Complete Barrett's eradication endoscopic mucosal resection: an effective treatment modality for high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal carcinoma--an American single-center experience

Comparative clinical feasibility of antireflux mucosectomy and antireflux mucosal ablation in the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease: Retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

No definitive treatment has been established for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Antireflux mucosectomy (ARMS) and antireflux mucosal ablation (ARMA) using argon plasma coagulation are promising methods. However, no study has compared these two. This study compared the efficacy and safety of the two procedures.

METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective, observational study included 274 patients; 96 and 178 patients underwent ARMA and ARMS, respectively. The primary outcome was subjective symptom improvement based on GERD questionnaire (GERDQ) scores. The secondary outcomes included changes in the presence of Barrett's esophagus, Los Angeles grade for reflux esophagitis, flap valve grade, and proton pump inhibitor withdrawal rates.

RESULTS

The ARMS group had higher baseline GERDQ scores (10.0 vs. 8.0, P < 0.001) and a greater median postprocedure improvement than the ARMA group (4.0 vs. 2.0, P = 0.002), and even after propensity score matching adjustment, these findings remained. ARMS significantly improved reflux esophagitis compared with ARMA, with notable changes in Los Angeles grade (P < 0.001) and flap valve grade scores (P < 0.001). Improvement in Barrett's esophagus was comparable between the groups (P = 0.337), with resolution rates of 94.7% and 77.8% in the ARMS and ARMA groups, respectively. Compared with the ARMA group, the ARMS group experienced higher bleeding rates (P = 0.034), comparable stricture rates (P = 0.957), and more proton pump inhibitor withdrawals (P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Both ARMS and ARMA showed improvements in GERDQ scores, endoscopic esophagitis, flap valve grade, and the presence of Barrett's esophagus after the procedures. However, ARMS demonstrated better outcomes than ARMA in terms of both subjective and objective indicators.

Comparative evaluation of endoscopic anti-reflux mucosectomy and stretta radiofrequency ablation in the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease: insights from a retrospective multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

Treatment options for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) that is unresponsive to proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) remain limited. Therefore, we compared the therapeutic effects of anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARMS) and Stretta radiofrequency (SRF) for intractable GERD in over 400 individuals who underwent either procedure.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study between 2016 and 2023 to evaluate the effectiveness of SRF and ARMS treatments for refractory GERD. The primary measure of success was the change in the GERD questionnaire (GERDQ) score. The secondary outcomes were various GERD-related indicators, including endoscopic Los Angeles (LA) classification, Hill's type-based flap valve grade (FVG), EndoFLIP™ distensibility index (DI), rate of PPI discontinuation, resolution rate of Barrett's esophagus, and incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

The ARMS group included patients with high GERDQ scores, FVG, LA grade, and Barrett's esophagus. Both groups had similar rates of improvements in GERDQ score (P = 0.884) and PPI withdrawal (P = 0.866); however, the ARMS group had significantly more side effects and improvements in the median change in GERDQ score (P = 0.011), FVG (P < 0.001), LA grade (P < 0.001), EndoFLIP™ DI (P < 0.001), and resolution of Barrett's esophagus (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The ARMS group had a greater GERDQ score improvement than the SRF group but had symptom relief and PPI discontinuation rates similar to those of the SRF group. However, objective measures, including EndoFLIP™ DI and endoscopic evaluations, were better in the ARMS group than in the SRF group.

Updated German guideline on diagnosis and treatment of squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus

Diagnosis and therapy of esophageal carcinoma is challenging and requires a multidisciplinary approach. The purpose of the updated German guideline "Diagnosis and Treatment of Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus-version 3.1" is to provide practical and evidence-based advice for the management of patients with esophageal cancer. Recommendations were developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel based on an extensive and systematic evaluation of the published medical literature and the application of well-established methodologies (e.g. Oxford evidence grading scheme, grading of recommendations). Accurate diagnostic evaluation of the primary tumor as well as lymph node and distant metastases is required in order to guide patients to a stage-appropriate therapy after the initial diagnosis of esophageal cancer. In high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia or mucosal carcinoma endoscopic resection shall be performed. Whether endoscopic resection is the definitive therapeutic measure depends on the histopathological evaluation of the resection specimen. Esophagectomy should be performed minimally invasive or in combination with open procedures (hybrid technique). Because the prognosis in locally advanced esophageal carcinoma is poor with surgery alone, multimodality therapy is recommended. In locally advanced adenocarcinomas of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction, perioperative chemotherapy or preoperative radiochemotherapy should be administered. In locally advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the esophagus, preoperative radiochemotherapy followed by complete resection or definitive radiochemotherapy without surgery should be performed. In the case of residual tumor in the resection specimen after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and R0 resection of squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, adjuvant immunotherapy with nivolumab should be given. Systemic palliative treatment options (chemotherapy, chemotherapy plus immunotherapy, immunotherapy alone) in unresectable or metastastic esophageal cancer depend on histology and are stratified according to PD-L1 and/or Her2 expression.

Complete circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection for early Barrett's neoplasia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is carving out an increasing role in the treatment of esophageal neoplasia in the Western world. Contrary to Asia, most esophageal cancers in North America are associated with Barrett's esophagus. Patients with circumferential advanced neoplasia were previously managed by esophagectomy, but an increased experience with ESD has allowed for an endoscopic alternative. We present our experience with complete circumferential esophageal ESD at a North American referral center.

METHODS

All patients undergoing 100% circumferential esophageal ESD between October 2016 and January 2023 at a single tertiary care center in Canada were included in the cohort. Demographics, procedural data, and lesion characteristics are presented in this series.

RESULTS

Eleven patients underwent 100% circumferential esophageal ESD during this period for Barrett's neoplasia. All patients had technically successful procedures with en-bloc resection. Nine patients (82%) had R0 resections, defined as clear lateral and deep margins on histologic examination. Two patients had positive deep margins on histologic examination and proceeded to esophagectomy. Seven patients (64%) had adenocarcinoma on the final pathology, of which 6 (86%) had upstaging from their initial biopsy sampling results. The median area of resected specimen was 48 cm2 (interquartile range [IQR], 26-80), and the median procedure time was 231 minutes (IQR, 180-246). Procedural efficiency was 4.0 min/cm2 (IQR, 2.7-5). Two patients (18%) developed refractory strictures after the procedure, which were endoscopically managed to resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

Multifocal dysplastic Barrett's esophagus remains a challenging entity to treat. Circumferential ESD is a possible therapeutic option, with high procedural success and a low rate of adverse outcomes. This should be balanced against the risk of stricture development, as the optimal postprocedural prophylaxis regimen is investigated.

