TY - JOUR
T1 - Endoscopic submucosal dissection vsendoscopic mucosal resection for early Barrett's neoplasia in the West
T2 - A retrospective study
AU - Mejia Perez, Lady Katherine
AU - Yang, Dennis
AU - Draganov, Peter V.
AU - Jawaid, Salmaan
AU - Chak, Amitabh
AU - Dumot, John
AU - Alaber, Omar
AU - Vargo, John J.
AU - Jang, Sunguk
AU - Mehta, Neal
AU - Fukami, Norio
AU - Chua, Tiffany
AU - Gabr, Moamen
AU - Kudaravalli, Praneeth
AU - Aihara, Hiroyuki
AU - Maluf-Filho, Fauze
AU - Ngamruengphong, Saowanee
AU - Pourmousavi Khoshknab, Milad
AU - Bhatt, Amit
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 EDP Sciences. All rights reserved.
PY - 2022/5/1
Y1 - 2022/5/1
N2 - Background The difference in clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia remains unclear. We compared the recurrence/residual tissue rates, resection outcomes, and adverse events after ESD and EMR for early BE neoplasia. Methods We included patients who underwent EMR or ESD for BE-associated high grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) at eight academic hospitals. We compared demographic, procedural, and histologic characteristics, and follow-up data. A time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence/residual disease and a Kaplan-Meier curve was used to compare the groups. Results 243 patients (150 EMR; 93 ESD) were included. EMR had lower en bloc (43% vs. 89%; P <0.001) and R0 (56% vs. 73%; P =0.01) rates than ESD. There was no difference in the rates of perforation (0.7% vs. 0; P >0.99), early bleeding (0.7% vs. 1%; P >0.99), delayed bleeding (3.3% vs. 2.1%; P =0.71), and stricture (10% vs. 16%; P =0.16) between EMR and ESD. Patients with non-curative resections who underwent further therapy were excluded from the recurrence analysis. Recurrent/residual disease was 31.4% [44/140] for EMR and 3.5% [3/85] for ESD during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 15.5 (6.75-30) and 8 (2-18) months, respectively. Recurrence-/residual disease-free survival was significantly higher in the ESD group. More patients required additional endoscopic resection procedures to treat recurrent/residual disease after EMR (EMR 24.2% vs. ESD 3.5%; P <0.001). Conclusions ESD is safe and results in more definitive treatment of early BE neoplasia, with significantly lower recurrence/residual disease rates and less need for repeat endoscopic treatments than with EMR.
AB - Background The difference in clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia remains unclear. We compared the recurrence/residual tissue rates, resection outcomes, and adverse events after ESD and EMR for early BE neoplasia. Methods We included patients who underwent EMR or ESD for BE-associated high grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) at eight academic hospitals. We compared demographic, procedural, and histologic characteristics, and follow-up data. A time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence/residual disease and a Kaplan-Meier curve was used to compare the groups. Results 243 patients (150 EMR; 93 ESD) were included. EMR had lower en bloc (43% vs. 89%; P <0.001) and R0 (56% vs. 73%; P =0.01) rates than ESD. There was no difference in the rates of perforation (0.7% vs. 0; P >0.99), early bleeding (0.7% vs. 1%; P >0.99), delayed bleeding (3.3% vs. 2.1%; P =0.71), and stricture (10% vs. 16%; P =0.16) between EMR and ESD. Patients with non-curative resections who underwent further therapy were excluded from the recurrence analysis. Recurrent/residual disease was 31.4% [44/140] for EMR and 3.5% [3/85] for ESD during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 15.5 (6.75-30) and 8 (2-18) months, respectively. Recurrence-/residual disease-free survival was significantly higher in the ESD group. More patients required additional endoscopic resection procedures to treat recurrent/residual disease after EMR (EMR 24.2% vs. ESD 3.5%; P <0.001). Conclusions ESD is safe and results in more definitive treatment of early BE neoplasia, with significantly lower recurrence/residual disease rates and less need for repeat endoscopic treatments than with EMR.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85114315370&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85114315370&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1055/a-1541-7659
DO - 10.1055/a-1541-7659
M3 - Article
C2 - 34450667
AN - SCOPUS:85114315370
SN - 0013-726X
VL - 54
SP - 439
EP - 446
JO - Endoscopy
JF - Endoscopy
IS - 5
ER -