Literature DB >> 15832094

Management of superficial Barrett's epithelium-related neoplasms by endoscopic mucosal resection: clinicopathologic analysis of 27 cases.

Mari Mino-Kenudson1, William R Brugge, William P Puricelli, Laura N Nakatsuka, Norman S Nishioka, Lawrence R Zukerberg, Joseph Misdraji, Gregory Y Lauwers.   

Abstract

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), a relatively new endoluminal therapeutic technique with low morbidity and no mortality reported to date, is advocated for the treatment of Barrett's esophagus (BE)-related superficial neoplasms. However, recent studies revise its success downward, particularly regarding the ability to achieve complete excision. To evaluate what remains an evolving technique, we analyzed our experience with a series of 27 esophageal EMRs (20 lesions in 18 patients). Our goal was to evaluate the diagnostic, staging, and therapeutic advantages of EMR separately by correlating the initial biopsies and pre-EMR endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) staging with the final histologic diagnoses and stage. Persistence/recurrence of neoplastic tissue was also correlated with the margin status of the resections. The mean size of the neoplasms, which included low-grade dysplasias (n=2), high-grade dysplasias (n=8), intramucosal carcinomas (n=14), and submucosal invasive carcinomas (n=3), was 11 mm. EUS correctly reported an intramucosal or submucosal lesion in 70% of the cases while it overstaged 18% and understaged 12% of the cases. The biopsy diagnosis corresponded to the EMR diagnosis in 63% of the cases. The biopsy underestimated the grade of the lesion in 21% of the cases. EMR revealed a lower histologic grade compared with the biopsy in 16% of the cases. The resection was microscopically complete in only 4% of the cases. No residual/recurrent disease was observed in 10 lesions (9 patients) at 4 to 63 months (mean, 23 months) post-EMR. However, 9 lesions (8 patients) persisted/recurred 28 days to 25 months (mean, 6 months) after treatment; 56% of the cases with positive lateral margin(s) and negative deep margin persisted/recurred. However, 86% of the EMRs with positive deep margin showed residual tumor/recurrence on follow-up biopsies. In conclusion, we observed that EMR offers improved diagnosis and staging as compared with biopsy and EUS. This is a significant advantage since it can modify patients' management. However, frequent incompleteness of resection and high persistence/recurrence are significant pitfalls that dictate continued endoscopic surveillance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15832094     DOI: 10.1097/01.pas.0000154129.87219.fa

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol        ISSN: 0147-5185            Impact factor:   6.394


  26 in total

Review 1.  Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia: focus on current treatment options.

Authors:  Leonidas Lekakos; Nikolaos P Karidis; Dimitrios Dimitroulis; Christos Tsigris; Gregory Kouraklis; Nikolaos Nikiteas
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-10-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 2.  [Barrett's esophagus. An update].

Authors:  G B Baretton; D E Aust
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.011

3.  Endoscopic resection techniques and ablative therapies for Barrett's neoplasia.

Authors:  Jacobo Ortiz-Fernández-Sordo; Adolfo Parra-Blanco; Alejandro García-Varona; María Rodríguez-Peláez; Erika Madrigal-Hoyos; Irving Waxman; Luis Rodrigo
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2011-09-16

4.  Quality indicators for the management of Barrett's esophagus, dysplasia, and esophageal adenocarcinoma: international consensus recommendations from the American Gastroenterological Association Symposium.

Authors:  Prateek Sharma; David A Katzka; Neil Gupta; Jaffer Ajani; Navtej Buttar; Amitabh Chak; Douglas Corley; Hashem El-Serag; Gary W Falk; Rebecca Fitzgerald; John Goldblum; Frank Gress; David H Ilson; John M Inadomi; Ernest J Kuipers; John P Lynch; Frank McKeon; David Metz; Pankaj J Pasricha; Oliver Pech; Richard Peek; Jeffrey H Peters; Alessandro Repici; Stefan Seewald; Nicholas J Shaheen; Rhonda F Souza; Stuart J Spechler; Prashanth Vennalaganti; Kenneth Wang
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 5.  Barrett's Esophagus: A Comprehensive and Contemporary Review for Pathologists.

Authors:  Bita V Naini; Rhonda F Souza; Robert D Odze
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 6.394

Review 6.  Barrett's esophagus--Who, how, how often and what to do with dysplasia?

Authors:  Lawrence C Hookey
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.522

7.  Endoscopic mucosal resection in the setting of Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  Jason K Lee; Robert Enns
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.522

Review 8.  Endotherapy for Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal carcinoma.

Authors:  Drew B Schembre
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2009-03-26       Impact factor: 3.452

9.  Evolving changes in the management of early oesophageal adenocarcinoma in a tertiary centre.

Authors:  N J O'Farrell; J V Reynolds; N Ravi; J O Larkin; V Malik; G F Wilson; C Muldoon; D O'Toole
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2012-12-16       Impact factor: 1.568

10.  Barrett's esophagus: where do we stand?

Authors:  Majid A Al Madi
Journal:  Saudi J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.485

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.