Submucosal Tunneling Techniques for Tumor Resection

The concept of third space endoscopy is based on the principle that the deeper layers of the gastrointestinal tract can be accessed by tunneling in the submucosal space and maintaining the integrity of the overlying mucosa. The mucosal flap safety valve enabled endoscopists to use submucosal space securely. The era of third space endoscopy started with peroral endoscopic myotomy for treatment of achalasia and has expanded to treat various other gastrointestinal disorders, such as mucosal lesions, submucosal tumors, extraluminal tumors, and refractory gastroparesis, Zenker diverticulum, and restoration of the completely obstructed esophageal lumen. Third space endoscopy rapidly emerged as a minimally invasive alternative to conventional surgery. Many studies discovered that this technique is safe and effective with excellent outcomes. Our review focused on the indications, techniques, clinical management, and adverse events of submucosal tunneling techniques for tumor resection.

Measuring the Submucosal Depth of Invasion in Endoscopic Mucosal Resections for Barrett-associated Adenocarcinoma: Practical Issues and Relevance for the Decision for Esophagectomy

CONTEXT.—

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has made it possible for Barrett esophagus patients with superficial cancers to be treated without esophagectomy. Recent guidelines recommend measuring depth of invasion (DOI) in submucosal cancers based on reports that in low-risk cancers, submucosal invasion 500 μm or less is associated with low nodal metastasis rates. However, pathologists face challenges in reproducibly measuring DOI.

OBJECTIVE.—

To determine how often DOI measurements could impact treatment and to evaluate reproducibility in measuring submucosal DOI in EMR specimens.

DESIGN.—

Consecutive adenocarcinoma EMR cases were identified, including cases of "low histologic risk" submucosal cancer, as follows: those with negative deep margins, no high-grade histology (G3), and no lymphovascular invasion. Submucosal DOI was measured by 7 pathologists according to guidelines.

RESULTS.—

Of 213 cancer EMR cases, 46 were submucosa invasive and 6 cases were low histologic risk submucosal cancers for which measurement could impact decision-making. Of these low histologic risk cases, 3 were categorized as superficial, indicating that measurement would be a clinically actionable decision point in only 1.4% of adenocarcinoma EMRs. Interobserver agreement for in-depth categorization between 7 pathologists was moderate (κ = 0.42), and the range of measurements spanned the 500-μm relevant threshold in 40 of 55 measured samples (72.7%).

CONCLUSIONS.—

While therapeutic decisions would rarely have depended on DOI measurements alone in our cohort, interobserver variability raises concerns about their use as a sole factor on which to offer patients conservative therapy. Responsibly reporting and clinically using submucosal DOI measurements will require practical experience troubleshooting common histologic artifacts, as well as multidisciplinary awareness of the impact of variable specimen-handling practices.

Associated risk factor analysis and the prognostic impact of positive resection margins after endoscopic resection in early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma

Endoscopic resection for early esophageal cancer has a risk of residual margins. The risk these residual margins pose have not been fully evaluated. The present study aimed to investigate the associated risk factors and prognosis of residual margins following the endoscopic resection of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. In total, 369 patients (381 lesions) with early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma treated in the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University (Shijiazhuang, China) with endoscopic resection were retrospectively analyzed. Sex, age, location, tumor diameter, depth of tumor invasion, endoscopic treatment, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) before resection, work experience of endoscopists and the degree of tumor differentiation were all evaluated as potential risk factors. In addition, the prognosis of patients with positive margins were analyzed. A total of 73 patients (73/381, 19.2%) had positive margins after endoscopic resection. Amongst the 65 patients who were successfully followed up, five patients succumbed to cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, one patient received radiotherapy, two patients received radiotherapy and chemotherapy whilst one patient received chemotherapy. By contrast, 12 patients received surgery and 20 patients received additional endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection. The other 29 patients were followed up regularly and no recurrence could be found. Univariate analysis revealed that tumor diameter, endoscopic treatment, depth of invasion, EUS before resection, degree of tumor differentiation and direction of invasion were all associated with the positive margin. Multivariate logistic regression analysis then found that EUS before resection, degree of tumor differentiation and depth of tumor invasion are independent risk factors for positive margins after endoscopic resection. These results suggest that poorly differentiated lesions and deeper invasion depth can increase the risk of positive margin after endoscopic resection. As a result, EUS evaluation before resection may reduce the risk of invasion depth. In addition, for poorly differentiated lesions, more aggressive treatment regimens may be recommended for preventing recurrence.

Clinical Adverse Events and Device Failures Reported for the Captivator and Duette Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) Systems: A MAUDE Database Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a widely used technique for the removal of precancerous or select cancerous mucosal-based lesions. Two systems used for EMR of upper gastrointestinal lesions are the Duette EMR kit and the Captivator EMR kit. The aim of this study is to analyze the reports submitted to the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database for patient-related adverse events and device failures associated with these EMR kits.

METHODS

We analyzed postmarketing data from the FDA MAUDE from August 2004 to August 2021.

RESULTS

Eighty-four MAUDE reports were found in the study period from August 2004 to August 2021. In total, device issues comprised 36.9% of the reports (n=31) and patient adverse events comprised 63.09% of the reports (n=53). Device issues that were reported included, but were not limited to, band placement/deployment failure (8.1%), suture breakage (7.31%), and snare breakage (4.94%). Patient adverse events that were reported included, but were not limited to, bleeding (25.9%), perforation (7.31%), and snare breakage (4.94%).

CONCLUSION

Captivator EMR and Duette EMR have similar patterns of technical failure and clinical adverse events. More MAUDE reports exist for Duette EMR, possibly due to its longer duration of commercial availability.

A reliable nomogram model for predicting esophageal stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection

Currently, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has gradually become the diagnosis and treatment of choice for initial esophageal cancer. However, the formation of esophageal stricture after ESD is one of its important complications. In this paper, we intend to identify the risk factors of esophageal stricture to develop a nomogram model to predict the risk of esophageal stricture and validate this model.A total, 159 patients were included in this study, including 21 patients with esophageal stenosis. Multivariate analysis showed that age greater than 60 years, high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, the extent of esophageal mucosal defect greater than 1/2, and postoperative pathological type of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma were independent risk factors for predicting esophageal stricture. We constructed a nomogram model to predict esophageal stenosis by these 4 independent predictors.The prediction performance of the model was verified by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the model was 0.889, and the sensitivity and specificity were 80.00% and 91.28%, respectively, indicating that the prediction performance of the model was good; The calibration curve constructed by internal cross-validation suggested that the predicted results of the nomogram agreed well with the actual observed values.The nomogram model has a high accuracy for predicting esophageal stricture after esophageal ESD and is extremely important to reduce or avoid the occurrence of esophageal stricture. But it needs more external and prospective validation.

