Analysis of metastases rates during follow-up after endoscopic resection of early "high-risk" esophageal adenocarcinoma

Outcomes after radical endoscopic resection of high risk T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma: an international multicenter retrospective cohort study

Post-endoscopic resection (ER) management of high risk T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is debated, with conflicting reports on lymph node metastasis (LNM). We aimed to assess outcomes following radical ER for high risk T1 EAC.We identified patients who underwent radical ER (tumor-negative deep margin) of high risk T1 EAC, followed by surgery or endoscopic surveillance, between 2008 and 2019 across 11 international centers.106 patients (86 men; mean [SD] age, 70 [11] years) were included. Of these, 26 (age, 64 [11] years) underwent additional surgery, with residual T1 EAC found in five patients (19%) and LNM in two (8%). After a median [IQR] follow-up of 47 [32-79] months, 2/26 patients (8%) developed LNM/distant metastasis, with one EAC-related death (4%), one unrelated death (4%), and four patients lost to follow-up (15%). Of the 80 patients (age, 71 [9] years) who entered endoscopic surveillance, 5/80 (6%) developed LNM/distant metastasis, with four EAC-related deaths (5%) over 46 (IQR 25-59) months follow-up; there were 15 unrelated deaths (19%), and 10 patients lost to follow-up (13%). The overall rates (95%CI) were: LNM, 6% (2%-12%); LNM/distant metastasis, 7% (3%-13%); EAC-related mortality, 5% (2%-11%); overall mortality, 20% (95%CI 13-29).Our findings present low rates of LNM after radical ER of high risk T1 EAC, consistent with other endoscopy-focused studies. Post-surgical patients are still at risk for metastasis and disease-specific mortality. These results suggest that endoscopic surveillance is suitable for selected cases, but further prospective studies are needed to refine patient selection and confirm optimal outcomes.

[Endoscopic Diagnosis and Treatment of Early Mucosal Neoplasms in the Oesophagus]

Endoscopy is the gold standard for diagnosis of oesophageal cancer and its precursor lesions. Besides this, endoscopic treatment of these precursor lesions and early oesophageal cancer has been well evaluated and established. This includes dysplastic lesions associated with Barrett's oesophagus and early adenocarcinoma, as well as early squamous cell cancer of the oesophagus. The role of endoscopy for diagnosis and treatment of these lesions is summarised.

Reasons for fear of cancer recurrence after endoscopic treatment of T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma. A semi-structured interview study

Prior research has shown that patients with early Barrett's neoplasia treated endoscopically report at least the same level of fear for cancer recurrence as patients treated surgically for a more advanced disease stage. The aim of this qualitative study was to gain insight into the reasons why endoscopically treated patients fear or not fear cancer recurrence. Patients treated endoscopically for T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma participated in a semi-structured interview. Patients were asked open questions about their fear of cancer recurrence and presented an a priori list of possible reasons for experiencing or not experiencing fear of cancer recurrence. Data saturation was reached with 12 patients who added 7 new reasons. Reasons that induced fear of cancer recurrence were related to physical symptoms, if cancer was diagnosed as an accidental finding and experiences with cancer in close relations. Endoscopic surveillance was mentioned as a reason for not experiencing fear of cancer recurrence. Patients reduced their fear of cancer recurrence by talking to close relations and seeking distraction. Caregivers reduced patients fear of cancer recurrence by giving adequate information and by showing photo of the treatment and the results of the treatment. According to patients with early Barrett's neoplasia, receiving comprehensible information about the risk of recurrence and potential symptoms that may or may not be indicative of cancer recurrence, and continuing endoscopic surveillance, reduced fear of cancer recurrence. We recommend that healthcare providers discuss fear of cancer recurrence with their patients to enable tailoring information provision to their needs.

Predictors for lymph node metastasis and survival of patients with T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma treated with surgery and endoscopic therapy: an analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Limited data exist regarding the long-term outcomes of endoscopic therapy (ET) with or without chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Our aim was to identify the risk factors for lymph node metastasis (LNM) in T1b EAC and assess how the chosen treatment modality affects overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS).

