Search

Background This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for Barrett's neoplasia recurrence after radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Methods Data from patients at 16 centers were collected for a multicenter retrospective study. Patients who underwent at least one RFA treatment for Barrett's esophagus and thereafter underwent further esophageal ESD for neoplasia recurrence were included. Results Data from 56 patients who underwent salvage ESD between April 2014 and November 2022 were collected. Immediate complications included one muscular tear (1.8%) treated with stent (Agree classification: grade IIIa). Two transmural perforations (3.6%; treated with clips) and five muscular tears (8.9%; two treated with clips) had no clinical impact and were not considered as adverse events. Seven patients (12.5%) developed strictures (grade IIIa), which were treated with balloon dilation. Histological analysis showed 36 adenocarcinoma, 17 high grade dysplasia, and 3 low grade dysplasia. En bloc and R0 resection rates were 89.3% and 66.1%, respectively. Resections were curative in 33 patients (58.9%), and noncurative in 22 patients (39.3%), including 11 "local risk" (19.6%) and 11 "high risk" (19.6%) resections. At the end of follow-up with a median time of 14 (0–75) months after salvage ESD, and with further endoscopic treatment if necessary (RFA, argon plasma coagulation, endoscopic mucosal resection, ESD), neoplasia remission ratio was 37/53 (69.8%) and the median remission time was 13 (1–75) months. Conclusion In expert hands, salvage ESD was a safe and effective treatment for recurrence of Barrett's neoplasia after RFA treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background This study evaluated the proportion of patients with residual neoplasia after endoscopic resection (ER) for Barrett's neoplasia with confirmed tumor-positive vertical resection margin (R1v). Methods This retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing ER for Barrett's neoplasia with histologically documented R1v since 2008 in the Dutch Barrett Expert Centers. We defined R1v as cancer cells touching vertical resection margins and Rx as nonassessable margins. Reassessment of R1v specimens was performed by experienced pathologists until consensus was reached regarding vertical margins. Results 101/110 included patients had macroscopically complete resections (17 T1a, 84 T1b), and 99/101 (98%) ER specimens were histologically reassessed, with R1v confirmed in 74 patients (75%), Rx in 16%, and R0 in 9%. Presence/absence of residual neoplasia could be assessed in 66/74 patients during endoscopic reassessment (52) and/or in the surgical resection specimen (14), and 33/66 (50%) had residual neoplasia. Residual neoplasia detected during endoscopy was always endoscopically visible and biopsies from a normal-appearing ER scar did not detect additional neoplasia. Of 25 patients who underwent endoscopic follow-up (median 37 months [interquartile range 12–50]), 4 developed local recurrence (16.0%), all detected as visible abnormalities. Conclusions After ER with R1v, 50% of patients had no residual neoplasia. Histological evaluation of ER margins appears challenging, as in this study 75% of documented R1v cases were confirmed during reassessment. Endoscopic reassessment 8–12 weeks after ER seems to accurately detect residual neoplasia and can help to determine the most appropriate strategy for patients with R1v. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is established as first-choice treatment for early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) worldwide, most data are derived from Asian studies. We aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of ESD for patients with early ESCC in a Western cohort. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, patients with early ESCC amenable to ESD were included from four tertiary referral hospitals in the Netherlands between 2012 and 2017. All ESD procedures were performed by experienced endoscopists, after which the decision for additional treatment was made on a per-patient basis. Outcomes were curative resection rate, ESCC-specific survival, and overall survival. Results Of 68 included patients (mean age 69 years; 34 males), ESD was technically successful in 66 (97%; 95%CI 93%–100%), with curative resection achieved in 34/66 (52%; 95%CI 39%–64%). Among patients with noncurative resection, 15/32 (47%) underwent additional treatment, mainly esophagectomy (n = 10) or definitive chemoradiation therapy (n = 4). Endoscopic surveillance was preferred in 17/32 patients (53%), based on severe comorbidities or patient choice. Overall, 31/66 patients (47%) died during a median follow-up of 66 months; 8/31 (26%) were ESCC-related deaths. The 5-year overall and ESCC-specific survival probabilities were 62% (95%CI 52%–75%) and 86% (95%CI 77%–96%), respectively. Conclusion In this Western cohort with long-term follow-up, the effectiveness and safety of ESD for early ESCC was confirmed, although