Benefit of radiofrequency ablation after widespread endoscopic resection of neoplastic Barrett's esophagus in daily practice

Background

High-grade dysplasia (HGD) and intramucosal carcinoma (IMC) in Barrett’s esophagus (BE) are now well-established indications for endoscopic resection (ER). Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) can be combined with ER in case of flat or long-segment BE ablation. We report here our experience of complementary RFA after widespread ER of neoplastic BE in daily practice.

Method

We retrospectively reviewed data of 89 patients, treated between 2006 and 2013 by ER alone (group 1) or by ER combined with RFA (group 2).

Results

Fifty-five patients in group 1 (7F/48M, mean age 68 years) underwent widespread ER with eradication of residual non-dysplastic BE. Complete eradication of HGD/IMC and intestinal metaplasia (IM) was achieved in 32/32 (100%) and 48/55 (87.3%) patients, respectively. Thirty-four patients in group 2 (3F/31M, mean age 67 years) had a multimodal treatment strategy, with widespread ER followed by RFA. Mean Prague classification of BE in this group was significantly longer (C4.4M6.6 vs. C2.7M4.5, P<0.001). Complete eradication of HGD/IMC and non-dysplastic BE was confirmed in 26/27 (96.3%) and 20/34 (58.8%) patients, respectively. There was no significant difference between groups concerning adverse events (16.4% vs. 23.5%, P=0.58) or recurrence rate of HGD/IMC (9.1% vs. 14.7%, P=0.42). The mismatch rate between preoperative and final histological diagnosis was high in both groups, at 45.5% and 26.5%.

Conclusions

A combination of ER and RFA can treat significantly longer neoplastic BE than ER alone, with the same efficiency and safety. Widespread ER, in contrast, is the only method of obtaining a reliable histological diagnosis.

Predictors of recurrence of dysplasia or cancer in patients with dysplastic Barrett's esophagus following complete eradication of dysplasia: a single-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for Barrett's esophagus (BE)-related high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) are considered effective treatments for eradication of BE. Little is known about the impact of achieving complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) following the complete eradication of neoplasia (CE-N), specifically if CE-IM reduces the risk of recurrent dysplasia.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with BE and HGD or intramucosal cancer (IMC)-treated endoscopically at a tertiary referral center between 2001 and 2019. Association between CE-IM and recurrent dysplasia after CE-N was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 433 patients treated with EMR and/or RFA were included. Of these, 381 (88%) achieved CE-N, of which 345 (80%) had adequate follow-up for inclusion in the analysis. A total of 266 (77%) patients achieved CE-IM; with a median follow-up since initial treatment for HGD/IMC of 45.9 months (IQR 25.9, 93.1); 20 patients (5.8%) had recurrent dysplasia after achieving CE-N. Kaplan Meier survival curves revealed that time free of recurrence in those who achieved CE-IM was significantly higher (p = 0.002). In the multivariable analysis, CE-IM was associated with a significant lower hazard of recurrence (HR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1, 0.6), whereas the number of endoscopic treatments to achieve CE-N was associated with a significant higher hazard of recurrence (HR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0, 1.2).

CONCLUSION

Achieving CE-IM following CE-N reduces the risk of recurrent dysplasia and should be considered a treatment target among patients with BE undergoing endoscopic therapies for HGD or EAC.

The evolution of endoscopic therapy for Barrett's esophagus

Barrett’s esophagus is the condition in which a metaplastic columnar epithelium replaces the stratified squamous epithelium that normally lines the distal esophagus. The condition develops as a consequence of chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease and predisposes the patient to the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma. The diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus have undergone dramatic changes over the years and continue to evolve today. Endoscopic eradication therapy has revolutionized the management of dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus and early esophageal adenocarcinoma by significantly reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with the prior gold standard of therapy, esophagectomy. The purpose of this review is to highlight current principles in the management and endoscopic treatment of this disease.

Safety and efficacy of multiband mucosectomy for Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review with pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

According to guidelines, all visible lesions in Barrett's esophagus (BE) should be endoscopically resected. Available methods of endoscopic resection include the cap-assisted technique and, more recently, multiband mucosectomy (MBM). Data on the efficacy and safety of MBM have yet to be systematically reviewed. We performed the first systematic review with pooled analysis to evaluate the outcomes of MBM in patients with BE.

METHODS

Electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, EMBASE) were searched up to August 2019. Studies including patients with BE who underwent MBM were eligible. The primary outcome was the adverse events rate. Secondary outcomes were the proportions of complete resections and R0 resections. Outcomes were assessed by pooling data using a random or fixed-effect model, according to the degree of heterogeneity, to obtain a proportion with a 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were eligible (1334 procedures, 986 patients). The adverse event rate was 5.3%. Immediate and post-procedural bleeding, perforations and strictures occurred in 0.2%, 0.7%, 0.3% and 3.9% of procedures, respectively. Focal lesions were resected at a complete rate of 97.6% with an R0 resection rate of 94.1%.

CONCLUSION

MBM is a safe and effective technique for treating visible lesions in BE.

The modern management of Barrett's oesophagus and related neoplasia: role of pathology

Modern management of Barrett's oesophagus and related neoplasia essentially focuses upon surveillance to detect early low-risk neoplastic lesions and offering organ-preserving advanced endoscopic therapies, while traditional surgical treatments of oesophagectomy and lymph node clearance with or without chemoradiation are preserved only for high-risk and advanced carcinomas. With this evolution towards figless invasive therapy, the choice of therapy hinges upon the pathological assessment for risk stratifying patients into those with low risk for nodal metastasis who can continue with less invasive endoscopic therapies and others with high risk for nodal metastasis for which surgery or other forms of treatment are indicated. Detection and confirmation of neoplasia in the first instance depends upon endoscopic and pathological assessment. Endoscopic examination and biopsy sampling should be performed according to the recommended protocols, and endoscopic biopsy interpretation should be performed applying standard criteria using appropriate ancillary studies by histopathologists experienced in the pathology of Barrett's disease. Endoscopic resections (ERs) are both diagnostic and curative and should be performed by clinicians who are skilled with advanced endoscopic techniques. Proper preparation and handling of ERs are essential to assess histological parameters that dictate the curative nature of the procedure. Those parameters are adequacy of resection and risk of lymph node metastasis. The risk of lymph node metastasis is determined by depth invasion and presence of poor differentiation and lymphovascular invasion. Those adenocarcinomas with invasion up to muscularis mucosae (pT1a) and those with superficial submucosal invasion (pT1b) up to 500 µ with no poor differentiation and lymphovascular invasion and negative margins may be considered cured by endoscopic resections.

Outcome after endoscopic treatment for dysplasia and superficial esophageal cancer - a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Dysplasia and superficial esophageal cancer should initially be treated endoscopically. Little is known about post-procedural health-related quality of life (HRQL). The aim of this study was to present our results with endoscopic treatment and post-procedural HRQL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From June 2014 to December 2018, all patients treated with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and/or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), T1a and a minority of patients with T1b at Oslo University Hospital were prospectively included. In June 2019, all patients alive were scored according to the Ogilvie dysphagia score as well as the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OG25 for assessment of HRQL.

