Dirk Schölvinck1,2, Hannah Künzli1,2, Sybren Meijer3, Kees Seldenrijk4, Mark van Berge Henegouwen5, Jacques Bergman2, Bas Weusten6,7. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Pathology, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Pathology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Surgery, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands. b.weusten@antoniusziekenhuis.nl. 7. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. b.weusten@antoniusziekenhuis.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy for submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is performed in order to optimize patient outcomes given the risk of concurrent lymph node metastases (LNM). However, not seldom, comorbidity precludes these patients from surgery. Therefore, the aim of our study was to assess the course of follow-up after treatment in submucosal EAC patients undergoing surgery versus conservative therapy and to evaluate the incidence of metastatic disease. METHODS: Between 2001 and 2012, all patients undergoing diagnostic endoscopic resection for EAC in two centers were reviewed. Only patients with histopathologically proven submucosal tumor invasion were included. Submucosal EACs were divided into tumors that were removed radically (R0) and irradically (R1). Subsequently, in the R0 group, EACs were classified as either low risk (LR; submucosal invasion <500 nm, G1-G2, no LVI) or high risk (HR; deep submucosal invasion >500 nm, G3-G4 and/or LVI). Metastatic disease was defined as LNM in surgical resection specimen and/or evidence of malignant disease during follow-up (FU). RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients with a submucosal EAC were included [23 R1-resections and 46 R0-resection (14 R0-LR and 32 R0-HR)]. Twenty-six patients underwent surgical treatment (1 R0-LR, 12 R0-HR and 13 R1). None of the 14 R0-LR patients developed metastatic disease after a median FU of 60 months. In the R0-HR group and R1 group, metastatic disease was diagnosed in 16 and 30 % of patients, respectively. Surgical patients tended to have a better overall survival than non-surgical patients (p = 0.09). Tumor-related deaths, however, were 12 % in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In LR submucosal EAC, the risk of metastatic disease appears to be very low. In deep submucosal EAC (either R0- or R1-resection), the rate of metastatic disease is lower than reported in earlier surgical series. Given the reasonable disease-free survival and high background mortality, conservative management of these patients seems to be a valid alternative for surgery in selected cases.
BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy for submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is performed in order to optimize patient outcomes given the risk of concurrent lymph node metastases (LNM). However, not seldom, comorbidity precludes these patients from surgery. Therefore, the aim of our study was to assess the course of follow-up after treatment in submucosal EAC patients undergoing surgery versus conservative therapy and to evaluate the incidence of metastatic disease. METHODS: Between 2001 and 2012, all patients undergoing diagnostic endoscopic resection for EAC in two centers were reviewed. Only patients with histopathologically proven submucosal tumor invasion were included. Submucosal EACs were divided into tumors that were removed radically (R0) and irradically (R1). Subsequently, in the R0 group, EACs were classified as either low risk (LR; submucosal invasion <500 nm, G1-G2, no LVI) or high risk (HR; deep submucosal invasion >500 nm, G3-G4 and/or LVI). Metastatic disease was defined as LNM in surgical resection specimen and/or evidence of malignant disease during follow-up (FU). RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients with a submucosal EAC were included [23 R1-resections and 46 R0-resection (14 R0-LR and 32 R0-HR)]. Twenty-six patients underwent surgical treatment (1 R0-LR, 12 R0-HR and 13 R1). None of the 14 R0-LR patients developed metastatic disease after a median FU of 60 months. In the R0-HR group and R1 group, metastatic disease was diagnosed in 16 and 30 % of patients, respectively. Surgical patients tended to have a better overall survival than non-surgical patients (p = 0.09). Tumor-related deaths, however, were 12 % in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: In LR submucosal EAC, the risk of metastatic disease appears to be very low. In deep submucosal EAC (either R0- or R1-resection), the rate of metastatic disease is lower than reported in earlier surgical series. Given the reasonable disease-free survival and high background mortality, conservative management of these patients seems to be a valid alternative for surgery in selected cases.
Authors: Stephen H Bailey; David A Bull; David H Harpole; Jeffrey J Rentz; Leigh A Neumayer; Theodore N Pappas; Jennifer Daley; William G Henderson; Barbara Krasnicka; Shukri F Khuri Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Andrew P Barbour; Mark Jones; Ian Brown; David C Gotley; Ian Martin; Janine Thomas; Andrew Clouston; B Mark Smithers Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-03-27 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: K Nadine Phoa; Roos E Pouw; Frederike G I van Vilsteren; Carine M T Sondermeijer; Fiebo J W Ten Kate; Mike Visser; Sybren L Meijer; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Bas L A M Weusten; Erik J Schoon; Rosalie C Mallant-Hent; Jacques J G H M Bergman Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2013-03-28 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Jessica M Leers; Steven R DeMeester; Arzu Oezcelik; Nancy Klipfel; Shahin Ayazi; Emmanuele Abate; Jörg Zehetner; John C Lipham; Linda Chan; Jeffrey A Hagen; Tom R DeMeester Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Hendrik Manner; Oliver Pech; Yvonne Heldmann; Andrea May; Michael Pauthner; Dietmar Lorenz; Annette Fisseler-Eckhoff; Manfred Stolte; Michael Vieth; Christian Ell Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-10-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: J J Gondrie; R E Pouw; C M T Sondermeijer; F P Peters; W L Curvers; W D Rosmolen; K K Krishnadath; F Ten Kate; P Fockens; J J Bergman Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Ganapathy A Prasad; Tsung Teh Wu; Dennis A Wigle; Navtej S Buttar; Louis-Michel Wongkeesong; Kelly T Dunagan; Lori S Lutzke; Lynn S Borkenhagen; Kenneth K Wang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2009-06-12 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Christina Oetzmann von Sochaczewski; Thomas Haist; Michael Pauthner; Markus Mann; Susanne Braun; Christian Ell; Dietmar Lorenz Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-04 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Fouad Otaki; Gene K Ma; Anna Krigel; Ross A Dierkhising; Jason T Lewis; Christopher H Blevins; Naveen P Gopalakrishnan; Adharsh Ravindran; Michele L Johnson; Cadman L Leggett; Denis Wigle; Kenneth K Wang; Gary W Falk; Julian A Abrams; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Anil K Rustgi; Timothy C Wang; Charles J Lightdale; Gregory G Ginsberg; Prasad G Iyer Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2020-01-15 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Durayd Alzoubaidi; Krish Ragunath; Sachin Wani; Ian D Penman; Nigel John Trudgill; Marnix Jansen; Matthew Banks; Pradeep Bhandari; Allan John Morris; Robert Willert; Phil Boger; Howard L Smart; Narayanasamy Ravi; Jason Dunn; Charles Gordon; Jayan Mannath; Inder Mainie; Massi di Pietro; Andrew M Veitch; Sally Thorpe; Cormac Magee; Martin Everson; Sarmed Sami; Paul Bassett; David Graham; Stephen Attwood; Oliver Pech; Prateek Sharma; Laurence B Lovat; Rehan Haidry Journal: Frontline Gastroenterol Date: 2019-08-14