Upfront endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial squamous cell carcinoma is superior to upfront surgical therapy

Close Observation versus Additional Surgery after Noncurative Endoscopic Resection of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

After noncurative endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SESCC), additional esophagectomy is generally recommended. However, considering its high mortality and morbidity, it is uncertain if additional surgery improves the clinical outcomes. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes between patients who were observed without additional treatment and those who underwent radical esophagectomy.

METHODS

A total of 52 patients with SESCC who underwent complete but noncurative ESD from January 2008 to December 2016 at the Samsung Medical Center and Asan Medical Center in Korea were retrospectively analyzed. Clinicopathologic characteristics and oncologic outcomes were compared between the observation group (n = 23) and the additional surgery group (n = 29).

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 34.4 and 41.7 months, respectively, the rates of death (observation vs. surgery, 17.4 vs. 10.3%; p = 0.686), recurrence (observation vs. surgery, 13 vs. 17.2%; p = 1.000), and disease-specific death (observation vs. surgery, 4.3 vs. 6.9%; p = 1.000) did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. The 3-year overall survival was 86.3 and 96.4%, respectively (p = 0.776). The 3-year recurrence-free survival (observation vs. surgery, 85.0 vs. 88.7%; p = 0.960) and disease-specific survival (observation vs. surgery, 95.2 vs. 96.4%; p = 0.564) also did not significantly differ.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical outcomes of close observation of noncuratively resected SESCC are comparable to those of additional surgery, at least in the midterm. The wait-and-see strategy could be a feasible management option after noncurative ESD of SESCC in selected patients.

Clinical feasibility and oncologic safety of primary endoscopic submucosal dissection for clinical submucosal invasive early gastric cancer

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical feasibility and oncologic safety of primary endoscopic submucosal dissection for cT1bN0M0 gastric cancer by identifying patients who had undergone curative resection after endoscopic submucosal dissection and patients who had undergone primary surgery but could be treated with endoscopic submucosal dissection.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients with cT1bN0M0 gastric cancer (size: ≤ 30 mm) and differentiated histology from January 2007 to May 2017. Submucosal invasion was evaluated using conventional endoscopy and endoscopic ultrasonography. Patients were divided into the primary endoscopic submucosal dissection and primary surgery groups according to initial treatment.

RESULTS

Curative resection rate was 65.0% (91/140) in the primary endoscopic submucosal dissection group. Of patients in the primary surgery group, 49.1% (82/167) were considered eligible for endoscopic submucosal dissection. No differences in en bloc resection rate were observed between pT1a and pT1b gastric cancers after endoscopic submucosal dissection (97.8 vs. 97.9%). However, the negative horizontal margin rate was higher in pT1a gastric cancer than pT1b gastric cancer (98.9 vs. 91.3%). There was no difference in overall survival among the curative treatment groups (log rank P = 0.310).

CONCLUSION

In this study, 173 (56.4%) out of 307 patients with cT1bN0M0 gastric cancer could avoid unnecessary surgery if primary endoscopic submucosal dissection was used. Based on these findings, it is necessary to add an appropriate indication for endoscopic submucosal dissection in patients with cT1b gastric cancer. Further management could be determined based on pathologic findings after primary endoscopic submucosal dissection.