Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Versus Surgery for Superficial Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Survival Analysis

Outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus esophagectomy for poorly differentiated superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A 10-year cohort study

BACKGROUNDS

The efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) to treat poorly differentiated superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SESCC) is unclear.

AIMS

To exploring the efficacy and prognosis of ESD treatment poorly differentiated SESCC compared with esophagectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted, the data of poorly differentiated SESCC patients who received ESD or esophagectomy from Jan 2011 to Jan 2021 were analyzed. Overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and procedure-related variables were compared between ESD and esophagectomy group.

RESULTS

95 patients underwent ESD, while 86 underwent esophagectomy. No significant differences were found between the two groups in OS (P = 0.587), DSS (P = 0.172), and RFS (P = 0.111). Oncologic outcomes were also similar between the two groups in propensity score-matched analysis. For T1a ESCC, the rates of R0 resection, LVI or nodal metastasis and additional therapy were similar between ESD and esophagectomy groups. But for T1b ESCC, the rates of positive resection margin and additional therapy were significantly higher in ESD group than those in esophagectomy group.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD is a minimally invasive procedure that has comparable oncologic outcomes with esophagectomy for treatment poorly differentiated T1a ESCC. However, ESD is not suitable for poorly differentiated T1b ESCC, additional surgery or radiochemotherapy should be required.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: methodology and review of evidence

This document from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides a full description of the methodology used in the review of the evidence used to inform the final guidance outlined in the accompanying Summary and Recommendations document regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. This guideline used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, the ASGE suggests surgical evaluation over endosic approaches.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on endoscopic submucosal dissection for the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers: summary and recommendations

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) provides an evidence-based summary and recommendations regarding the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in the management of early esophageal and gastric cancers. It is accompanied by the document subtitled "Methodology and Review of Evidence," which provides a detailed account of the methodology used for the evidence review. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and specifically addresses the role of ESD versus EMR and/or surgery, where applicable, for the management of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) and their corresponding precursor lesions. For ESCC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >15 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions ≤15 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for such patients with ESCC, whenever possible. For EAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well-differentiated, nonulcerated cancer >20 mm, whereas in patients with similar lesions measuring ≤20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. For GAC, the ASGE suggests ESD over EMR for patients with early-stage, well- or moderately differentiated, nonulcerated intestinal type cancer measuring 20 to 30 mm, whereas for patients with similar lesions <20 mm, the ASGE suggests either ESD or EMR. The ASGE suggests against surgery for patients with such lesions measuring ≤30 mm, whereas for lesions that are poorly differentiated, regardless of size, we suggest surgical evaluation over endoscopic approaches.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the Esophagus: Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is well-accepted endoscopic resection modality for esophageal lesions with benefits in certain situations. ESD offers potential cure for early esophageal cancer and detailed pathologic information for risk stratification. Techniques are mostly standardized, and the use of traction method is encouraged. Indication and proper techniques of ESD in esophageal disease and clinical outcomes will be discussed in this article with pearls for care planning and management during periprocedural period.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus esophagectomy for t1 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been a preferred treatment option for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SESCC).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the outcomes of ESD and esophagectomy in the treatment of SESCC, especially for lesions invading muscularis mucosa or submucosa (pT1a-MM/T1b).

DESIGN

We retrospectively analyzed data from patients with SESCC who underwent ESD or esophagectomy between 2015 and 2021.

METHODS

After propensity score matching, overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and treatment-related events were compared between the ESD and esophagectomy groups. Furthermore, we performed a Cox regression analysis to identify factors associated with survival.

RESULTS

OS and DSS were significantly higher in the ESD group (n = 508) than that in the esophagectomy group (n = 466). After matching, 404 patients (202 per group) were included in the study. No significant differences were found between the ESD and esophagectomy groups in OS (p = 0.566), RFS (p = 0.586), and DSS (p = 0.912). The ESD group showed less blood loss, shorter procedure duration and hospital stay, lower hospital cost, and fewer adverse events. However, a lower R0 resection rate was observed in the ESD group compared to the esophagectomy group. Subgroup analysis showed comparable survival outcomes between the two groups. In Cox regression analysis, age was the independent factor associated with OS.

CONCLUSION

In the treatment of SESCC, ESD showed sufficient safety and advantages. Even for pT1a-MM/pT1b SESCC, ESD may be an alternative treatment to esophagectomy.

