Dennis Yang1, Fei Zou2, Sican Xiong2, Justin J Forde3, Yu Wang2, Peter V Draganov1. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in Barrett's esophagus (BE) is not well established. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ESD for the management of early BE neoplasia. METHODS: Three online databases were searched. The Cochran Q test and I2 were used to test for heterogeneity. Pooling was conducted using either fixed- or random-effects models depending on heterogeneity across studies. For the main outcomes, potential sources of heterogeneity were evaluated via linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Eleven studies (501 patients, 524 lesions) were included. Mean lesion size was 27 mm (95% confidence interval [CI], 20.9-33.1). Pooled estimate for en bloc resection was 92.9% (95% CI, 90.3%-95.2%). The pooled R0 (complete) and curative resection rates were 74.5% (95% CI, 66.3%-81.9%) and 64.9% (95% CI, 55.7%-73.6%), respectively. There was no association between R0 or curative resection rates and study setting (Asia vs West), length of BE, lesion characteristics, procedural time, or length of follow-up. The pooled estimates for perforation and bleeding were 1.5% (95% CI, .4%-3.0%) and 1.7% (95% CI, .6%-3.4%), respectively. Esophageal stricture rate was 11.6% (95% CI, .9%-29.6%). Incidence of recurrence after curative resection was .17% (95% CI, 0%-.3%) at a mean follow-up 22.9 months (95% CI, 17.5-28.3). CONCLUSIONS: ESD for early BE neoplasia is associated with a high en bloc resection rate, acceptable safety profile, and low recurrence after curative resection. ESD should be considered as part of the armamentarium for the management of BE neoplasia.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in Barrett's esophagus (BE) is not well established. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ESD for the management of early BE neoplasia. METHODS: Three online databases were searched. The Cochran Q test and I2 were used to test for heterogeneity. Pooling was conducted using either fixed- or random-effects models depending on heterogeneity across studies. For the main outcomes, potential sources of heterogeneity were evaluated via linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Eleven studies (501 patients, 524 lesions) were included. Mean lesion size was 27 mm (95% confidence interval [CI], 20.9-33.1). Pooled estimate for en bloc resection was 92.9% (95% CI, 90.3%-95.2%). The pooled R0 (complete) and curative resection rates were 74.5% (95% CI, 66.3%-81.9%) and 64.9% (95% CI, 55.7%-73.6%), respectively. There was no association between R0 or curative resection rates and study setting (Asia vs West), length of BE, lesion characteristics, procedural time, or length of follow-up. The pooled estimates for perforation and bleeding were 1.5% (95% CI, .4%-3.0%) and 1.7% (95% CI, .6%-3.4%), respectively. Esophageal stricture rate was 11.6% (95% CI, .9%-29.6%). Incidence of recurrence after curative resection was .17% (95% CI, 0%-.3%) at a mean follow-up 22.9 months (95% CI, 17.5-28.3). CONCLUSIONS: ESD for early BE neoplasia is associated with a high en bloc resection rate, acceptable safety profile, and low recurrence after curative resection. ESD should be considered as part of the armamentarium for the management of BE neoplasia.
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
Authors: Bram D Vermeulen; Britt van der Leeden; Jawad T Ali; Tomas Gudbjartsson; Michael Hermansson; Donald E Low; Douglas G Adler; Abraham J Botha; Xavier B D'Journo; Atila Eroglu; Lorenzo E Ferri; Christoph Gubler; Jan Willem Haveman; Lileswar Kaman; Richard A Kozarek; Simon Law; Gunnar Loske; Joerg Lindenmann; Jung-Hoon Park; J David Richardson; Paulina Salminen; Ho-Yong Song; Jon A Søreide; Manon C W Spaander; Jeffrey N Tarascio; Jon A Tsai; Tim Vanuytsel; Camiel Rosman; Peter D Siersema Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2020-07-17 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: D Chamil Codipilly; Lovekirat Dhaliwal; Meher Oberoi; Parth Gandhi; Michele L Johnson; Ramona M Lansing; W Scott Harmsen; Kenneth K Wang; Prasad G Iyer Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Peter V Draganov; Hiroyuki Aihara; Michael S Karasik; Saowanee Ngamruengphong; Abdul Aziz Aadam; Mohamed O Othman; Neil Sharma; Ian S Grimm; Alaa Rostom; B Joseph Elmunzer; Salmaan A Jawaid; Donevan Westerveld; Yaseen B Perbtani; Brenda J Hoffman; Alexander Schlachterman; Amanda Siegel; Roxana M Coman; Andrew Y Wang; Dennis Yang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 22.682