METHODS

We analyzed patients with histologically confirmed T1b EAC diagnosed between 2004 and 2018 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Focusing on T1bN0M0 staging, the patients were divided into 2 groups (ET [n = 174] and surgery [n = 769]), and OS and CSS rates were calculated.

RESULTS

Of 1418 patients with T1b EAC, 228 cases (16.1%) exhibited LNM at diagnosis. Notable risk factors for LNM included poorly differentiated tumor and lesion size ≥20 mm. For T1bN0M0 cases, ET was commonly performed from 2009 to 2018 (odds ratio [OR], 4.3), especially for patients aged ≥65 years (OR, 3.1) with tumor size <20 mm (OR, 2.3). During the median 50 months of follow-up, age ≥65 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.9), ET (HR, 1.5), and CRT (HR, 1.4) were associated with poorer OS. Factors linked to decreased CSS were age ≥65 years (subhazard ratio [SHR], 1.6), poorly differentiated tumors (SHR, 1.5), and CRT (SHR, 1.5).

CONCLUSIONS

In T1b EAC, tumor size ≥20 mm and poor differentiation are notable risk factors for LNM. ET exhibited comparable CSS outcomes to surgery for carefully selected T1bN0M0 lesions. CRT did not provide additional survival benefit for these lesions; however, large-scale studies are required to validate this finding.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early esophageal adenocarcinoma: low rates of metastases in mucosal cancers with poor differentiation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic resection is accepted as standard treatment for intramucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) that is well or moderately differentiated. Poor differentiation (PD) is judged as a risk factor for lymph node metastasis (LNM), and surgery is recommended. However, the evidence for this recommendation is weak. The aim of this study was to analyze the clinical course of patients after endoscopic resection of EAC with PD.

METHODS

Patients undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection for EAC were included from 16 German centers. Inclusion criteria were PD in the resection specimen, R0 resection, and endoscopic follow-up. Primary outcome was the metastasis rate during follow-up. Analysis was performed retrospectively in a prospectively collected database.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients with PD as single risk factor (group A) and 15 patients with PD and additional risk factors (submucosal invasion and/or lymphovascular invasion) (group B) were included. The metastasis rate was was 1 of 25 (4.0%; 95% CI, .4%-17.2%) in group A and 3 of 15 (20.0%; 95% CI, 6.0%-44.4%) in group B, respectively (P = .293). The rate of EAC-associated deaths was 1 of 25 (4%; 95% CI, .4%-17.2%) versus 3 of 15 (20%; 95% CI, 6.0%-44.4%) in group B (P = .293). The overall death rate was 7 of 25 (28.0%; 95% CI, 13.5%-47.3%) versus 3 of 15 (20%; 95% CI, 6.0%-44.4%) (P = .715). Median follow-up was 30 months (interquartile range, 15-53 months).

CONCLUSIONS

During long-term follow-up, the risk of metastasis is low after endoscopic resection of mucosal EAC with PD as a single risk factor. A conservative approach seems justified in this small patient group. However, the treatment strategy must be determined on an individualized basis until further prospective data are available.

What can the Interventional Endoscopist Offer in the Management of Upper Gastrointestinal Malignancies?

The therapeutic possibilities of endoscopy have rapidly increased in the last decades and now allow organ-sparing treatment of early upper gastrointestinal malignancy as well as an increasing number of options for symptom palliation. This review contains an overview of the interventional endoscopic procedures in upper gastrointestinal malignancies. It describes endoscopic treatment of early oesophageal and gastric cancers, and the palliative options in managing dysphagia and gastric outlet obstruction. It also provides an overview of the therapeutic possibilities of biliary endoscopy, such as retrograde stenting and radiofrequency biliary ablation. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided therapeutic options are discussed, including biliary drainage, gastrojejunostomy and coeliac axis block. To aid in clinical decision making, the procedures are described in the context of their indication, efficacy, risks and limitations.

