Outcomes of submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinomas removed by endoscopic mucosal resection

Utilization Trends and Volume-outcomes Relationship of Endoscopic Resection for Early Stage Esophageal Cancer

OBJECTIVES

We describe utilization trends and center volume-outcomes relationship of ER of early stage esophageal cancer using a large hospitalbased registry.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

ER is increasingly accepted as the preferred treatment for early stage esophageal cancer, however its utilization and the center volume-outcomes relationship in the United States is unknown.

METHODS

The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with cT1N0M0 esophageal cancer treated with ER or esophagectomy between 2004 and 2015. Relative frequencies were plotted over time. Restricted cubic splines and maximally selected rank statistics were used to identify an inflection point of center volume and survival.

RESULTS

A total of 1136 patients underwent ER and 2829 patients underwent esophagectomy during the study period. Overall utilization of ER, and relative use compared to esophagectomy, increased throughout the study period. Median annualized center ER volume was 1.9 cases per year (interquartile range 0.5-5.8). Multivariable Cox regression showed increasing annualized center volume by 1 case per year was associated with improved survival. Postoperative 30- or 90-day mortality, 30-day readmission, and pathologic T upstaging rates were similar irrespective of center volume.

CONCLUSIONS

Utilization of ER compared to esophagectomy for stage I esophageal cancer has increased over the past decade, though many individual centers perform fewer than 1 case annually. increasing annualized center volume by one procedure per year was associated with improved survival. increased volume beyond this was not associated with survival benefit. Referral to higher volume centers for treatment of superficial esophageal cancer should be considered.

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.

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection for early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

With growing application of endoscopic therapy for early-stage esophageal cancer, we sought to review our experience of endoscopic mucosal resections (EMRs). The aim of our study was to understand the natural course of these patients, especially with positive margins.

METHODS

A prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing endoscopic therapies at Georgetown University Hospital for esophageal cancer was used for the analysis between 2010 and 2020.

RESULTS

Of 80 patients in the EMR database, 35 were performed as index cases for esophageal adenocarcinoma. Majority (74.3%) had a pre-treatment ultrasound confirming absence of regional adenopathy. There were no post-EMR bleeding or perforation events requiring re-intervention. Complete R0 resection was achieved in 22/35 (62.9%) after initial EMR. Thirteen patients had positive margins. Of these 13 patients, only 7 patients underwent repeat endoscopic resection, 2 underwent subsequent esophagectomy, 2 received definitive radiation given poor surgical candidacy, and 2 were lost to follow-up. Overall and 5-year survival of all patients undergoing EMR was 67.9 months and 85%, respectively. Subset analysis of the 13 patients with R1 resection demonstrated an overall survival of 49.2 months and 60% 5-year survival vs overall survival of 78.9 months and 93% 5-year survival for R0 resection. At a median follow-up of 60.5 months, cancer recurrence occurred in 3 patients. All of them were successfully managed with repeat EMR.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resections represent a safe and effective treatment for early-stage esophageal cancer. Patients with high-risk features should be counseled to undergo an esophagectomy if they are operable candidates.

Recommendations for Surveillance and Management of Recurrent Esophageal Cancer Following Endoscopic Therapies

With advancing endoscopic technology and screening protocols for Barrett disease, more patients are being diagnosed with early-stage esophageal cancer. These early-stage patients may be amendable to endoscopic therapies, such as endomucosal resection and ablation. These therapies may minimize morbidity, but the elevated risk of recurrence cannot be overlooked. This article reports outcomes and recommendations for surveillance and management of recurrent esophageal cancer following endoscopic therapies.

Infiltration Depth is the Most Relevant Risk Factor for Overall Metastases in Early Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Research in early esophageal adenocarcinoma focused on prediction of lymph node metastases in order to stratify patients for endoscopic treatment instead of esophagectomy. Although distant metastases were described in rates of up to 13% of patients within a follow-up of 3 years, their prediction has been neglected so far.

