Endoscopic resection of Barrett's adenocarcinoma: Intramucosal and low-risk tumours are not associated with lymph node metastases

Can optical evaluation distinguish between T1a and T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma: an international expert interobserver agreement study

BACKGROUND

 Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an acceptable technique for T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma, but en bloc R0 excision is advocated for T1b disease as it may offer a potential cure and mitigate recurrence. Thus, distinguishing between T1a and T1b disease is imperative under current treatment paradigms. We investigated whether expert Barrett's endoscopists could make this distinction based on optical evaluation.

METHODS

 Endoscopic images of histologically confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD), T1a, and T1b disease (20 sets for each) were compiled from consecutive patients at a single institution. Each set contained four images including an overview, a close-up in high definition white light, a near-focus magnification image, and a narrow-band image. Experts predicted the histology for each set.

RESULTS

 19 experts from 8 countries (Australia, USA, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, Canada, Belgium, and Portugal) participated. The majority had been practicing for > 20 years, with a median (interquartile range) annual case volume of 50 (18-75) for Barrett's EMR and 25 (10-45) for Barrett's endoscopic submucosal dissection. Esophageal adenocarcinoma (T1a/b) could be distinguished from HGD with a pooled sensitivity of 89.1 % (95 %CI 84.7-93.4). T1b adenocarcinoma could be predicted with a pooled sensitivity of 43.8 % (95 %CI 29.9-57.7). Fleiss' kappa was 0.421 (95 %CI 0.399-0.442; P < 0.001), indicating fair-to-moderate agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

 Expert Barrett's endoscopists could reliably differentiate T1a/T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma from HGD. Despite fair-to-moderate agreement for T staging, T1b disease could not be reliably distinguished from T1a disease. This may impact clinical decision making and selection of endoscopic techniques.

Prevalence and Risk Factors for Malignant Nodal Involvement in Early Esophago-Gastric Adenocarcinoma: Results From the Multicenter Retrospective Congress Study (endosCopic resectiON, esophaGectomy or Gastrectomy for Early Esophagogastric Cancers)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to quantify lymph node metastasis (LNM) risk and outcomes following treatment of early esophago-gastric (EG) adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND

The standard of care for early T1N0 EG cancer is endoscopic resection (ER). Radical surgical resection is recommended for patients perceived to be at risk of LNM. Current models to select organ-preserving versus surgical treatment are inconsistent.

METHODS

CONGRESS is a UK-based multicenter retrospective cohort study. Patients diagnosed with clinical or pathological T1N0 EG adenocarcinoma from 2015 to 2022 were included. Outcomes and rates of LNM were assessed. Cox regression was performed to assess the impact of prognostic and treatment factors on overall survival.

RESULTS

A total of 1601 patients from 26 centers were included, with median follow-up 32 months (IQR 14-53). 1285/1612 (80.3%) underwent ER, 497/1601 (31.0%) underwent surgery. Overall rate of LNM was 13.5%. On ER staging, tumour depth (T1bsm2-3 17.6% vs T1a 7.1%), lymphovascular invasion (17.2% vs 12.6%), or signet cells (28.6% vs 13.0%) were associated with LNM. In multivariable regression analysis, these were not significantly associated with LNM rates or survival. Adjusting for demographic and tumour variables, surgery after ER was associated with significant survival benefit, HR 0.33 (0.15-0.77), P =0.010.

CONCLUSIONS

This large multicenter data set suggests that early EG adenocarcinoma is associated with significant risk of LNM. These data are representative of current real clinical practice with ER-based staging, and suggests previously held beliefs regarding reliability of predictive factors for LNM may need to be reconsidered. Further research to identify patients who may benefit from organ-preserving versus surgical treatment is urgently required.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Barrett's Esophagus: An Updated Review

Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is a change in the distal esophageal mucosal lining, whereby metaplastic columnar epithelium replaces squamous epithelium of the esophagus. This change represents a pre-malignant mucosal transformation which has a known association with the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Gastroesophageal reflux disease is a risk factor for BE, other risk factors include patients who are Caucasian, age > 50 years, central obesity, tobacco use, history of peptic stricture and erosive gastritis. Screening for BE remains selective based on risk factors, a screening program in the general population is not routinely recommended. Diagnosis of BE is established with a combination of endoscopic recognition, targeted biopsies, and histologic confirmation of columnar metaplasia. We aim to provide a comprehensive review of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, screening and advanced techniques of detecting and eradicating Barrett’s esophagus.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022

ESGE recommends that the evaluation of superficial gastrointestinal (GI) lesions should be made by an experienced endoscopist, using high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based).ESGE does not recommend routine performance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or positron emission tomography (PET)-CT prior to endoscopic resection.ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the treatment of choice for most superficial esophageal squamous cell and superficial gastric lesions.For Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated lesions, ESGE suggests the use of ESD for lesions suspicious of submucosal invasion (Paris type 0-Is, 0-IIc), for malignant lesions > 20 mm, and for lesions in scarred/fibrotic areas.ESGE does not recommend routine use of ESD for duodenal or small-bowel lesions.ESGE suggests that ESD should be considered for en bloc resection of colorectal (but particularly rectal) lesions with suspicion of limited submucosal invasion (demarcated depressed area with irregular surface pattern or a large protruding or bulky component, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm) or for lesions that otherwise cannot be completely removed by snare-based techniques.ESGE recommends that an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with histology no more advanced than intramucosal cancer (no more than m2 in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma), well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion or ulceration, should be considered a very low risk (curative) resection, and no further staging procedure or treatment is generally recommended.ESGE recommends that the following should be considered to be a low risk (curative) resection and no further treatment is generally recommended: an en bloc R0 resection of a superficial GI lesion with superficial submucosal invasion (sm1), that is well to moderately differentiated, with no lymphovascular invasion, of size ≤ 20 mm for an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma or ≤ 30 mm for a stomach lesion or of any size for a BE-related or colorectal lesion, and with no lymphovascular invasion, and no budding grade 2 or 3 for colorectal lesions.ESGE recommends that, after an endoscopically complete resection, if there is a positive horizontal margin or if resection is piecemeal, but there is no submucosal invasion and no other high risk criteria are met, this should be considered a local-risk resection and endoscopic surveillance or re-treatment is recommended rather than surgery or other additional treatment.ESGE recommends that when there is a diagnosis of lymphovascular invasion, or deeper infiltration than sm1, or positive vertical margins, or undifferentiated tumor, or, for colorectal lesions, budding grade 2 or 3, this should be considered a high risk (noncurative) resection, and complete staging and strong consideration for additional treatments should be considered on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.ESGE recommends scheduled endoscopic surveillance with high definition white-light and chromoendoscopy (virtual or dye-based) with biopsies of only the suspicious areas after a curative ESD.