Risk of metastasis among patients diagnosed with high-risk T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma who underwent endoscopic follow-up

Esophagectomy and lymphadenectomy have been the standard of care for patients at high risk (HR) of lymph node metastasis following a diagnosis of early esophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) after endoscopic resection (ER). However, recent cohorts suggest lymph node metastasis risk is lower than initially estimated, suggesting organ preservation with close endoscopic follow-up is a viable option. We report on the 3- and 5-year risk of lymph node/distant metastasis among patients diagnosed with early HR-T1 OAC undergoing endoscopic follow-up. Patients diagnosed with HR-T1a or T1b OAC following ER at a tertiary referral center were identified and retrospectively analyzed from clinical records between 2010 and 2021. Patients were included if they underwent endoscopic follow-up after resection and were divided into HR-T1a, low risk (LR)-T1b and HR-T1b cohorts. After ER, 47 patients underwent endoscopic follow-up for early HR OAC. In total, 39 patients had an R0 resection with a combined 3- and 5-year risk of LN/distant metastasis of 6.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.8-25] and 10.9% (95% CI, 3.6-30.2%), respectively. There was no significant difference when stratifying by histopathological subtype (P = 0.64). Among those without persistent luminal disease on follow-up, the 5-year risk was 4.1% (95% CI, 0.6-26.1). Two patients died secondary to OAC with an all-cause 5-year survival of 57.5% (95% CI, 39.5-71.9). The overall risk of LN/distant metastasis for early HR T1 OAC was lower than historically reported. Endoscopic surveillance can be a reasonable approach in highly selected patients with an R0 resection and complete luminal eradication, but clear, evidence-based surveillance guidelines are needed.

Towards personalized management of early esophageal adenocarcinoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to discuss recent advancements in the endoscopic management of early esophageal adenocarcinoma (T1 EAC).

RECENT FINDINGS

Patients with high-risk EAC (defined by the presence of deep submucosal invasion, and/or lymphovascular invasion, and/or poor differentiation) have a higher risk of lymph node metastases than those with low-risk EAC. However, more recent, endoscopically-focused studies report a lower risk of lymph node metastases and distant metastases for high-risk EAC than previously assumed. Instead of referring all high-risk EAC patients for esophagectomy after a radical endoscopic resection, an alternative approach involving regular upper endoscopy with endoscopic ultrasound may allow for detection of intra-luminal recurrence and lymph node metastases at an early and potentially curable stage.

SUMMARY

Endoscopic resection of mucosal and submucosal EAC might prove to be safe and curative for selected cases in the future, when followed by a strict follow-up protocol. Despite the promising results of preliminary studies, there is an ongoing need for personalized strategies and new risk stratification methods to decide on the best management for individual patients with high-risk T1 EAC.

Evolution of the treatment of esophageal cancer: artificial intelligence and the role of sentinel lymph node assessment in esophageal cancer

Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy has revolutionized the staging and prognosis of breast cancer and melanoma. Because of the complicated lymphatic network around the esophagus, the utility of SLN biopsy for esophageal cancer is less clear. The accuracy of SLN mapping in esophageal cancer depends on tumor site, disease stage, use of neoadjuvant therapy, and patient characteristics. SLN biopsy may improve staging and result in less morbidity in patients with early esophageal cancer, compared with radical lymphadenectomy and esophagectomy. A recent study that investigated hybrid tracers in sentinel node navigation surgery (SNNS) demonstrated promising results for the detection of peritumoral SLNs. However, evidence that firmly establishes the concept of the SLN for esophageal cancer is still lacking. Big data analytics and artificial intelligence have been associated with improvements in the detection and prognosis of esophageal cancer. This review considers the roles of the evolving technologies of SLN biopsy and artificial intelligence, which together have the potential to further improve prognoses and outcomes for patients with esophageal cancer. Additional investigation is necessary to establish standardized protocols and to determine the long-term effectiveness of these approaches in settings involving neoadjuvant therapy and advanced-stage disease.

Endoscopic Resection of Malignancies in the Upper GI Tract: A Clinical Algorithm

Background

Malignancies in the upper gastrointestinal tract are amenable to endoscopic resection at an early stage. Achieving a curative resection is the most stringent quality criterion, but post-resection risk assessment and aftercare are also part of a comprehensive quality program.

