BACKGROUND/AIM: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of additional surgical resection (ASR) after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for superficial esophageal cancer (SEC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinicopathological features and prognoses were analyzed in esophageal cancer (EC) cases with the indication for additional treatments (AT) after ESD (37 cases) and in cases that underwent primary resection (13 cases). RESULTS: Sixteen out of 37 cases underwent ASR. The remaining 21 cases underwent other treatments or observation. Although all ASR cases are alive without recurrence, recurrence developed in 2 non-ASR cases. Residual tumors were detected in 2 ASR cases. All 4 cases were T1b and positive for lymph vessel invasion (ly+). No significant difference was observed in surgical outcomes between ASR and primary surgical resection (PSR) cases. CONCLUSION: AT need to be considered for T1b and ly+ cases, and ASR is one of the effective AT. The safety of ASR was similar to PSR for SEC. Copyright
BACKGROUND/AIM: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of additional surgical resection (ASR) after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for superficial esophageal cancer (SEC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinicopathological features and prognoses were analyzed in esophageal cancer (EC) cases with the indication for additional treatments (AT) after ESD (37 cases) and in cases that underwent primary resection (13 cases). RESULTS: Sixteen out of 37 cases underwent ASR. The remaining 21 cases underwent other treatments or observation. Although all ASR cases are alive without recurrence, recurrence developed in 2 non-ASR cases. Residual tumors were detected in 2 ASR cases. All 4 cases were T1b and positive for lymph vessel invasion (ly+). No significant difference was observed in surgical outcomes between ASR and primary surgical resection (PSR) cases. CONCLUSION: AT need to be considered for T1b and ly+ cases, and ASR is one of the effective AT. The safety of ASR was similar to PSR for SEC. Copyright