Implementation of the Esophagectomy Complication Consensus Group definitions: the benefits of speaking the same language

In 2015 the Esophagectomy Complication Consensus Group (ECCG) reported consensus definitions for complications after esophagectomy. This aimed to reduce variation in complication reporting, attributed to heterogeneous definitions. This systematic review aimed to describe the implementation of this definition set, including the effect on complication frequency and variation. A systematic literature review was performed, identifying all observational and randomized studies reporting complication frequencies after esophagectomy since the ECCG publication. Recruitment periods before and subsequent to the index ECCG publication date were included. Coefficients of variance were calculated to assess outcome heterogeneity. Of 144 studies which met inclusion criteria, 70 (48.6%) used ECCG definitions. The median number of separately reported complication types was five per study; only one study reported all ECCG complications. The coefficients of variance of the reported frequencies of eight of the 10 most common complications were reduced in studies which used the ECCG definitions compared with those that did not (P = 0.036). Among ECCG studies, the frequencies of postoperative pneumothorax, reintubation, and pulmonary emboli were significantly reduced in 2020-2021, compared with 2015-2019 (P = 0.006, 0.034, and 0.037 respectively). The ECCG definition set has reduced variation in esophagectomy morbidity reporting. This adds greater confidence to the observed gradual improvement in outcomes with time, and its ongoing use and wider dissemination should be encouraged. However, only a handful of outcomes are widely reported, and only rarely is it used in its entirety.

Value of EUS in determining infiltration depth of early carcinoma and associated precancerous lesions in the upper gastrointestinal tract

Objective

The objective is to evaluate the value of EUS in the determination of infiltration depth of early carcinoma and precancerous lesions in the upper gastrointestinal tract and to analyze the various factors affecting the accuracy of EUS.

Methods

One hundred and sixty-three patients diagnosed with early gastric cancer or early esophageal cancer, and associated precancerous lesions, who were seen in our hospital in the recent 10 years were selected. These patients received EUS before endoscopic submucosal dissection or surgery. With a pathological diagnosis as the gold standard, the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and misjudgment rate of EUS in determining the invasion depth were evaluated using the pathological stratification (mucosa, M1/2; muscularis mucosa, M3; submucosa, [SM]; and muscularis propria) or TN stratification (mucosa, T1a; SM, T1b), and the possible causes of miscalculation were analyzed.

Results

Based on the pathological stratification, the overall accuracy of EUS was 78.5%, and the overestimation and underestimation rates were 17.8% and 3.7%, respectively. Based on the TN stratification, the overall accuracy of EUS was 81%, and the overestimation and underestimation rates were 16.6% and 2.5%, respectively. There was a significant difference between the groups in terms of overestimation and underestimation rates (P < 0.05), indicating that EUS was more likely to overestimate the depth. Univariate analysis showed that the factors affecting accuracy included lesion size, macroscopic features, sunken mucosa, mucosa with granular and nodular changes, and ulceration. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that larger lesions, mucosa with granular and nodular changes, and ulceration were independent risk factors for the overestimation of infiltration depth by EUS.

Conclusion

EUS is highly accurate in determining the infiltration depth of early cancer and precancerous lesions in the upper gastrointestinal tract. It also has a good reference value for treatment selection and prognostication. However, attention should be paid to its overestimation, especially accompanied by the aforementioned factors.

Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Esophagus

Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) is common in the developing world with decreasing incidence in developed countries and carries significant morbidity and mortality. Major risk factors for ESCC development include significant use of alcohol and tobacco. Screening for ESCC can be recommended in high-risk populations living in highly endemic regions. The treatment of ESCC ranges from endoscopic resection therapy or surgery in localized disease to chemoradiotherapy in metastatic disease, and prognosis is directly related to the stage at diagnosis. New immunotherapies and molecular targeted therapies may improve the dismal survival outcomes in patients with metastatic ESCC.

Comparison of Long-Term Survival Between cT1N0 Stage Esophageal Cancer Patients Receiving Endoscopic Dissection and Esophagectomy: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Endoscopic dissection (ED) shows relatively high clinical value in early esophageal cancer (cT1N0) such as lower incidence of postoperative complications and hospitalization costs and enhanced recovery. However, whether ED still has certain advantages over esophagectomy in terms of long-term survival remains unclear.

Purpose

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the long-term outcomes of ED and surgery in the treatment of cT1N0 esophageal cancer.

Methods

Several electronic databases including the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched up to April 7, 2022 for studies which compared the overall survival (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) of cT1N0 esophageal cancer patients receiving the ED or esophagectomy. The hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were combined and all statistical analysis was conducted through STATA 15.0 software.

Results

A total of 12 studies involving 3,732 patients were enrolled. No significant difference in the OS between ED and surgery groups was observed (HR = 0.78, 95% CI, 0.59–1.04, p = 0.089). However, the DSS of the ED group was significantly longer than that of the surgery group (HR = 0.56, 95% CI, 0.39–0.82, p = 0.003).