Summary

Various factors influence the achievement of curative resection. These include endoscopic assessment prior to resection using chromoendoscopy and HD technology. If resectability is possible, it is particularly important to delineate the lateral resection margins as precisely as possible before resection. Furthermore, the correct choice of resection technique depending on the lesion must be taken into account. Endoscopic submucosal dissection is the standard for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and gastric carcinoma. In Western countries, it is becoming increasingly popular to treat Barrett's neoplasia over 2 cm in size and/or with suspected submucosal infiltration with en bloc resection instead of piece meal resection. After resection, risk assessment based on the histopathological resection determines the patient's individual risk of lymph node metastases, particularly in the case of high-risk lesions. This is categorized according to the current literature.

Key Messages

This review presents clinical algorithms for endoscopic resection of esophageal SCC, Barrett's neoplasia, and gastric neoplasia. The algorithms include the pre-resection assessment of the lesion and the resection margins, the adequate resection technique for the respective lesion, as well as the post-resection risk assessment with an evidence-based recommendation for follow-up therapy and surveillance.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on monitoring and management of Barrett's oesophagus and stage I oesophageal adenocarcinoma

Barrett's oesophagus is the only known precursor to oesophageal adenocarcinoma, a cancer with very poor prognosis. The main risk factors for Barrett's oesophagus are a history of gastro-oesophageal acid reflux symptoms and obesity. Men, smokers and those with a family history are also at increased risk. Progression from Barrett's oesophagus to cancer occurs via an intermediate stage, known as dysplasia. However, dysplasia and early cancer usually develop without any clinical signs, often in individuals whose symptoms are well controlled by acid suppressant medications; therefore, endoscopic surveillance is recommended to allow for early diagnosis and timely clinical intervention. Individuals with Barrett's oesophagus need to be fully informed about the implications of this diagnosis and the benefits and risks of monitoring strategies. Pharmacological treatments are recommended for control of symptoms, but not for chemoprevention. Dysplasia and stage 1 oesophageal adenocarcinoma have excellent prognoses, since they can be cured with endoscopic or surgical therapies. Endoscopic resection is the most accurate staging technique for early Barrett's-related oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Endoscopic ablation is effective and indicated to eradicate Barrett's oesophagus in patients with dysplasia. Future research should focus on improved accuracy for dysplasia detection via new technologies and providing more robust evidence to support pathways for follow-up and treatment.

Clinical Outcomes After Endoscopic Management of Low-Risk and High-Risk T1a Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Multicenter Study

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is standard of care for T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, data on outcomes in high-risk T1a EAC are limited. We assessed and compared outcomes after EET of low-risk and high-risk T1a EAC, including intraluminal EAC recurrence, extraesophageal metastases, and overall survival.

METHODS

Patients who underwent EET for T1a EAC at 3 referral Barrett's esophagus endotherapy units between 1996 and 2022 were included. Patients with submucosal invasion, positive deep margins, or metastases at initial diagnosis were excluded. High-risk T1a EAC was defined as T1a EAC with poor differentiation and/or lymphovascular invasion, with low-risk disease being defined without these features. All pathology was systematically assessed by expert gastrointestinal pathologists. Baseline and follow-up endoscopy and pathology data were abstracted. Time-to-event analyses were performed to compare outcomes between groups.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-eight patients with T1a EAC were included (high risk, n = 45; low risk, n = 143) with a median age of 70 years, and 84% were men. Groups were comparable for age, sex, Barrett's esophagus length, lesion size, and EET technique. Rates of delayed extraesophageal metastases (11.1% vs 1.4%) were significantly higher in the high-risk group ( P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the rates of intraluminal EAC recurrence ( P = 0.79) and overall survival ( P = 0.73) between the 2 groups.

DISCUSSION

Patients with high-risk T1a EAC undergoing successful EET had a substantially higher rate of extraesophageal metastases compared with those with low-risk T1a EAC on long-term follow-up. These data should be factored into discussions with patients while selecting treatment approaches. Additional prospective data in this area are critical.