RESULTS

Eighty-six patients were treated out of whom 22 (26%) had LGD, 44 (51%) HGD, 13 (15%) T1a, and six patients (7%) T1b. Histology revealed adenocarcinoma in 18 (21%) and squamous cell carcinoma in one (1%), respectively. The mean follow-up was 22.9 months. Tumor regression or downstaging was archived in 78% of the patients with LGD, 66% of patients with HGD and in 89% of patients with T1a/b. Five patients (6%) had esophagectomy. There were few and no serious complications. The 90-days mortality was 1%. Fifty-two patients (88%) experienced no dysphagia (Ogilvie score 0). There was no difference in 11 out of the 15 variables in QLQ-C30 when compared to a non-cancerous reference population.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic treatment is safe and efficient for treatment of dysplasia and superficial esophageal cancer. The two-years post-procedural level of HRQL and dysphagia was satisfactory.

Pathological assessment of endoscopic resections of the gastrointestinal tract: a comprehensive clinicopathologic review

Endoscopic resection (ER) allows optimal staging with potential cure of early-stage luminal malignancies while maintaining organ preservation. ER and surgery are non-competing but complementary therapeutic options. In addition, histological examination of ER specimens can either confirm or refine the pre-procedure diagnosis. ER is used for the treatment of Barrett's related early carcinomas and dysplasias, early-esophageal squamous cell carcinomas and dysplasias, early gastric carcinomas and dysplasia, as well as low-risk submucosal invasive carcinomas (LR-SMIC) and, large laterally spreading adenomas of the colon. For invasive lesions, histological risk factors predict risk of lymph node metastasis and residual disease at the ER site. Important pathological risk factors predictive of lymph node metastasis are depth of tumor invasion, poor differentiation, and lymphovascular invasion. Complete resection with negative margins is critical to avoid local recurrences. For non-invasive lesions, complete resection is curative. Therefore, a systematic approach for handling and assessing ER specimens is recommended to evaluate all above key prognostic features appropriately. Correct handling starts with pinning the specimen before fixation, meticulous macroscopic assessment with orientation of appropriate margins, systematic sectioning, and microscopic assessment of the entire specimen. Microscopic examination should be thorough for accurate assessment of all pathological risk factors and margin assessment. Site-specific issues such as duplication of muscularis mucosa of the esophagus, challenges of assessing ampullectomy specimens and site-specific differences of staging of early carcinomas throughout the gastrointestinal tract (GI) tract should be given special consideration. Finally, a standard, comprehensive pathology report that allows optimal staging with potential cure of early-stage malignancies or better stratification and guidance for additional treatment should be provided.

Resection of Mucosal and Submucosal Gastrointestinal Lesions and a Double Endoscope Experience

Aim:

The patients who underwent endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for mucosal and submucosal lesions of the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum and the advantages of the double endoscope method we used for traction during ESD were evaluated.

Material and Methods:

The patients who underwent ESD and EMR due to upper gastrointestinal lesions were evaluated retrospectively between January 2014 and April 2018 in our endoscopy unit.

Result:

The mean age of 10 patients with esophageal lesions was 53 years. ESD was performed for 7 lesions and EMR for 3 lesions. The most common lesion was leiomyoma and the median size of the lesions was 1.4 cm (range, 0.6–2.5 cm).

The median age of 26 patients with gastric lesions was 61 years. EMR were performed for 11 lesions and ESD for 15 lesions. Double endoscope was used in 6 patients. One patient had intramucosal carcinoma, while the other lesions were benign and dysplasia was the most common lesion. The median size of lesions was 1.8 cm (range, 1–3 cm).

All lesions were evaluated with endoscopic ultrasonography. Bleeding was seen in 4 patients and perforation in 1 patient during ESD and defect was closed with endoscopic clips.

Conclusion:

The advantages of endoscopic resections; short hospitalization, low complication rates, patient comfort, and doesn't require the general anesthesia. For endoscopic resection, we think that the second endoscope shortens the duration of the procedure, reduces the complication rate, and increases the comfort of the endoscopist.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection vs Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection For Barrett's Esophagus and Colorectal Neoplasia

Endoscopic resection has become the first-line therapy for the management of superficial neoplasia throughout the gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are established yet distinct techniques for the treatment of superficial gastrointestinal neoplasia. EMR is simpler and faster but is limited by its ability to resect large lesions en bloc. Limitations of piecemeal EMR of large lesions include a high rate of recurrence and a less-than-ideal tissue specimen for accurate histologic evaluation. ESD, on the other hand, allows en bloc resection regardless of lesion size, reducing risk for recurrence and facilitating precise histologic staging. However, ESD can take longer than EMR, is technically more complex, and traditionally has been associated with a higher rate of adverse events. Ultimately, the optimal endoscopic technique should be selected based on organ location, type of neoplastic lesion, and local expertise. The role of ESD has expanded in Eastern regions, beyond squamous cell lesions in the esophagus and gastric cancer to include superficial Barrett's esophagus (BE) and colon neoplasia. However, there is controversy in Western regions over use of ESD for BE and colon neoplasia. We discuss the clinical outcomes of EMR and ESD for the treatment of superficial BE and colon neoplasia, focusing on practical considerations for formulating the most appropriate endoscopic resection approach for each patient.

Management of Early Stage Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Malignancies

Esophageal and gastric carcinomas are prevalent malignancies worldwide. In contrast to the poor prognosis associated with advanced stages of disease, early stage disease has a favorable prognosis. Early stage gastric cancer (ESGC) is defined as cancer in which the depth of invasion is limited to the submucosal layer of the stomach on histologic examination, regardless of lymph node status. ESGC that meets standard or expanded criteria can be treated via endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Similar indications for endoscopic interventions exist for gastroesophageal junction and esophageal malignancies."

Diagnosis of Hirschsprung's disease in children: Preliminary evaluation of a novel endoscopic technique for rectal biopsy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The diagnosis of Hirschsprung's disease (HD) relies on anorectal manometry and rectal biopsy. The role of endoscopic biopsy is uncertain for the diagnosis of HD in children. In this study, we evaluated the adequacy of biopsies procured by endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for the diagnosis of HD.

METHODS

Consecutive children with suspected HD from January 2013 to January 2018 were enrolled in the study. EMR was performed using the standard band ligation device at a distance of about 3 cm from dentate line in rectum. All samples were assessed macroscopically and microscopically. An adequate sample was defined as those measuring >3 mm and including adequate submucosa.

