submucosal invasion depth, ranging from 297 µm to 602 µm.

Conclusions

A substantial discordance was found between pathologists for the measurement of submucosal invasion depth in pT1b OAC. Differences may lead to an over- or underestimation of the lymph node metastasis risk, with grave implications for the treatment strategy. Review by a second gastrointestinal pathologist is recommended to improve differentiating between a favourable and an unfavourable histological profile.