[Endoscopic Diagnosis and Treatment of Early Mucosal Neoplasms in the Oesophagus]

Endoscopy is the gold standard for diagnosis of oesophageal cancer and its precursor lesions. Besides this, endoscopy treatment of these precursor lesions and early oesophageal cancer has been well evaluated and established. This includes dysplastic lesions associated with Barrett's oesophagus and early adenocarcinoma, as well as early squamous cell cancer of the oesophagus. The role of endoscopy for diagnosis and treatment of these lesions is summarised.

The association between histological subtypes and lymph node metastasis and prognosis in early esophageal cancer: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

There is still a lack of high-level clinical evidence and uniform conclusions on whether there are differences in lymph node metastasis (LNM) and prognosis between early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).

METHODS

Patients with surgically resected, histologically diagnosed, pT1 EAC or ESCC in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registries database from 2004 to 2015 were included. Multivariable logistic regression, Cox regression, multivariate competing risk model, and propensity score matching were used to analyze association the histology and LNM or prognosis.

RESULTS

A total of 570 early esophageal cancer patients were included. The LNM rates were 13.8% and 15.1% for EAC and ESCC ( P  = 0.757), respectively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed no significant association between histological type and LNM (odds ratio [OR], 1.209; 95% CI, 0.538-2.715; P  = 0.646). Moreover, the prognosis of early EAC and ESCC was shown to be comparable in both multivariate Cox regression (hazard ratio [HR], 1.483; 95% CI, 0.699-3.150; P  = 0.305) and the multivariate competing risk model (subdistribution HR, 1.451; 95% CI, 0.628-3.354; P  = 0.383). After propensity score matching, there were no significant differences between early EAC and ESCC in terms of LNM (10.6% vs.18.2%, P  = 0.215), 5-year CSS (89.8% [95% CI, 81.0%-98.6%] vs. 79.1% [95% CI, 67.9%-90.3%], P  = 0.102) and 5-year cumulative incidence of CSS (10.2% [95% CI, 1.4%-19.0%] vs. 79.1% [95% CI, 9.7%-32.1%], P  = 0.124).

CONCLUSION

The risk of LNM and prognosis of early ESCC and EAC are comparable, so the treatment choice for early esophageal cancer does not depend on the histologic type.

Curative criteria for endoscopic treatment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma

The incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma has been increasing rapidly in the Western world. A well-known risk factor for developing this type of tumour is reflux disease, which can cause metaplasia from the squamous cell mucosa to columnar epithelium (Barrett's Oesophagus) which can progress to dysplasia and eventually adenocarcinoma. With the rise of the incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma, research on the best way to manage this disease is of great importance and has changed treatment modalities over the last decades. The gold standard for superficial adenocarcinoma has shifted from surgical to endoscopic management when certain criteria are met. This review will discuss the different curative criteria for endoscopic treatment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Management of high risk T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma following endoscopic resection

High-risk T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma (HR-T1 EAC) is defined as T1 cancer, with one or more of the following histological criteria: submucosal invasion, poorly or undifferentiated cancer, and/or presence of lympho-vascular invasion. Esophagectomy has long been the only available treatment for these HR-T1 EACs and was considered necessary because of a presumed high risk of lymph node metastases up to 46%. However, endoscopic submucosal disscection have made it possible to radically remove HR-T1 EAC, irrespective of size, while leaving the esophageal anatomy intact. Parallel to this development, new publications demonstrated that the risk of lymph node metastases for HR-T1 EAC may be even <24%. Therefore, indications for endoscopic treatment of HR-T1 EAC are being reconsidered and current research aims at finding the optimal management strategy for this indication, where watchful waiting may proof to be an acceptable strategy in selected patients. In this review, we will discuss the latest developments in this field.

Esophageal cancer - French intergroup clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, SFP, RENAPE, SNFCP, AFEF, SFR)

INTRODUCTION

This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of esophageal cancer (EC) published in July 2022, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org).

