| Literature DB >> 27556083 |
Roxana M Coman1, Takuji Gotoda2, Christopher E Forsmark1, Peter V Draganov1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) carries significant advantages over endoscopic mucosal resection. As such, ESD is an established therapy for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma but there are only limited data on ESD as therapy for Barrett's esophagus (BE). Thus, we prospectively evaluated the outcomes of ESD in patients with BE with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) performed in a Western center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study. Indications for ESD included: (1) early EAC defined as lesions with intramucosal cancer or superficial submucosal invasion; (2) early EAC with positive lateral margin after EMR; and (3) nodularity with HGD that could not be removed en-bloc with EMREntities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27556083 PMCID: PMC4993890 DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-101788
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Patient characteristics.
| Clinical characteristics | |
| Number of patients (n) | 36 |
| Female/male | 4/32 |
| Age, median (range), years | 69 (42 – 80) |
| Prior treatment, n (%)EMR onlyCombination (EMR, APC, cryotherapy) | 4 (11)10 (28) |
| Lesion characteristics | |
| Location, n (%)Esophageal bodyGastroesophageal junction | 14 (39)22 (61) |
| Barrett’s extent, median (range), cmCircumferentialMaximum | 0 (0 – 10) 2 (1 – 11) |
| Macroscopic type (Paris classification), n (%) Ip Iia IibMixed III | 8 (22)20 (56) 2 (6) 5 (14) 1 (2) |
EMR, endoscopic submucosal resection; APC, argon plasma coagulation
ESD characteristics.
| En-bloc resection | 36 (100 %) |
| Procedure duration, median (range), min | 88 (34 – 358) |
| Maximum specimen diameter, median (range), mm | 49 (21 – 125) |
| Resected area, median, mm2 | 1673 |
| Extent of resection, n (%) Less than 25 % 25 – 50 % 51 – 75 % More than 75 % | 0 16 (44) 13 (36) 7 (20) |
| Submucosal fibrosis, n (%) None Mild Moderate Severe | 21 (58) 8 (22) 4 (11) 3 (8) |
| Adverse events – total, n (%) | 8 (22) |
| Early (within 24 hours), n (%) Bleeding Perforation | 1 (3) 0 |
| Late Bleeding Stenosis Perforation | 0 7 (19) 0 |
Histopathologic evaluation.
| R0 resection, n (%) | 29 (81 %) |
| Incomplete resection, n (%) At lateral margin At deep margin At both margins | 0 3 (8) 4 (11) |
| Pathology, n (%) High-grade dysplasia Intramucosal adenocarcinoma Invasive adenocarcinoma | 10 (28)13 (36) 13 (36) |
| Histological grade, n G1 G2 G3 Gx | 10 11 3 3 |
| Depth of invasion, n pT1a pT1b pT2 | 1310 3 |
| Lymphatic and vascular invasion, n | 8 |
Gx, grade cannot be assessed
Discrepancies between pre- and post-ESD histopathologic evaluation.
| Pre-ESD biopsy | ||||
| High-grade dysplasia | Intramucosal EAC | Invasive EAC with submucosal involvement | ||
| Post-ESD | High-grade dysplasia | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| Intramucosal EAC | 5 | 7 | 1 | |
| Invasive AC with submucosal involvement | 5 | 5 | 3 | |
ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; EAC early esophageal adenocarcinoma; AC, adenocarcinoma
Fig. 1Endoscopic submucosal dissection with curative resection of Barrett’s esophagus in a 64-year-old male. a Endoscopic view of C0M2 Barrett’s esophagus with a 1-cm lesion, Paris classification 0 – IIa + IIc. b Resection area after dissection and hemostasis. c Resected specimen with at least 10-mm safety margin around the suspected neoplastic lesions.