Citations

INTRODUCTION: The study aimed to develop consensus recommendations for the safe and appropriate use of liquid nitrogen spray cryotherapy in Barrett's esophagus and esophageal cancer. METHODS: Statements were initially formulated and grouped into categories of indications, training, preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure recommendations, frequency/timing of repeat procedures, and contraindications. Two investigators assessed the strength of the evidence for each statement using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. Nineteen experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi process. For statements that received >80% agreement, minor iterative edits were performed until there was unanimous consensus. If a threshold of 80% agreement was not reached, the statement was modified based on feedback and included in the next Delphi round. Statements were rejected if no consensus was reached after 3 rounds. RESULTS: After 3 Delphi rounds, 41 of 42 statements were accepted either in their original version (n = 11) or after modification based on expert input (n = 30). DISCUSSION: Through a modified Delphi process, we developed expert and evidence-based consensus recommendations to guide safe and appropriate use of liquid nitrogen spray cryotherapy in Barrett's esophagus and esophageal cancer.

AbstractAlthough endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is associated with higher en-bloc and R0 resection rates than cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (cEMR), its comparative impact on achieving complete remission of dysplasia (CRD) and intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) in BE endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is not well defined. We aimed to compare the journey of patients from initial endoscopic resection (ER) with ESD and cEMR to achieving CRD and CRIM.Patients undergoing ESD or cEMR followed by ablation for BE neoplasia at two academic institutions in the United States were included. Primary outcomes included CRD and CRIM rates following ER in the two groups. Secondary outcomes included the number of resection/ablative procedures from initial ER to achieving CRD and CRIM. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance confounding variables between groups.A total of 801 patients (606 cEMR, 195 ESD) were included. ESD group patients had higher en-bloc resection rates (ESD 94.4%, cEMR 44.7%). Higher rates of CRD were observed in patients undergoing initial ESD (HR 1.53, P < 0.01). With time-to-event and IPTW analyses, rates of achieving CRD and CRIM were comparable between the groups. There were no significant differences in mean number of endoscopic resection or ablative procedures among patients undergoing initial cEMR resection compared with those treated with initial ESD.Despite larger lesion sizes and more cancers in patients undergoing ESD, the EET journey to achieving CRD and CRIM was comparable to that in patients receiving cEMR. Prospective studies are required to further study differences between these two treatment approaches.

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 Aims To investigate the role of endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) with endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) in acute severe obstructive cholangitis management by performing a meta-analysis of controlled trials. Method We searched PubMed and Embase for controlled studies that compared endoscopic drainage with ES versus Non-ES in acute obstructive cholangitis. Two reviewers selected the studies and extracted the data. Disagreement was addressed by a third reviewer. Heterogeneity of the studies was analyzed by Cochran’s Q statistics. A Mantel–Haenszel risk ratio was calculated utilizing a random effects model. Results Four controlled studies met our inclusion criteria with 392 participants (201 ES, 191 Non-ES). The outcomes were drainage insertion success rate, drainage effectiveness, post drainage pancreatitis, bleeding, procedure duration, perforation, cholecystitis, and 30-day mortality. Drainage insertion success rate was identical in both groups (RR: 1.00, 95 %CI% 0.96 – 1.04). Effective drainage was not significantly different (RR: 1.11, 95 %CI 0.73 – 1.7). There was no significant difference in the incidence of pancreatitis post EBD between the ES and Non-ES groups at 3 % and 4 %, respectively (RR: 0.73, 95 %CI 0.24 – 2.27). However, there was a significant increase in post EBD bleeding with ES compared to Non-ES (RR: 8.58, 95 %CI 2.03 – 36.34). Thirty-day mortality was similar between ES and Non-ES groups at 0.7 % and 1 %, respectively (RR: 0.5, 95 %CI 0.05 – 5.28). Conclusion Our findings show that EBD without ES is an effective drainage technique and carries less risk for post procedure bleeding. Patients who are critically ill and have coagulopathy should be spared from undergoing ES in the acute phase.