METHODS

This collaborative work was conducted under the auspices of several French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of EC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B and C), according to the level of evidence found in the literature until April 2022.

RESULTS

EC diagnosis and staging evaluation are mainly based on patient's general condition assessment, endoscopy plus biopsies, TAP CT-scan and 18F FDG-PET. Surgery alone is recommended for early-stage EC, while locally advanced disease (N+ and/or T3-4) is treated with perioperative chemotherapy (FLOT) or preoperative chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by immunotherapy for adenocarcinoma. Preoperative chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by immunotherapy or definitive chemoradiation with the possibility of organ preservation are the two options for squamous cell carcinoma. Salvage surgery is recommended for incomplete response or recurrence after definitive chemoradiation and should be performed in an expert center. Treatment for metastatic disease is based on systemic therapy including chemotherapy, immunotherapy or combined targeted therapy according to biomarkers testing such as HER2 status, MMR status and PD-L1 expression.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines are intended to provide a personalised therapeutic strategy for daily clinical practice and are subject to ongoing optimization. Each individual case should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

Diagnosis and management of Barrett esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

MR1 : ESGE recommends the following standards for Barrett esophagus (BE) surveillance:- a minimum of 1-minute inspection time per cm of BE length during a surveillance endoscopy- photodocumentation of landmarks, the BE segment including one picture per cm of BE length, and the esophagogastric junction in retroflexed position, and any visible lesions- use of the Prague and (for visible lesions) Paris classification- collection of biopsies from all visible abnormalities (if present), followed by random four-quadrant biopsies for every 2-cm BE length.Strong recommendation, weak quality of evidence. MR2:  ESGE suggests varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance are advised.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR3:  ESGE suggests that, if a patient has reached 75 years of age at the time of the last surveillance endoscopy and/or the patient's life expectancy is less than 5 years, the discontinuation of further surveillance endoscopies can be considered. Weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence. MR4:  ESGE recommends offering endoscopic eradication therapy using ablation to patients with BE and low grade dysplasia (LGD) on at least two separate endoscopies, both confirmed by a second experienced pathologist.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR5:  ESGE recommends endoscopic ablation treatment for BE with confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD) without visible lesions, to prevent progression to invasive cancer.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR6:  ESGE recommends offering complete eradication of all remaining Barrett epithelium by ablation after endoscopic resection of visible abnormalities containing any degree of dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. MR7:  ESGE recommends endoscopic resection as curative treatment for T1a Barrett's cancer with well/moderate differentiation and no signs of lymphovascular invasion.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR8:  ESGE suggests that low risk submucosal (T1b) EAC (i. e. submucosal invasion depth ≤ 500 µm AND no [lympho]vascular invasion AND no poor tumor differentiation) can be treated by endoscopic resection, provided that adequate follow-up with gastroscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and computed tomography (CT)/positrion emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in expert centers.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR9:  ESGE suggests that submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (tumor invasion > 500 µm into the submucosa), and/or (lympho)vascular invasion, and/or a poor tumor differentiation should be considered high risk. Complete staging and consideration of additional treatments (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and/or surgery) or strict endoscopic follow-up should be undertaken on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR10 A: ESGE recommends that the first endoscopic follow-up after successful endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) of BE is performed in an expert center.Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence. B:  ESGE recommends careful inspection of the neo-squamocolumnar junction and neo-squamous epithelium with high definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy during post-EET surveillance, to detect recurrent dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. C:  ESGE recommends against routine four-quadrant biopsies of neo-squamous epithelium after successful EET of BE.Strong recommendation, low level of evidence. D:  ESGE suggests, after successful EET, obtaining four-quadrant random biopsies just distal to a normal-appearing neo-squamocolumnar junction to detect dysplasia in the absence of visible lesions.Weak recommendation, low level of evidence. E:  ESGE recommends targeted biopsies are obtained where there is a suspicion of recurrent BE in the tubular esophagus, or where there are visible lesions suspicious for dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. MR11:  After successful EET, ESGE recommends the following surveillance intervals:- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of HGD or EAC:at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of LGD:at 1, 3, and 5 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

Management of Esophago-Gastric Junction Carcinoma: A Narrative Multidisciplinary Review

Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) carcinoma represents a specific site of disease, given the opportunities for multimodal clinical care and management and the possibilities of combined treatments. It encompasses various clinical subgroups of disease that are heterogeneous and deserve different treatments; therefore, the guidelines have progressively evolved over time, considering the evidence provided by clinical trials. The aim of this narrative review was to summarize the main evidence, which orientates the current guidelines, and to collect the main ongoing studies to address existing gray areas.

