| Literature DB >> 27618866 |
Hyung Chul Park1, Do Hoon Kim2, Eun Jeong Gong2, Hee Kyong Na2, Ji Yong Ahn2, Jeong Hoon Lee2, Kee Wook Jung2, Kee Don Choi2, Ho June Song2, Gin Hyug Lee2, Hwoon-Yong Jung2, Jin-Ho Kim2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of a superficial esophageal neoplasm (SEN) is a technically difficult procedure. We investigated the clinical outcomes of ESD to determine its feasibility and effectiveness for the treatment of SEN.Entities:
Keywords: En bloc resection; Endoscopic submucosal dissection; Esophageal neoplasms
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27618866 PMCID: PMC5094928 DOI: 10.3904/kjim.2015.210
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Intern Med ISSN: 1226-3303 Impact factor: 2.884
Characteristics of the patients with superficial esophageal neoplasms (n = 225)
| Characteristic | Value |
|---|---|
| Age, yr | 65 (44–86) |
| Sex, mela:female | 215:10 |
| Smoking | |
| Current smoker | 90 (34.5) |
| Ex-smoker | 129 (49.4) |
| Non-smoker | 42 (16.1) |
| Alcohol | |
| Alcoholics | 133 (51) |
| Ex-alcoholics | 90 (34.5) |
| Non-alcoholics | 38 (l4.6) |
| Lesion characteristics (n = 261) | |
| Location | |
| Upper esophagus | 11 (4.2) |
| Middle esophagus | 156 (59.8) |
| Lower esophagus | 94 (36) |
| Histology | |
| Dysplasia | 70 (26.8) |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | 191 (73.2) |
| Lesion size, mm | 18.8 (2–75) |
| Resected specimen size, mm | 37 (5–85) |
| Procedure time, min | 45 (9–160) |
| Histologic depth of invasion | |
| T0 | 70 (26.8) |
| m1 | 86 (33) |
| m2 | 67 (25.6) |
| m3 | 19 (7.3) |
| Sm | 19 (7.3) |
| Circumference, % | |
| < 50 | 198 (75.9) |
| 50-75 | 52 (19.9) |
| > 75 | 11 (4.2) |
| | 245 (93.9) |
| Complete resection | 234 (89.7) |
| Curative resection | 201 (77.0) |
| Complication | 33 (12.6) |
| Bleeding | 4 (1.5) |
| Perforation | 12 (4.6) |
| Stricture | 17 (6.5) |
Values are presented as median (range) or number (%).
T0, dysplasia; m1, intraepithelial carcinoma; m2, tumors located between m1 and m3; m3, tumor extremely close to or infiltrating the muscularis mucosa; Sm, submucosal invasion.
Figure 1.Clinical course of patients with curative resection. Among the study population, curative resection was achieved in 201 cases of superficial esophageal neoplasm after endoscopic submucosal dissection. The remaining 60 cases were classified into non-curative resection after histopathological evaluation because of incomplete resection, submucosal invasion (SMI), lymphovascular invasion (LVI), or piecemeal resection (PR). Oncologic outcome was evaluated for 201 superficial esophageal neoplasms (SENs) in 181 patients. IR, incomplete resection; ER, endoscopic resection; LR, local recurrence; SR, synchronous recurrence; MR, metachronous recurrence; OP, operation; APC, argon plasma coagulation; EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection.
Figure 2.Long-term outcomes of patients with complete but non-curative resection (non-CuR) of superficial esophageal neoplasm. Among six patients who did not undergo additional treatment because of old age or patients’ refusal, none showed recurrence, and only one patient died of an unrelated cause during the follow-up period. CR, complete resection; SMI, submucosal invasion; LVI, lymphovascular invasion; PR, piecemeal resection; CCRT, chemoradiation; OP, operation; Obs, observation; Rec, recurrence; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; RT, radiotherapy; CTx, chemotherapy.
Figure 3.The results of survival analysis. (A) The 5-year disease-specific survival rates in curative resection patients and (B) the 5-year cumulative survival rates.