Conclusion

In overall, the current evidence manifested that the long-term survival of cT1N0 esophageal cancer patients undergoing ED was not worse than that of patients undergoing esophagectomy. ED may be considered as the primary treatment for cT1N0 esophageal carcinoma patients.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Versus Radical Surgery for T1 Superficial Esophageal Cell Carcinoma: a Subgroup Survival Analysis

BACKGROUND

With the continuous advent of magnifying endoscopy, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has gradually become the mainstream treatment for early esophageal cancer. We aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with T1 superficial esophageal cell carcinoma treated with ESD vs. esophagectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent ESD or radical surgery at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018. The purpose of propensity score matching is to reduce selection bias. Precise subgroup analysis according to depth of invasion was performed to reduce the influence of confounding factors.

RESULT

We reviewed patients who underwent ESD (n = 117) or radical surgery (n = 217) at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from 2010 to 2018. The OS rate and progression-free survival rate in the ESD group were better than those in the surgery group (OS, P = 0.002. PFS, P = 0.004). The ESD group had a lower early adverse event rate (74.6% vs. 91%, P = 0.012), shorter hospital stays (median 10 days vs. 18 days, P < 0.001), and lower hospitalization costs (median 15,455 vs. 62,376 RMB, P < 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis found that the treatment method was an independent risk factor affecting the prognosis of patients with superficial esophageal cancer, and the death risk of patients in the ESD group was 0.377 times that of the radical surgery group (HR = 0.377, P = 0.023). We conducted a subgroup analysis of patients again according to the depth of invasion; 37 pairs of patients were included in the T1a stage, and 19 pairs of patients were included in the T1b stage. In T1a and T1b patients, the difference in OS rate and PFS rate between the two treatments was statistically significant (T1a, OS, P = 0.002, PFS, P = 0.004; T1b, OS, P = 0.019, PFS, P = 0.022), and the OS rates in the ESD group were better than those in the radical surgery group.

CONCLUSION

For patients with T1b superficial esophageal cancer, ESD has a longer overall survival and progression-free survival compared with radical surgery. These results support ESD as the preferred treatment for stage T1b superficial esophageal cancer.

Endoscopic resection versus esophagectomy for early esophageal cancer: a meta-analysis

Background

Esophagectomy is the standard treatment for early-stage esophageal cancer but is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Thus, endoscopic resection is increasingly used as an alternative option. However, the literature is inconsistent regarding the efficacy of these treatments. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these two treatments.

Methods

A systematic electronic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was performed for studies comparing endoscopic resection and surgery for early-stage esophageal cancer. The overall survival, tumor recurrence, major adverse events, procedure-related mortality, and R0 resection rates were investigated. Forest plots were constructed based on the random-effects model.

Results

We found 15 studies involving 2,467 and 2,264 patients who underwent endoscopic resection and surgery, respectively. The meta-analysis showed that patients undergoing endoscopic resection had significantly fewer major adverse events (relative risk, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.33–0.64) and a lower procedure-related mortality rate (relative risk, 0.27; 95% confidence interval, 0.10–0.73) than those undergoing surgery. The number of postprocedural stricture events did not significantly differ between the two treatments (relative risk, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.53–1.49). Endoscopic resection was associated with higher recurrence rates (relative risk, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.99–2.89) and lower R0 resection rates (relative risk, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.86–0.98) than surgery. There may be some advantage conferred by esophagectomy in the long-term survival outcomes (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.02–1.43).

Discussion

Endoscopic resection is a minimally invasive and safe treatment for early-stage esophageal cancer. However, esophagectomy may be associated with better long-term survival.

Long-Term Outcomes and Prognostic Factors of Superficial Esophageal Cancer in Patients Aged ≥ 65 Years

Background

The number of elderly patients with superficial esophageal cancer (SEC) is increasing. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of overall survival (OS) in elderly patients undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or surgical resection for SEC.

Methods

Between January 2001 and May 2020, 290 patients aged ≥65 years who underwent ESD or surgical resection for SEC were evaluated. Their clinical outcomes and prognosis were assessed, and independent risk factors for OS were identified.

Results

The mean patient age (269 men and 21 women) was 70.9 years (range 65–90 years). En bloc, R0, and curative resections were achieved in 94.5%, 90.0%, and 73.4% of the patients, respectively. During the follow-up [mean: 54.6 months (range: 1–210 months)], 79 patients died. The 3-, 5-, and 10-year OS rates were 82.5, 73.1, and 59.7%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, cancer history of the other organs, American Society of Anesthesiologists performance status, and presence of lymphovascular involvement (hazard ratio = 1.852, 1.656, and 1.943, respectively; all P &lt; 0.05) were independent risk factors for poor OS. The high-risk group (≥2 risk factors) showed a significantly lower OS than the low-risk group (≤ 1 risk factor) (P &lt; 0.001).

