A prospective randomized trial of two different endoscopic resection techniques for early stage cancer of the esophagus

doi:10.1067/mge.2003.339

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Volume 58, Issue 2, August 2003, Pages 167-175

https://doi.org/10.1067/mge.2003.339 Get rights and content

Background: A variety of different endoscopic resection techniques for early stage cancer of the upper Gl tract have been described that are more effective than strip blopsy. However, there is no report of a prospective randomized comparison of different techniques.

Methods: In a prospective randomized study, 100 consecutive endoscopic resections were performed in 72 patients with early stage esophageal cancer. Fifty endoscopic resections were performed with a “suck-and-ligate” device without prior submucosa injection and 50 with the cap technique with prior submucosa injection of a dilute saline solution of epinephrine. The main assessment criteria were maximum diameter of the resection specimen and of the resection area, and the complication rate.

Results: No significant differences were observed between the two groups with regard to the maximum diameters and calculated area of the resected specimens (ligation group: 16.4 [4.0]×11 [3.1] mm/185 [84] mm² vs. cap group: 15.5 [4.1]×10.7 [2.7] mm/168 [83] mm²), or the maxlmum diameters and calculated area of the endoscopic resection ulcers after 24 hours (ligation group: 20.6 [4.8]×14.3 [4.5] mm/314 [160] mm² vs. cap group: 18.9 [5.1]×12.9 [3.8] mm/260 [145] mm²). There was only a slight advantage (greater diameter of resection specimens) for the ligation group in patients who had prior endoscopic treatment. There was one minor eplsode of bleeding in each group; there was no severe complication. In 41 of 72 patients (57%), further endoscopic therapy after endoscopic resection was necessary because of residual neoplasia at the first follow-up endoscopy after resection (61 of 100 resection specimens [61%] had lateral margins that could not be evaluated because of coagulation artifact or contained malignancy but with the base of the lesion free of tumor).

Conclusions: The cap technique with submucosa injection and the ligation technique without submucosa injection are similar with respect to efficacy and safety for endoscopic resection of early stage esophageal cancers.

References (15)

InoueH et al.
Endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted panendoscope for esophagus, stomach and colon mucosal lesions
Gastrointest Endosc
(1993)
ToriiA et al.
Endoscopic aspiration mucosectomy as curative endoscopic surgery: analysis of 24 cases of early gastric cancer
Gastrointest Endosc
(1995)
SakaiP et al.
An endoscopic technique for resection of small gastrointestinal carcinomas
Gastrointest Endosc
(1996)
NodaM et al.
Endoscopic mucosal resection using a partial transparent hood for lesions located tangentially to the endoscope
Gastrointest Endosc
(2000)
NaraharaH et al.
Effectiveness of endoscopic mucosal resection with submucosal saline injection technique for superficial squamous carcinomas of the esophagus
Gastrointest Endosc
(2000)
TanabeS et al.
Usefulness of endoscopic aspiration mucosectomy as compared with strip biopsy for the treatment of gastric mucosal cancer
Gastrointest Endosc
(1999)
EllC et al.
Endoscopic mucosal resection of early cancer and high grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus
Gastroenterology
(2000)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (194)

