Lady Katherine Mejia Perez1, Dennis Yang2, Peter V Draganov2, Salmaan Jawaid3, Amitabh Chak4, John Dumot4, Omar Alaber4, John J Vargo1, Sunguk Jang1, Neal Mehta1, Norio Fukami5, Tiffany Chua5, Moamen Gabr6, Praneeth Kudaravalli6, Hiroyuki Aihara7, Fauze Maluf-Filho8, Saowanee Ngamruengphong9, Milad Pourmousavi Khoshknab9, Amit Bhatt1. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. 3. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. 4. Digestive Health Institute, University Hospitals, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 5. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA. 6. Department of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA. 7. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 8. Department of Gastroenterology, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 9. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The difference in clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia remains unclear. We compared the recurrence/residual tissue rates, resection outcomes, and adverse events after ESD and EMR for early BE neoplasia. METHODS: We included patients who underwent EMR or ESD for BE-associated high grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) at eight academic hospitals. We compared demographic, procedural, and histologic characteristics, and follow-up data. A time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence/residual disease and a Kaplan-Meier curve was used to compare the groups. RESULTS: 243 patients (150 EMR; 93 ESD) were included. EMR had lower en bloc (43 % vs. 89 %; P < 0.001) and R0 (56 % vs. 73 %; P = 0.01) rates than ESD. There was no difference in the rates of perforation (0.7 % vs. 0; P > 0.99), early bleeding (0.7 % vs. 1 %; P > 0.99), delayed bleeding (3.3 % vs. 2.1 %; P = 0.71), and stricture (10 % vs. 16 %; P = 0.16) between EMR and ESD. Patients with non-curative resections who underwent further therapy were excluded from the recurrence analysis. Recurrent/residual disease was 31.4 % [44/140] for EMR and 3.5 % [3/85] for ESD during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 15.5 (6.75-30) and 8 (2-18) months, respectively. Recurrence-/residual disease-free survival was significantly higher in the ESD group. More patients required additional endoscopic resection procedures to treat recurrent/residual disease after EMR (EMR 24.2 % vs. ESD 3.5 %; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ESD is safe and results in more definitive treatment of early BE neoplasia, with significantly lower recurrence/residual disease rates and less need for repeat endoscopic treatments than with EMR. Thieme. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: The difference in clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia remains unclear. We compared the recurrence/residual tissue rates, resection outcomes, and adverse events after ESD and EMR for early BE neoplasia. METHODS: We included patients who underwent EMR or ESD for BE-associated high grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) at eight academic hospitals. We compared demographic, procedural, and histologic characteristics, and follow-up data. A time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence/residual disease and a Kaplan-Meier curve was used to compare the groups. RESULTS: 243 patients (150 EMR; 93 ESD) were included. EMR had lower en bloc (43 % vs. 89 %; P < 0.001) and R0 (56 % vs. 73 %; P = 0.01) rates than ESD. There was no difference in the rates of perforation (0.7 % vs. 0; P > 0.99), early bleeding (0.7 % vs. 1 %; P > 0.99), delayed bleeding (3.3 % vs. 2.1 %; P = 0.71), and stricture (10 % vs. 16 %; P = 0.16) between EMR and ESD. Patients with non-curative resections who underwent further therapy were excluded from the recurrence analysis. Recurrent/residual disease was 31.4 % [44/140] for EMR and 3.5 % [3/85] for ESD during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 15.5 (6.75-30) and 8 (2-18) months, respectively. Recurrence-/residual disease-free survival was significantly higher in the ESD group. More patients required additional endoscopic resection procedures to treat recurrent/residual disease after EMR (EMR 24.2 % vs. ESD 3.5 %; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ESD is safe and results in more definitive treatment of early BE neoplasia, with significantly lower recurrence/residual disease rates and less need for repeat endoscopic treatments than with EMR. Thieme. All rights reserved.