METHODS

In a secondary analysis, a cohort of 217 patients (53 T1a and 164 T1b) treated by esophagectomy was analyzed for histopathological risk factors. Their ability to predict the combination of lymph node metastases at surgery as well as metachronous locoregional and distant metastases (overall metastatic rate) was assessed by uni- and multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

Tumor invasion depth was correlated with both lymph node metastases at surgery (τ = 0.141; P = .012), tumor recurrences (τ = 0.152; P = .014), and distant metastases (τ = 0.122; P = 0.04). Multivariate analysis showed an odds ratio of 1.31 (95% CI 1.02-1.67; P = .033) per increasing tumor invasion depth and of 3.5 (95% CI 1.70-6.56; P < .001) for lymphovascular invasion. The pre-planned subgroup analysis in T1b tumors demonstrated an even lower predictive ability of lymphovascular invasion with an odds ratio of 2.5 (95% CI 1.11-5.65; P = 0.028), whereas the predictive effect of sm2 (odds ratio 3.44; 95% CI 1.00-11.9; P = 0.049) and sm3 (odds ratio 3.44; 95% CI 1.00-11.9; P = 0.049) tumor invasion depth was similar.

CONCLUSIONS

The present report demonstrates the insufficient risk prediction of histopathologic risk factors for the overall metastatic rate.

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.

Should endoscopic mucosal resection be attempted for cT2N0 esophageal cancer?

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) can be an effective therapy for superficial esophageal cancer. Many patients with cT2 invasion by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) receive surgery but are subsequently found to have superficial disease. The purpose of this study was to investigate the safety profile and the added value of attempting EMR for EUS-staged cT2N0 esophageal cancer. A retrospective review was performed at a single institution from 2008 to 2017. Patients who were staged cT2N0 by EUS were identified from a prospectively maintained surgical database. Among 75 patients identified for analysis, 30 underwent an attempt at EMR. No perforations or other immediate complications occurred. EMR was more likely to be attempted among older patients (P = 0.001) with smaller tumor size (P < 0.001) and diminished SUVmax (P = 0.001). At the time of treatment, EMR was successful in clearing all known disease among 17/30 patients, with 12 representing pT1a or less and 5 representing pT1b with negative margins. Among the 17 patients for whom EMR was able to clear all known disease, there were no recurrences or cancer-related deaths. Although all the patients were staged as cT2N0 by EUS, many patients were identified by EMR to have superficial disease. There were no perforations or other adverse events related to EMR. Furthermore, EMR cleared all known disease among 17 patients with no known recurrences or cancer-related deaths. The results indicate that EMR for cT2N0 esophageal cancer is a safe diagnostic option that is therapeutic for some.

Treatment of early stage (T1) esophageal adenocarcinoma: Personalizing the best therapy choice

Esophagectomy is considered the primary form of management for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC); however, the surgery is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. For patients with early-stage EAC, endoscopic resection (ER) presents a potential curative treatment option that is less invasive and carries fewer risks procedure related risks, but it is associated with higher rates of cancer recurrence following the procedure. For some patients, age and comorbidities may prevent them from having esophagectomy as a treatment option, while other patients may be operative candidates but do not wish to undergo esophagectomy for a variety of reasons related to their values and preferences. Furthermore, while anxiety of cancer recurrence following ER may significantly diminish a patient’s quality of life (QOL), so might the morbidity surrounding esophagectomy. In addition to considering health status, patient preferences, and impacts on QOL, physicians and patients must also consider what treatments would be both beneficial and available to the patient, considering esophagectomy methods-minimally invasive vs open-or the use of chemoradiotherapy in addition to ER. Our article reviews and summarizes available treatment options for patients with early EAC and their potential effects on the health and wellbeing of patients based on the current data. We conclude with a request for more research of available options for early EAC patients, the conditions that determine when each option should be employed, and their effects not only on patient health but also QOL.