Curative criteria for endoscopic treatment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma
2024, Best Practice and Research: Clinical Gastroenterology
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.
Advancing Approaches for Superficial Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: Shifting Toward More Patient-tailored Therapy
2023, Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
The incidence of superficial esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is rising and warrants awareness. Invasive surgery with lymph node dissection was long standard treatment for EAC. However, endoscopic resection techniques, such as cap-based endoscopic resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), have proven to be safe and effective alternatives for removal of superficial EAC. Therefore, endoscopic resection is now the cornerstone of management for superficial EAC, for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Current guidelines advise use of the cap-based approach for small, flat lesions, whereas ESD is recommended for large and bulky lesions, lesions with suspected submucosal invasion, or lesions in scarred areas. The histopathological assessment after a resection, evaluating histological risk factors for lymph node metastases, plays a key role in the decision about whether additional surgery is indicated. Until recently, all submucosal and/or high-risk EAC had an indication for additional (prophylactic) surgery because of the assumed high risk for lymph node metastases. However, this risk appears lower than initially assumed, and endoscopic management for low-risk submucosal EAC is gaining acceptance. Ongoing prospective trials will help to determine whether a watchful waiting strategy could be an alternative to surgery in patients with submucosal and/or high-risk EAC. In the future, the distinction between patients who can safely be followed with a watchful waiting strategy and patients who might benefit from additional surgery could become more unambiguous, resulting in more optimal patient-tailored management for patients with superficial EAC.
Multidisciplinary Evaluation and Management of Early Stage Esophageal Cancer
2020, Surgical Oncology Clinics of North America
Ablation for Patients With Barrett or Dysplasia
2019, Shackelford's Surgery of the Alimentary Tract: 2 Volume Set
The evidence now supports endoscopic therapy as the gold standard in patients with high-grade dysplasia in Barrett esophagus. The combination of endoscopic mucosal resection of visible abnormalities and associated ablation of the residual intestinal metaplasia with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) offers low morbidity with the most efficient and durable short- and long-term outcomes. Other ablative techniques include photodynamic therapy, argon plasma coagulation, and cryotherapy, but these may have higher morbidity and higher recurrence rates of intestinal metaplasia and higher rates of buried Barrett compared with RFA. The use of mucosal ablation for low-grade dysplasia can be considered under strict pathologic and clinical guidelines but should not be used in patients with nondysplastic intestinal metaplasia. All patients who have had endoscopic therapy for Barrett dysplasia require long-term acid suppression therapy and careful endoscopic follow-up.
A prospective multicenter study using a new multiband mucosectomy device for endoscopic resection of early neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus
2018, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Citation Excerpt :
This also strengthens the belief that endoscopic treatment of early Barrett’s neoplasia should be centralized in expert centers, where potentially severe adverse events can be adequately managed.1 The perforation rate of 1% in this study was comparable with the 0% to 2% perforation rate reported for MBM in BE in other studies.4-8 However, these studies were mainly focused on efficacy outcomes and were underpowered for assessing risk of perforations.
Early neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus (BE) can be effectively and safely removed by endoscopic resection (ER) using multiband mucosectomy (MBM). This study aimed to document performance of a novel MBM device designed for improved visualization, easier passage of accessories, and better suction power compared with other marketed MBM devices.
This international, single-arm, prospective registry in 14 referral centers (Europe, 10; United States, 3; Canada, 1) included patients with early BE neoplasia scheduled for ER. The primary endpoint was successful ER defined as complete resection of the delineated area in 1 procedure. Secondary outcomes were adverse events and procedure time.
A total of 332 lesions was included in 291 patients (248 men; mean age, 67 years [standard deviation, 9.6]). ER indication was high-grade dysplasia in 64%, early adenocarcinoma in 19%, lesion with low-grade dysplasia in 11%, and a lesion without definite histology in 6%. Successful ER was reached in 322 of 332 lesions (97%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 94.6%-98.4%). A perforation occurred in 3 of 332 procedures (.9%; 95% CI, .31%-2.62%), all were managed endoscopically, and patients were admitted with intravenous antibiotics during days 2, 3, and 9. Postprocedural bleeding requiring an intervention occurred in 5 of 332 resections (1.5%; 95% CI, .65%-3.48%). Dysphagia requiring dilatation occurred in 11 patients (3.8%; 95% CI, 2.1%-6.6%). Median procedure time was 16 minutes (interquartile range, 12.0-26.0).
In expert hands, the novel MBM device proved to be effective for resection of early neoplastic lesions in BE, with successful ER in 97% of procedures. Severe adverse events were rare and were effectively managed endoscopically or conservatively. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02482701.)
Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early Barrett's neoplasia: a meta-analysis
2018, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
The role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is not well established. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ESD for the management of early BE neoplasia.
Three online databases were searched. The Cochran Q test and I² were used to test for heterogeneity. Pooling was conducted using either fixed- or random-effects models depending on heterogeneity across studies. For the main outcomes, potential sources of heterogeneity were evaluated via linear regression analysis.
Eleven studies (501 patients, 524 lesions) were included. Mean lesion size was 27 mm (95% confidence interval [CI], 20.9-33.1). Pooled estimate for en bloc resection was 92.9% (95% CI, 90.3%-95.2%). The pooled R0 (complete) and curative resection rates were 74.5% (95% CI, 66.3%-81.9%) and 64.9% (95% CI, 55.7%-73.6%), respectively. There was no association between R0 or curative resection rates and study setting (Asia vs West), length of BE, lesion characteristics, procedural time, or length of follow-up. The pooled estimates for perforation and bleeding were 1.5% (95% CI, .4%-3.0%) and 1.7% (95% CI, .6%-3.4%), respectively. Esophageal stricture rate was 11.6% (95% CI, .9%-29.6%). Incidence of recurrence after curative resection was .17% (95% CI, 0%-.3%) at a mean follow-up 22.9 months (95% CI, 17.5-28.3).
ESD for early BE neoplasia is associated with a high en bloc resection rate, acceptable safety profile, and low recurrence after curative resection. ESD should be considered as part of the armamentarium for the management of BE neoplasia.

View all citing articles on Scopus

¹: Presented at Digestive Diseases Week, May 19-23, 2002, San Francisco, California (Gastrointest Endosc 2002;55:AB113)

View full text

A prospective randomized trial of two different endoscopic resection techniques for early stage cancer of the esophagus1

Gastrointest Endosc

Gastrointest Endosc

Gastrointest Endosc

Gastrointest Endosc

Gastrointest Endosc

Gastrointest Endosc

Gastroenterology