Pérez, Lady Katherine Mejía

Abstract Background The difference in clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia remains unclear. We compared the recurrence/residual tissue rates, resection outcomes, and adverse events after ESD and EMR for early BE neoplasia. Methods We included patients who underwent EMR or ESD for BE-associated high grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) at eight academic hospitals. We compared demographic, procedural, and histologic characteristics, and follow-up data. A time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence/residual disease and a Kaplan–Meier curve was used to compare the groups. Results 243 patients (150 EMR; 93 ESD) were included. EMR had lower en bloc (43 % vs. 89 %; P < 0.001) and R0 (56 % vs. 73 %; P = 0.01) rates than ESD. There was no difference in the rates of perforation (0.7 % vs. 0; P > 0.99), early bleeding (0.7 % vs. 1 %; P > 0.99), delayed bleeding (3.3 % vs. 2.1 %; P = 0.71), and stricture (10 % vs. 16 %; P = 0.16) between EMR and ESD. Patients with non-curative resections who underwent further therapy were excluded from the recurrence analysis. Recurrent/residual disease was 31.4 % [44/140] for EMR and 3.5 % [3/85] for ESD during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 15.5 (6.75–30) and 8 (2–18) months, respectively. Recurrence-/residual disease-free survival was significantly higher in the ESD group. More patients required additional endoscopic resection procedures to treat recurrent/residual disease after EMR (EMR 24.2 % vs. ESD 3.5 %; P < 0.001). Conclusions ESD is safe and results in more definitive treatment of early BE neoplasia, with significantly lower recurrence/residual disease rates and less need for repeat endoscopic treatments than with EMR.

INTRODUCTION: While esophagectomy is the standard treatment for submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and squamous cell cancer (SCC), many elderly patients -the age group that esophageal cancer tends to affect- are not candidates for surgery. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a minimally invasive procedure that allows for en-bloc resection of early esophageal cancer and allows for precise histopathologic staging of the tumor. ESD could be curative in submucosal cancer without lymph node metastasis, and it allows for precise histopathologic staging. To evaluate the long-term outcomes of ESD in patients with EUS-staged T1b esophageal cancer. METHODS: A retrospective multicenter study was performed at three academic hospitals in the U.S. Patients who underwent ESD with a pre-procedural or post-procedural histopathologic diagnosis of T1b N0 M0 EAC or SCC were included in the study. Data was collected on demographics, tumor and procedure characteristics, procedure pathology, and follow-up. Local recurrence was confirmed by endoscopic findings and pathological analysis. Metastasis was confirmed by cross-sectional imaging. The main outcome was a composite of rate of metastasis and local recurrence. Follow-up time was defined as months from initial procedure to recurrence or last follow-up visit if recurrence-free. A time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients underwent ESD (mean age 69.6 years +/-9; 35 males) (Table 1). Based on available comorbidity data, 42% patients were not fit for surgery, as determined by an age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index > 6. Twenty tumors (62%) were found to be HGD or T1a on post-ESD specimen analysis, while one was staged as T2. Nineteen patients were staged as T1b after ESD. Immediately after ESD, 6 patients were referred for surgery, 3 underwent chemoradiation therapy, and 6 radiation alone (Table 2). Patients were followed for a median of 18 months, and the calculated 24-month recurrence rate was 13% (Figure 1). CONCLUSION: This multicenter trial showed that ESD for T1b esophageal cancer can be acceptable for patients who deemed not surgical candidates. However, close follow up is necessary. ESD can also serve as a staging procedure, as our data confirms inaccurate EUS-staging of T1b cancer, with 62% of tumors being down-staged to T1a, as has been previously reported.

INTRODUCTION: The difference in long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for Barrett’s related superficial neoplasia remains unclear. We aimed to compare the rates of local and metachronous recurrence of ESD and EMR in patients with clinically staged BE-associated high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). METHODS: Multicenter study at six academic hospitals in the U.S. including patients who underwent ESD for BE-HGD or T1a EAC. Primary outcome was a composite of metastasis and local recurrence rate. A time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence. A Kaplan-Meier plot was constructed, and a log-rank test was used to compare the groups. A Cox hazard ratio regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 241 patients were included. 154 underwent EMR, while 84 underwent ESD (Table 1). ESD had higher en bloc (96% vs 33%, P < 0.0001), R0 (76% vs 54%, P = 0.0009) and curative resection rates (75% vs 32%, P < .0001) when compared to EMR. The 24-month local recurrence rate for EMR and ESD was 43% and 11%, respectively ( P = 0.0007) (Figure 1). Significantly more endoscopic resection procedures were required to treat recurrence after EMR compared to after ESD (Table 1). EMR, piecemeal resection, positive margins, and non-curative resection were identified as predictors of recurrence on univariate analysis. En bloc resection remained significant after multivariate analysis (Table 2). CONCLUSION: This multicenter study showed that ESD results in more definitive treatment of BE-associated early neoplasia than EMR, with significant lower recurrence rates and less need for repeat endoscopic therapeutic procedures than EMR.

Abstract Background and study aims Risk factors for colorectal adenoma recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) have been well documented. We assessed the efficacy of the newer 190 colonoscope versus the standard 180 colonoscope for complete resection of lateral spreading lesions. Patients and methods A single-center, retrospective study of patients who underwent EMR with Olympus 180 or 190 colonoscopes from January 1, 2010 to September 30, 2016. We included patients with lesions ≥ 20 mm and surveillance colonoscopy (SC1) after index EMR. A propensity score approach with inverse probability weighting was used to control for potential confounders. A secondary aim was to identify risk factors for recurrence and assess the applicability of the Sydney EMR recurrence tool (SERT) by grading each lesion of our cohort and analyzing associations with recurrence. Results Two hundred ninety-one lesions met inclusion criteria for the study. Odds ratio (OR) for recurrence with the 190 colonoscope was 1.06 (P = .85). Adenoma size (P = .02) and use of argon plasma coagulation (APC; P < .001) were risk factors for recurrence. Lesions with SERT scores > 0 had a higher recurrence risk during follow-up (32 % vs 21 %; OR 1.71; P = .05). Lesions with SERT scores = 0 reached a plateau for recurrence at 12 and 18 months in Kaplan-Meier curves. Conclusions The use of 190 colonoscopes did not measurably affect adenoma recurrence at SC1. Recurrence was associated with adenoma size, complementary APC for resection, and SERT scores > 0. Lesions with SERT scores = 0 that remain negative for recurrence at 18 months may return to routine surveillance.