Management of Early Stage Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Malignancies

Esophageal and gastric carcinomas are prevalent malignancies worldwide. In contrast to the poor prognosis associated with advanced stages of disease, early stage disease has a favorable prognosis. Early stage gastric cancer (ESGC) is defined as cancer in which the depth of invasion is limited to the submucosal layer of the stomach on histologic examination, regardless of lymph node status. ESGC that meets standard or expanded criteria can be treated via endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Similar indications for endoscopic interventions exist for gastroesophageal junction and esophageal malignancies."

Outcomes after endoscopic mucosal resection or esophagectomy for submucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a diagnostic and potentially therapeutic option for patients with submucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma. However, there are significant concerns regarding the risk of lymph node metastasis. Our purpose was to construct a comparative effectiveness analysis comparing recurrence patterns after therapeutic EMR or esophagectomy.

METHODS

Patients who underwent therapeutic EMR or esophagectomy from 2007 to 2015 with pathologically staged submucosal adenocarcinoma were identified from a departmental database. Cancer-related outcomes were compared among an unmatched as well as a propensity matched cohort. Risk stratification was also used to compare results among those with a low, medium, or high risk of nodal metastasis.

RESULTS

Seventy-two patients met criteria for analysis, among whom 23 underwent therapeutic EMR with esophageal preservation and 49 underwent esophagectomy. Median follow-up was 43 months. Patients who underwent esophagectomy had larger, deeper tumors. Esophageal preservation was associated with an increased risk of local recurrence (P = .01), but not distant recurrence (P = .44). After propensity matching, there continued to be no difference in distant recurrence rate (P = .66). In a risk-stratified analysis, low-risk patients showed no recurrences or cancer-related deaths, however, high-risk patients showed a trend toward increased distant recurrence after therapeutic EMR.

CONCLUSIONS

Esophageal preservation after therapeutic EMR was associated with an increased risk of local recurrence. Among low-risk patients, either strategy resulted in excellent cancer control. However, among high-risk patients, esophageal preservation showed a trend toward increased distant failure. These findings should prompt further investigation to determine optimal treatment for patients with submucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Surgical vs Endoscopic Management of T1 Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Modeling Decision Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Although treatment of T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is shifting from esophagectomy to endoscopic therapy, T1b EACs are considered too high risk to be treated endoscopically. We investigated the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of esophagectomy vs endoscopic therapy for T1a and T1b EACs, and the effects of age and comorbidities, using a decision analytic Markov model.

METHODS

We developed a model to simulate a hypothetical cohort of men 75 years old with Charlson comorbidity index scores of 0 and either T1aN0M0 or T1bN0M0 EAC, as a base case. We used the model to compare the effects of esophagectomy vs serial endoscopic therapy. We performed sensitivity analyses based on age at diagnosis of 60-85 years, comorbidity indices of 0-2, and utilities. Post-procedure cancer-specific mortality was derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare database.

RESULTS

In the T1a base case, esophagectomy yielded more unadjusted life years than endoscopic therapy (6.97 vs 6.81), but fewer quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, 4.95 for esophagectomy vs 5.22 for endoscopic therapy). In the T1b base case, esophagectomy yielded more unadjusted life years than endoscopic therapy (5.73 vs 5.01) and QALYs (4.07 vs 3.85 for endoscopic therapy), but was not cost effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $156,981). Sensitivity analyses showed endoscopic therapy optimized QALYs for patients more than 80 years old with a comorbidity index of 1 or 2, or if the ratio of post-esophagectomy to post-endoscopic therapy utilities was below 0.875.

CONCLUSION

In a Markov model, we showed that endoscopic therapy of T1a EAC yields more QALYs and is more cost effective than esophagectomy for patients of all ages and comorbidity indices tested. In contrast, selection of therapy for T1b EAC depends on age and comorbidities, due to surgical mortality and the competing risk of non-cancer death.