Improving outcomes in patients with oesophageal cancer

The care of patients with oesophageal cancer or of individuals who have an elevated risk of oesophageal cancer has changed dramatically. The epidemiology of squamous cell and adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus has diverged over the past several decades, with a marked increase in incidence only for oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Only in the past decade, however, have molecular features that distinguish these two forms of the disease been identified. This advance has the potential to improve screening for oesophageal cancers through the development of novel minimally invasive diagnostic technologies predicated on cancer-specific genomic or epigenetic alterations. Surgical techniques have also evolved towards less invasive approaches associated with less morbidity, without compromising oncological outcomes. With improvements in multidisciplinary care, advances in radiotherapy and new tools to detect minimal residual disease, certain patients may no longer even require surgical tumour resection. However, perhaps the most anticipated advance in the treatment of patients with oesophageal cancer is the advent of immune-checkpoint inhibitors, which harness and enhance the host immune response against cancer. In this Review, we discuss all these advances in the management of oesophageal cancer, representing only the beginning of a transformation in our quest to improve patient outcomes.

Feasibility and Safety of Tailored Lymphadenectomy Using Sentinel Node-Navigated Surgery in Patients with High-Risk T1 Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Selective lymphadenectomy using sentinel node-navigated surgery (SNNS) might offer a less invasive alternative to esophagectomy in patients with high-risk T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a new treatment strategy, consisting of radical endoscopic resection of the tumor followed by SNNS.

METHODS

In this multicenter pilot study, ten patients with a radically resected high-risk pT1cN0 EAC underwent SNNS. A hybrid tracer of technetium-99m nanocolloid and indocyanine green was injected endoscopically around the resection scar the day before surgery, followed by preoperative imaging. During surgery, sentinel nodes (SNs) were identified using a thoracolaparoscopic gammaprobe and fluorescence-based detection, and subsequently resected. Endpoints were surgical morbidity and number of detected and resected (tumor-positive) SNs.

RESULTS

Localization and dissection of SNs was feasible in all ten patients (median 3 SNs per patient, range 1-6). The concordance between preoperative imaging and intraoperative detection was high. In one patient (10%), dissection was considered incomplete after two SNs were not identified intraoperatively. Additional peritumoral SNs were resected in four patients (40%) after fluorescence-based detection. In two patients (20%), a (micro)metastasis was found in one of the resected SNs. One patient experienced neuropathic thoracic pain related to surgery, while none of the patients developed functional gastroesophageal disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

SNNS appears to be a feasible and safe instrument to tailor lymphadenectomy in patients with high-risk T1 EAC. Future research with long-term follow-up is warranted to determine whether this esophageal preserving strategy is justified for high-risk T1 EAC.

State-of-the-art management of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus

Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) has become a standard of care for treatment of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE) and early Barrett's neoplasia. EET mainly consists of removal of any visible lesions via endoscopic resection and eradication of all remaining Barrett's mucosa using endoscopic ablation. Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection are the two available resection techniques. After complete resection of all visible lesions, it is crucial to perform endoscopic ablation to ensure complete eradication of the remaining Barrett's segment. Endoscopic ablation can be done either with thermal techniques, including radiofrequency ablation and argon plasma coagulation, or cryotherapy techniques. The primary end point of EET is achieving complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) to decrease the risk of dysplastic recurrence after successful EET. After CRIM is achieved, a standardized endoscopic surveillance protocol needs to be implemented for early detection of BE recurrence.