RESULTS

A total of 132 children underwent evaluation for constipation in the study period. Of these, 10 children (median age, 4.25 years) underwent EMR using the band ligation device for the evaluation of HD. EMR was performed with and without submucosal lifting injection in four and six children, respectively. All the samples were adequate macroscopically (>3 mm). Absence of ganglion cells was noted in six children. Of these, three children underwent full-thickness rectal biopsy followed by surgery. Three children did not undergo surgery. Ganglion cells were identified in four children, thereby excluding the diagnosis of HD.

CONCLUSION

Rectal biopsy using EMR with a band ligation device is feasible, safe, and provides adequate sample for the evaluation of HD in children.

Endoscopic therapy for Barrett’s esophagus and early esophageal cancer: Where do we go from here?

Since Barrett’s esophagus is a precancerous condition, efforts have been made for its eradication by various ablative techniques. Initially, laser ablation was attempted in non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus and subsequently, endoscopic ablation using photodynamic therapy was used in Barrett’s patients with high-grade dysplasia who were poor surgical candidates. Since then, various ablative therapies have been developed with radiofrequency ablation having the best quality of evidence. Resection of dysplastic areas only without complete removal of entire Barrett’s segment is associated with high risk of developing metachronous neoplasia. Hence, the current standard of management for Barrett’s esophagus includes endoscopic mucosal resection of visible abnormalities followed by ablation to eradicate remaining Barrett’s epithelium. Although endoscopic therapy cannot address regional lymph node metastases, such nodal involvement is present in only 1% to 2% of patients with intramucosal adenocarcinoma in Barrett esophagus and therefore is useful in intramucosal cancers. Post ablation surveillance is recommended as recurrence of intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia have been reported. This review includes a discussion of the technique, efficacy and complication rate of currently available ablation techniques such as radiofrequency ablation, cryotherapy, argon plasma coagulation and photodynamic therapy as well as endoscopic mucosal resection. A brief discussion of the emerging technique, endoscopic submucosal dissection is also included.

Endoscopic Treatment of Early-Stage Esophageal Cancer

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Esophageal cancer is a leading cause of global cancer-related mortality. Here, we discuss the major endoscopic treatment modalities for management of early esophageal cancer (EEC).

RECENT FINDINGS

Advances in endoscopic imaging and therapy have shifted the paradigm of managing early esophageal cancers. Though esophagectomy remains the preferred management for advanced cancers, guidelines now recommend endoscopic resection followed by ablative therapy for early (Tis and T1a) cancers. Available data suggests endoscopic treatment is comparable to surgery with regard to overall and cancer-specific survival with lower procedural morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic modalities are emerging as frontline treatment options for patients with early esophageal cancers. Accurate clinical staging with assessment of disease extent, tumor grade, and risk of nodal metastases is crucial when determining eligibility for endoscopic management of EEC. High-quality routine surveillance endoscopy is critical in patients who have undergone resection and/or ablation.

Higher Rate of Barrett's Detection in the First Year After Successful Endoscopic Therapy: Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is highly effective in treating dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE). Current surveillance intervals after complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) are based on expert opinion. We performed a meta-analysis to compare BE detection in the first year to the subsequent ones METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through 1 August 2017 for studies reporting IM and neoplasia detection after CRIM. Pooled incidence rate (IR) of IM detection was calculated for each year after CRIM. We compared IM, dysplasia, and high grade dysplasia (HGD)/esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) detection in the first year after CRIM to the years after.

RESULTS

Twenty two studies were included involving 1973 patients with follow-up of 5176 patient-years. IM detection IR per patient-year in the 1st year was 12% (95% CI: 8-17%), in the 2nd year 7% (95% CI: 4-11%), and in the 3rd year 3% (95% CI: 1-7%). IM detection rate in the first year was significantly higher compared to the years after (relative risk (RR) 1.8 (95% CI: 1.29-2.49)). Dysplasia detection IR in the first year after achieving CRIM was 3% per patient-year (95% CI: 2-5%). Dysplasia detection IR after the first year was 1% (95% CI: 1-2%) and significantly higher in the first year compared to the years after (RR: 1.92 (95% CI: 1.32-2.8). HGD/EAC detection was 1 %/patient-year (95% CI: 0-2%) in the first year after CRIM compared to 0%/patient-year (95% CI: 0-1%) in subsequent years. HGD/EAC IR was higher in the first year (RR: 1.58 (95% CI: 0.94-2.65)).

CONCLUSION

Neoplasia detection after successful treatment of BE appears more common within the first year of surveillance. This appears to be due to incompletely treated prevalent rather than recurrent disease. More intensive surveillance in the first year following CRIM is warranted.

Expanding Role of Third Space Endoscopy in the Management of Esophageal Diseases

OPINION STATEMENT: "Third space" endoscopy, also commonly referred as submucosal endoscopy, is founded on the principle that the deeper layers of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract can be accessed by tunneling in the submucosal space without compromising the integrity of the overlying mucosa. Peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) are innovative techniques within the field of third space endoscopy in the management of esophageal disorders. POEM has become an accepted minimally invasive therapy for achalasia and related motility disorders with excellent short-term results, with early studies yielding similar efficacy to surgical myotomy and increased durability when compared to pneumatic balloon dilation (PBD). Data are needed to establish long-term outcomes with POEM, with particular interest on the incidence of gastroesophageal reflux, which appears to be higher than initially anticipated. ESD, a mature endoscopic resection technique in Asia, has recently gained traction in the West as a viable option for the management of early Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia. Compared to standard endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), ESD allows the en bloc resection of lesions irrespective of size, which may facilitate histological interpretation and reduce recurrence rates. Large prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to validate the efficacy and safety of this technique and to further define its role in the endoscopic armamentarium in early BE neoplasia. STER is an attractive technique that theoretically permits the resection of subepithelial esophageal tumors (SETs) arising from the deeper GI layers. Initial studies from highly experienced endoscopic centers support its technical feasibility and safety, although these results should be interpreted with caution due to variability arising from small numbers and heterogeneity among studies. Overall, third space endoscopy is an expanding field within endoscopic therapeutics for the treatment of esophageal diseases. While initial results have been very promising, large prospective studies, long-term data, and structured training programs with the establishment of competency parameters are needed before third space endoscopy can be advocated outside of highly specialized centers.

Surgical Treatment of High-Grade Dysplasia and Early Esophageal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The treatment of early-stage esophageal cancer and high-grade dysplasia of the esophagus has changed significantly in recent years. Many early tumors that were traditionally treated with esophagectomy can now be resected with endoscopic therapy alone. These new endoscopic modalities can offer similar survival outcomes without the associated morbidity of a major operation. However, a number of these cases may still require surgical intervention as the best treatment option.

METHODS

The current scientific literature, national and international guidelines were reviewed for recommendations regarding optimal treatment of early esophageal malignancy.

