Ngamruengphong, Saowanee

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.

Abstract Background and study aims The Full-Thickness Resection Device (FTRD) provides a novel treatment option for lesions not amenable to conventional endoscopic resection techniques. There are limited data on the efficacy and safety of FTRD for resection of upper gastrointestinal tract (GIT) lesions. Patients and methods This was an international multicenter retrospective study, including patients who had an endoscopic resection of an upper GIT lesion using the FTRD between January 2017 and February 2019. Results Fifty-six patients from 13 centers were included. The most common lesions were mesenchymal neoplasms (n = 23, 41 %), adenomas (n = 7, 13 %), and hamartomas (n = 6, 11 %). Eighty-four percent of lesions were located in the stomach, and 14 % in the duodenum. The average size of lesions was 14 mm (range 3 to 33 mm). Deployment of the FTRD was technically successful in 93 % of patients (n = 52) leading to complete and partial resection in 43 (77 %) and 9 (16 %) patients, respectively. Overall, the FTRD led to negative histological margins (R0 resection) in 38 (68 %) of patients. A total of 12 (21 %) mild or moderate adverse events (AEs) were reported. Follow-up endoscopy was performed in 31 patients (55 %), on average 88 days after the procedure (IQR 68–138 days). Of these, 30 patients (97 %) did not have any residual or recurrent lesion on endoscopic examination and biopsy, with residual adenoma in one patient (3 %). Conclusions Our results suggest a high technical success rate and an acceptable histologically complete resection rate, with a low risk of AEs and early recurrence for FTRD resection of upper GIT lesions.

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.

Objective Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) allows preoperative tissue confirmation of malignancy, but fear of tumour cell dissemination along the needle track has limited its use. We hypothesised that if tumour cell dissemination occurs with EUS-FNA, survival after complete resection would be impaired. We aimed to evaluate the association of preoperative EUS-FNA with long-term outcomes of patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Design Using the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data, we identified patients with locoregional pancreatic cancer who underwent curative intent surgery from 1998 to 2009. The patients who received EUS-FNA within the peridiagnostic period were included in the EUS-FNA group. Patients who did not receive EUS evaluation or who underwent EUS without FNA were included in the non-EUS-FNA group. Overall survival and pancreatic cancer-specific survival were compared after controlling for relevant covariates. Results A total of 2034 patients with pancreatic cancer were included (90% pancreatic adenocarcinoma). Of these, 498 (24%) patients were in EUS-FNA group. Patients with multiple comorbidities and more recent diagnosis were more likely to receive EUS-FNA. In multivariate analysis, after controlling for age, race, gender, tumour histology, tumour stage, tumour grade, tumour location, SEER site, year of diagnosis, undergoing percutaneous aspiration/biopsy, Charlson Comorbidity Index, radiation and chemotherapy, EUS-FNA was marginally associated with improved overall survival (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.99), but did not affect cancer-specific survival (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.03). Conclusions Preoperative EUS-FNA was not associated with increased risk of mortality. These data suggest that EUS-FNA can be safely performed for the work-up of suspicious pancreatic lesions.