Conclusions

The three risk factors could be useful in predicting the long-term prognosis of elderly patients with SEC.

[Treatment of Superficial Esophageal Cancer: An Update]

Superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SESCC) is an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma confined to the mucosa or superficial submucosa. Recent Korean Guidelines recommend an endoscopic resection as the first-line treatment for SESCC without a distant or lymph node metastasis (LNM) after excluding those with an obvious submucosal invasion. Before endoscopic treatment of SESCC, Lugol chromoendoscopy or image-enhanced endoscopy is recommended to define the extent of the lesion, and endoscopic ultrasound is recommended to determine the T stage. The tumor size, macroscopic type of tumor, pathologic differentiation, depth of tumor, and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) are risk factors of LNM in SESCC. No additional treatment is necessary after an en bloc complete resection of SESCC invading no more than the lamina propria without LVI. Although the risk of LNM in a SESCC invading into muscularis mucosa without LVI is low, a close follow-up is recommended without additional treatment. On the other hand, additional treatment is recommended in the case of a tumor with submucosal invasion or an LVI positive or positive vertical resection margin. Adjuvant therapy includes esophagectomy or chemoradiotherapy (CRT), but it is unclear which treatment is better. The 5-year overall survival rates were reportedly 90-100% for esophagectomy and 75-85% for CRT. Nevertheless, patients with high-risk features including poorly differentiated histology, LVI positive, perineural invasion positive, T1b-SM2/T1b-SM3 cancer, and vertical resection margin positive need to be treated with an additional esophagectomy. Elderly patients, those with a physical condition and co-morbidities, and those with LNM or cancer-specific mortality require additional treatment after a non-curative endoscopic resection of SESCC.

Long-Term Outcomes of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Superficial Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

In this review, we summarize up-to-date reports with 5-year survival after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. In ESD for the depth of the epithelium (m1) or lamina propria (m2), the 5-year cause-specific survival and 5-year overall survival rates were reported to be 98-100%, and 85-95%, respectively. In cases with submucosal invasion or vascular involvement, additional prophylactic treatment such as chemoradiotherapy or surgery was recommended, and the 5-year cause-specific survival and 5-year overall survival rates were reported to be 85-100%, and 56-84%, respectively. Additional treatment might be too invasive for the elderly or patients with severe comorbidities. The risk of additional therapy should be balanced against the risk of lymph node metastasis, considering the life expectancy of such patients.

Frontiers of Robotic Gastroscopy: A Comprehensive Review of Robotic Gastroscopes and Technologies

Simple Summary

With the rapid advancements of medical technologies and patients’ higher expectations for precision diagnostic and surgical outcomes, gastroscopy has been increasingly adopted for the detection and treatment of pathologies in the upper digestive tract. Correspondingly, robotic gastroscopes with advanced functionalities, e.g., disposable, dextrous and not invasive solutions, have been developed in the last years. This article extensively reviews these novel devices and describes their functionalities and performance. In addition, the implementation of artificial intelligence technology into robotic gastroscopes, combined with remote telehealth endoscopy services, are discussed. The aim of this paper is to provide a clear and comprehensive view of contemporary robotic gastroscopes and ancillary technologies to support medical practitioners in their future clinical practice but also to inspire and drive new engineering developments.

Abstract

Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) tract pathology is common worldwide. With recent advancements in robotics, innovative diagnostic and treatment devices have been developed and several translational attempts made. This review paper aims to provide a highly pictorial critical review of robotic gastroscopes, so that clinicians and researchers can obtain a swift and comprehensive overview of key technologies and challenges. Therefore, the paper presents robotic gastroscopes, either commercial or at a progressed technology readiness level. Among them, we show tethered and wireless gastroscopes, as well as devices aimed for UGI surgery. The technological features of these instruments, as well as their clinical adoption and performance, are described and compared. Although the existing endoscopic devices have thus far provided substantial improvements in the effectiveness of diagnosis and treatment, there are certain aspects that represent unwavering predicaments of the current gastroenterology practice. A detailed list includes difficulties and risks, such as transmission of communicable diseases (e.g., COVID-19) due to the doctor–patient proximity, unchanged learning curves, variable detection rates, procedure-related adverse events, endoscopists’ and nurses’ burnouts, limited human and/or material resources, and patients’ preferences to choose non-invasive options that further interfere with the successful implementation and adoption of routine screening. The combination of robotics and artificial intelligence, as well as remote telehealth endoscopy services, are also discussed, as viable solutions to improve existing platforms for diagnosis and treatment are emerging.