RESULTS

The primary advantage of surgery over endoscopic treatment lies in the reduced risk of recurrence as well as the ability to assess harvested lymph nodes for regional disease. We recommend that esophageal tumors that have invaded into the submucosa (T1b) or beyond should be treated with an esophagectomy. In addition, dysplastic lesions and cancers that demonstrate poorly differentiated pathology or lymphovascular or perineural invasion should be surgically resected. Finally, large tumors, multifocal lesions, tumors within a long segment of Barrett's esophagus, tumors adjacent to a hiatal hernia, tumors that cannot be resected enbloc with endoscopic techniques should also be treated with an esophagectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

When performed at high-volume centers in experienced hands, esophagectomy can have consistently good outcomes for high-grade dysplasia and early esophageal cancers, and should be considered as a treatment option.

Recurrence of intestinal metaplasia and early neoplasia after endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

 Conflicting data exist with regard to recurrence rates of intestinal metaplasia (IM) and dysplasia after achieving complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) in Barrett's esophagus (BE) patients.

AIM

 (i) To determine the incidence of recurrent IM and dysplasia achieving CE-IM and (ii) to compare recurrence rates between treatment modalities [radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with or without endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) vs stepwise complete EMR (SRER)].

METHODS

 A systematic search was performed for studies reporting on outcomes and estimates of recurrence rates after achieving CE-IM. Pooled incidence [per 100-patient-years (PY)] and risk ratios with 95 %CI were obtained. Heterogeneity was measured using the I² statistic. Subgroup analyses, decided a priori, were performed to explore heterogeneity in results.

RESULTS

 A total of 39 studies were identified (25-RFA, 13-SRER, and 2 combined). The pooled incidence of any recurrence was 7.5 (95 %CI 6.1 - 9.0)/100 PY with a pooled incidence of IM recurrence rate of 4.8 (95 %CI 3.8 - 5.9)/100 PY, and dysplasia recurrence rate of 2.0 (95 %CI 1.5 - 2.5)/100 PY. Compared to the SRER group, the RFA group had significantly higher overall [8.6 (6.7 - 10.5)/100 PY vs. 5.1 (3.1 - 7)/100 PY, P  = 0.01] and IM recurrence rates [5.8 (4.3 - 7.3)/100 PY vs. 3.1 (1.7 - 4)/100 PY, P  < 0.01] with no difference in recurrence rates of dysplasia. Significant heterogeneity between studies was identified. The majority of recurrences were amenable to repeat endoscopic eradication therapy (EET).

CONCLUSION

 The results of this study demonstrate that the incidence rates of overall, IM, and dysplasia recurrence rates post-EET are not inconsiderable and reinforce the importance of close surveillance after achieving CE-IM.

Endoscopic mucosal resection for high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal carcinoma: a Canadian experience

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is increasingly being used as a first-line treatment for Barrett esophagus (BE) with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and intramucosal adenocarcinoma (IMC). We reviewed our experience with endoscopic treatment of BE with HGD and IMC at our institution with respect to eradication rates, complications and long-term recurrence.

METHODS

We performed a single-centre retrospective review of all patients referred between October 2010 and August 2014 for EMR with dysplastic BE or IMC. We performed EMR using a cap-fitted endoscope, and the procedure was repeated every 3 months until eradication or progression of disease.

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients were identified: 16 with dysplastic BE (14 HGD, 1 low-grade dysplasia, 1 intermediate dysplasia) and 12 with IMC. Complete eradication of HGD was achieved in 11 of 14 (79%) patients. Three of 12 (25%) patients initially referred with suspected IMC were found to have invasive adenocarcinoma on EMR. Eradication was successful in 8 of 9 (89%) patients with true IMC, with 1 patient progressing to salvage esophagectomy. Complications occurred in 2 of 28 (7%) patients; both had esophageal strictures managed with dilatation. Median duration of follow-up was 371 days.

CONCLUSION

Our experience supports the safety of EMR as a first-line treatment for patients with BE with dysplasia and IMC in early short-term follow-up.

Quality Indicators in Endoscopic Ablation for Barrett's Esophagus

OPINION STATEMENT

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a well-established premalignant condition for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC); a cancer that is associated with a poor 5-year survival rate. Several strategies have been explored in the context of reducing the burden of EAC. Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is considered the standard of care for the management of patients with BE with dysplasia and early neoplasia; a practice that has been endorsed by all gastroenterology societal guidelines. The effectiveness of EET has been demonstrated in multiple studies and contemporary management includes a combination of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of all visible lesions followed by eradication of the remaining BE using ablative techniques of which radiofrequency ablation (RFA) has the best evidence supporting effectiveness and safety. These techniques are being used increasingly at academic tertiary care centers and community practices. In this era of value-based health care, there is increased focus on the establishment, documentation, and reporting of quality indicators; indicators that are important to physicians, patients, and payers. The purpose of this review is to highlight the current status of quality indicators in EET for the management of patients with BE-related neoplasia and discuss the future steps required to ensure that these quality indicators are uniformly incorporated into practice.

Endoscopic management of Barrett's and early oesophageal neoplasia

Barrett's oesophagus (BO) is the only known precursor to oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC). Dysplasia and intramucosal cancer arising in BO can safely be treated with endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) due to the low risk of subsequent lymph node metastasis. Treatment at an early stage is paramount due to the ongoing poor prognosis and outcomes of patients with advanced OAC. The mainstay of treatment is endoscopic resection of visible lesions for accurate staging followed by ablation therapy to all remaining columnar-lined epithelium, most commonly with radiofrequency ablation. Successful eradication of dysplasia can be achieved in >95% of patients with this EET combined approach.

Endoscopic mucosal resection versus esophagectomy for intramucosal adenocarcinoma in the setting of barrett's esophagus

BACKGROUND

Esophagectomy has been the standard of care for patients with intramucosal adenocarcinoma (IMC) in the setting of Barrett's esophagus. It is, however, associated with significant post-operative morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) offers a minimally invasive approach with lesser morbidity. This study investigates the transition from esophagectomy to EMR for IMC with respect to eradication rates, post-operative morbidity, and long-term survival.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with IMC from 2005 to 2013 were identified retrospectively. Beginning in 2009, preferred initial therapy for IMC transitioned from esophagectomy to EMR. Esophagectomy was performed either through a transthoracic or transhiatal technique. EMR was repeated until resolution of IMC on pathology or progression of disease. Continuous data are expressed as mean (SD) and analyzed using Student's t test. Categorical data are presented as number (%) and analyzed using Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

We identified 23 patients; 12 patients underwent esophagectomy and 11 patients underwent EMR as initial therapy. Patients were similar with respects to age, gender, and comorbidity index. Most tumors arose from short segment (vs long segment) Barrett's (esophagectomy: 9 (75%) vs. EMR: 10 (91%), p = 0.59) and one patient in each group had superficial invasion into the submucosa (T1sm1), the remainder having mucosal disease. Esophagectomy was associated with 7 (58%) minor complications and 2 (17%) major complications (respiratory failure, anastomotic leak), whereas there were no complications related to EMR (p < 0.01). EMR successfully eradicated IMC in 10 patients (91%) with one progressing to esophagectomy. Patients required 2 (1) endoscopies to achieve eradication. There was one mortality in each group on long-term follow-up (log-rank test, p = 0.62).

CONCLUSIONS

EMR was successful in eradicating IMC in 10/11 patients with similar long-term recurrence and mortality to esophagectomy patients. Patients with IMC may benefit from EMR as initial therapy by obviating the need for a complex and morbid operation.

Efficacy and safety outcomes of multimodal endoscopic eradication therapy in Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia: a systematic review and pooled analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Focal EMR followed by radiofrequency ablation (f-EMR + RFA) and stepwise or complete EMR (s-EMR) are established strategies for eradication of Barrett's esophagus (BE)-related high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and/or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC)/intramucosal carcinoma (IMC). The objective of this study was to derive pooled rates of efficacy and safety of individual methods in a large cohort of patients with BE and to indirectly compare the 2 methods.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and major conference proceedings were searched. A systematic review and pooled analysis were carried out to determine the following outcomes in patients with BE undergoing either f-EMR + RFA or s-EMR: (1) complete eradication rates of neoplasia (CE-N) and intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM); (2) recurrence rates of cancer (EAC), dysplasia, and IM; (3) incidence rates of adverse events. Mixed logistic regression was performed as an exploratory analysis to examine differences in outcomes between the 2 methods.

RESULTS

Nine studies (774 patients) of f-EMR + RFA and 11 studies (751 patients) of s-EMR were included. Patients undergoing f-EMR + RFA had high BE eradication rates (CE-N, 93.4%; CE-IM, 73.1%), whereas strictures occurred in 10.2%, bleeding in 1.1%, and perforations in 0.2% of patients. Recurrence of EAC, dysplasia, and IM was 1.4%, 2.6%, and 16.1%, respectively, in this group. Patients undergoing s-EMR also showed high BE eradication rates (CE-N, 94.9%; CE-IM, 79.6%) but a higher rate of adverse events (strictures in 33.5%, bleeding in 7.5%, and perforation in 1.3%). Recurrence of EAC, dysplasia, and IM was 0.7%, 3.3%, and 12.1%, respectively, in the s-EMR group. Mixed logistic regression showed that patients undergoing s-EMR might be more likely to develop esophageal strictures (odds ratio [OR], 4.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.61-13.85; P = .005), perforation (OR, 7.00; 95% CI, 1.56-31.33; P = .01), and bleeding (OR, 6.88; 95% CI, 2.19-21.62; P = 0.001) compared with f-EMR + RFA.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HGD/EAC, f-EMR followed by RFA seems to be equally effective as and safer than s-EMR.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for early stage esophageal cancer

Mortality from esophageal cancer remains high despite advances in medical therapy. Although the incidence of squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus remains unchanged, the incidence of the esophageal adenocarcinoma has increased over time. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD and obesity are contributing factors to the development of Barrett's esophagus and subsequent development of adenocarcinoma. Early recognition of the disease can lead to resection of esophageal cancer prior to the development of lymphovascular invasion. Various modalities have been implemented to aid identification of precancerous lesions and early esophageal cancer. Chromoendoscopy, narrowband imaging and endoscopic ultrasound examination are typically used for evaluating early esophageal lesions. Recently, confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) and volumetric laser scanning were implemented with promising results. Endoscopic management of early esophageal cancer may be done using endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Both techniques allow resection of the mucosa (and possibly a portion of the submucosa) containing the early tumor without interruption of deeper layers. A submucosal injection creating a cushion coupled with snare resection or cap assisted mucosal suction followed by ligation and snare resection are the most common techniques of EMR. EMR can remove lesions less than 2 cm in size en bloc. Larger lesions may require resection in piecemeal fashion. This may limit assessment of the margins of the lesion and orienting the lesion's border. ESD offers en bloc dissection of the lesion regardless of its size. ESD is performed with specialized needle knives, which allow incision followed by careful dissection of the lesion within the submucosal layer. Tumor recurrence after ESD is rare but the technique is labor intensive and has an increased risk of perforation. Esophageal stenosis remains a concern after extensive EMR or ESD. Dilation with balloon or stent placement is usually sufficient to treat post-resection stenosis.

Endotherapy in case of relapse of neoplastic Barrett's esophagus after successful initial endoscopic resection

BACKGROUND

Endotherapy in cases of neoplastic Barrett esophagus (BE) relapse after successful initial endoscopic management is commonly accepted, but few studies analyze this topic and also take into account the metachronous lesions.

AIMS

To evaluate the efficiency of endotherapy in the case of neoplastic BE relapse after successful complete endoscopic eradication of neoplastic BE and metaplastic BE.

METHODS

Retrospective review of medical records was collected in a computerized and prospective manner between 2000 and 2015, in a single tertiary care center. Recurrence was defined by histological presence of high-grade dysplasia or superficial adenocarcinoma at least 6 months after the end of successful initial endotherapy.

RESULTS

Eighteen patients were assessed (1F/17 M). Delay between initial treatment and relapse was 16.6 months (range 6-33). Endotherapy for relapse obtained a sustained and complete remission for 8/18 (44%) patients, with an average endoscopic follow-up of 28 months. The complication rate of endotherapy was 6%. Surgical management was required in 33% (2 pT2N0M0, 2 pTisN0M0, 1 pTm2N0M0 and 1 pTm3N0M0) and salvage radiochemotherapy in 17% (3/18). One patient treated by 6 sessions of ER was considered as a failure given the multiple sessions of endotherapy. Multivariate analysis showed that length of BE (>5 cm), late stenosis adverse events and the quality of vertical margin during initial ER are predictive factors for disease-free survival (p value < 0.01, Hazard Ratio up to 0.076).

CONCLUSION

Endotherapy could be a treatment for management of neoplastic BE relapse, but should be carefully used, with strict follow-up.

Handling and Pathology Reporting of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Mucosal Resection

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a non-invasive alternative to surgery that is now frequently used for resection of early lesions in both upper and lower parts of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. One of the main advantages of these techniques is providing tissue for histopathological examination. Pathological examination of endoscopically resected specimens of GI tract is a crucial component of these procedures and is useful for prediction of both the risk of metastasis and lymph node involvement.

As the first step, it is very important for the pathologist to handle the EMR gross specimen in the correct way: it should be oriented, and then the margins should be labeled and inked accurately before fixation.

In the second step, the EMR pathological report should include all the detailed information about the diagnosis, grading, depth of invasion (mucosa only or submucosal involvement), status of the margins, and the presence or absence of lymphovascular invasion.

The current literature (PubMed and Google Scholar) was searched for the words "endoscopic mucosal resection" to find all relevant publications about this technique with emphasis on the pathologist responsibilities.

Esophagectomy Following Endoscopic Resection of Submucosal Esophageal Cancer: a Highly Curative Procedure Even with Nodal Metastases

BACKGROUND

Despite the increased risk for nodal disease, definitive endoscopic resection is being increasingly offered for lesions invasive into the submucosa based on the success with intramucosal tumors. The aim of this study was to evaluate survival after esophagectomy alone for confirmed submucosal tumors after endoscopic resection.

METHODS

Patients from seven centers in the USA who underwent esophagectomy for submucosal tumors removed with endoscopic resection were analyzed. Nodal involvement was correlated with recurrence and survival.

RESULTS

We identified 23 patients with submucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma. Esophagectomy was performed at a median of 2 months (Interquartile range 1-3) after the endoscopic resection. There was no postoperative mortality. Positive nodal disease was seen in 26 % of patients on final pathology. At a median of 37 months (Interquartile range 25-55), 91 % of patients were alive and free of disease. The disease-specific 5-year survival was 88 %. Disease-specific 5-year survival was 67 % in patients with positive nodal metastases and 100 % in those without (p = 0.159).

CONCLUSIONS

Esophagectomy is curative in the majority of patients with submucosal tumors even in the presence of nodal metastases. These data serve as a benchmark for comparison when considering extending the indications for therapeutic endoscopic resection for submucosal tumors in the future.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Barrett's Esophagus

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an increasingly popular minimally invasive technique that is used for the management of superficial lesions in the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract. The goal of this article is to describe the indications and technique of EMR, with a focus on the endoscopic management of Barrett's esophagus (BE). The two major EMR techniques-cap EMR and band EMR-will be presented, along with a discussion of their efficacy as well as their integration into the broader treatment paradigm of endoscopic eradication therapy for BE.

Diagnosis and Management of Low-Grade Dysplasia in Barrett's Esophagus: Expert Review From the Clinical Practice Updates Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association

The purpose of this clinical practice update expert review is to define the key principles in the diagnosis and management of low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett's esophagus patients. The best practices outlined in this review are based on relevant publications, including systematic reviews and expert opinion (when applicable). Practice Advice 1: The extent of Barrett's esophagus should be defined using a standardized grading system documenting the circumferential and maximal extent of the columnar lined esophagus (Prague classification) with a clear description of landmarks and visible lesions (nodularity, ulceration) when present. Practice Advice 2: Given the significant interobserver variability among pathologists, the diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus with LGD should be confirmed by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist (defined as a pathologist with a special interest in Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia who is recognized as an expert in this field by his/her peers). Practice Advice 3: Expert pathologists should report audits of their diagnosed cases of LGD, such as the frequency of LGD diagnosed among surveillance patients and/or the difference in incidence of neoplastic progression among patients diagnosed with LGD vs nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus. Practice Advice 4: Patients in whom the diagnosis of LGD is downgraded to nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus should be managed as nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus. Practice Advice 5: In Barrett's esophagus patients with confirmed LGD (based on expert gastrointestinal pathology review), repeat upper endoscopy using high-definition/high-resolution white-light endoscopy should be performed under maximal acid suppression (twice daily dosing of proton pump inhibitor therapy) in 8-12 weeks. Practice Advice 6: Under ideal circumstances, surveillance biopsies should not be performed in the presence of active inflammation (erosive esophagitis, Los Angeles grade C and D). Pathologists should be informed if biopsies are obtained in the setting of erosive esophagitis and if pathology findings suggest LGD, or if no biopsies are obtained, surveillance biopsies should be repeated after the anti-reflux regimen has been further intensified. Practice Advice 7: Surveillance biopsies should be performed in a four-quadrant fashion every 1-2 cm with target biopsies obtained from visible lesions taken first. Practice Advice 8: Patients with a confirmed histologic diagnosis of LGD should be referred to an endoscopist with expertise in managing Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia practicing at centers equipped with high-definition endoscopy and capable of performing endoscopic resection and ablation. Practice Advice 9: Endoscopic resection should be performed in Barrett's esophagus patients with LGD with endoscopically visible abnormalities (no matter how subtle) in order to accurately assess the grade of dysplasia. Practice Advice 10: In patients with confirmed Barrett's esophagus with LGD by expert GI pathology review that persists on a second endoscopy, despite intensification of acid-suppressive therapy, risks and benefits of management options of endoscopic eradication therapy (specifically adverse events associated with endoscopic resection and ablation), and ongoing surveillance should be discussed and documented. Practice Advice 11: Endoscopic eradication therapy should be considered in patients with confirmed and persistent LGD with the goal of achieving complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia. Practice Advice 12: Patients with LGD undergoing surveillance rather than endoscopic eradication therapy should undergo surveillance every 6 months times 2, then annually unless there is reversion to nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus. Biopsies should be obtained in 4-quadrants every 1-2 cm and of any visible lesions. Practice Advice 13: In patients with Barrett's esophagus-related LGD undergoing ablative therapy, radiofrequency ablation should be used. Practice Advice 14: Patients completing endoscopic eradication therapy should be enrolled in an endoscopic surveillance program. Patients who have achieved complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia should undergo surveillance every year for 2 years and then every 3 years thereafter to detect recurrent intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia. Patients who have not achieved complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia should undergo surveillance every 6 months for 1 year after the last endoscopy, then annually for 2 years, then every 3 years thereafter. Practice Advice 15: Following endoscopic eradication therapy, the biopsy protocol of obtaining biopsies in 4 quadrants every 2 cm throughout the length of the original Barrett's esophagus segment and any visible columnar mucosa is suggested. Practice Advice 16: Endoscopists performing endoscopic eradication therapy should report audits of their rates of complete eradication of dysplasia and intestinal metaplasia and adverse events in clinical practice.

Advances in the Endoscopic Diagnosis of Barrett Esophagus

BACKGROUND

Barrett esophagus (BE) continues to be a major risk factor for developing esophageal adenocarcinoma.

METHODS

We review the risk factors, diagnosis, and management of BE, with an emphasis on the most current endoscopic diagnostic modalities for BE.

RESULTS

Novel diagnostic modalities have emerged to address the inadequacies of standard, untargeted biopsies, such as dye-based and virtual chromoendoscopy, endoscopic mucosal resection, molecular biomarkers, optical coherence tomography, confocal laser endomicroscopy, volumetric laser endomicroscopy, and endocytoscopy. Treatment of BE depends on the presence of intramucosal cancer or dysplasia, particularly high-grade dysplasia with or without visible mucosal lesions.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent advances in endoscopic diagnostic tools demonstrate promising results and help to mitigate the shortcomings of the Seattle protocol. Future research as well as refining these tools may help aid them in replacing standard untargeted biopsies.