the rate of noncurative resections was substantial. Irrespective of curative status, the long-term prognosis of these patients was limited mainly due to competing mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tumors in the distal esophagus (EAC), gastro-esophageal junction including cardia (GEJAC), and stomach (GAC) develop in close proximity and show strong similarities on a molecular and cellular level. However, recent clinical data showed that the effectiveness of chemo-immunotherapy is limited to a subset of GEAC patients and that EACs and GEJACs generally benefit less from checkpoint inhibition compared to GACs. As the composition of the tumor immune microenvironment drives response to (immuno)therapy we here performed a detailed immune analysis of a large series of GEACs to facilitate the development of a more individualized immunomodulatory strategy. Methods: Extensive immunophenotyping was performed by 14-color flow cytometry in a prospective study to detail the immune composition of untreated gastro-esophageal cancers (n=104) using fresh tumor biopsies of 35 EACs, 38 GEJACs and 31 GACs. The immune cell composition of GEACs was characterized and correlated with clinicopathologic features such as tumor location, MSI and HER2 status. The spatial immune architecture of a subset of tumors (n=30) was evaluated using multiplex immunohistochemistry (mIHC) which allowed us to determine the tumor infiltration status of CD3+, CD8+, FoxP3+, CD163+ and Ki67+ cells. Results: Immunophenotyping revealed that the tumor immune microenvironment of GEACs is heterogeneous and that immune suppressive cell populations such as monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cells (mMDSC) are more abundant in EACs compared to GACs (p<0.001). In contrast, GACs indicated a proinflammatory microenvironment with elevated frequencies of proliferating (Ki67+) CD4 Th cells (p<0.001), Ki67+ CD8 T cells (p=0.002), and CD8 effector memory-T cells (p=0.024). Differences between EACs and GACs were confirmed by mIHC analyses showing lower densities of tumor- and stroma-infiltrating Ki67+ CD8 T cells in EAC compared to GAC (both p=0.021). Discussions: This comprehensive immune phenotype study of a large series of untreated GEACs, identified that tumors with an esophageal tumor location have more immune suppressive features compared to tumors in the gastro-esophageal junction or stomach which might explain the location-specific responses to checkpoint inhibitors in this disease. These findings provide an important rationale for stratification according to tumor location in clinical studies and the development of location-dependent immunomodulatory treatment approaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Jung et al. [17] found a significant influence of neoadjuvant treatment, intraluminal technique, and increased CRP at diagnosis on therapy failure in 119 patients. They identified 116 patients treated with EVT and found use of the intracavitary technique at first endoscopy, more complications, and higher CRP and WBC count at diagnosis significantly influenced EVT failure. EVT procedures EVT procedures were performed with the patients under deep propofol sedation or general anesthesia. Among the successful EVT treatments, a median of six (IQR 3-11) EVT-related endoscopies were performed during a mean (SD) of 33 (24) days of treatment ( B Table 2 s b ). [Extracted from the article]

The rate of successful defect closure by EVT, with or without the use of other endoscopic treatment modalities, was 89 %, suggesting that EVT is an effective organ-sparing therapeutic option for these perforations, allowing invasive surgery to be avoided in the vast majority of patients. Generally, patients with defects large enough for endoscope passage with large extraluminal cavities received intracavitary therapy and patients with small defects received intraluminal therapy. 1 Trajectory of successful endoscopic vacuum therapy in a patient with Boerhaave syndrome. a,b The initial defect. c-e The defect during sponge exchange. f Successful closure of the defect. Graph Introduction Esophageal perforations can be caused by iatrogenic or non-iatrogenic means, including endoscopic procedures and Boerhaave syndrome. [Extracted from the article]

Background Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is effective for eradication of Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia, but little is known on the course of pain and dysphagia after RFA. We aimed to describe the course of post-RFA symptoms and to identify possible associated risk factors. Methods In this multicenter, observational cohort study, all RFA procedures registered in a prospective database were included. Patient and treatment characteristics were collected from medical records and patients self-registered post-procedural symptoms in electronic symptom diaries for 14 days. Mixed model regression was used for the analyses. Results In total, 255 diaries were completed. Post-RFA pain was reported for 95 % (95 %CI 93–98) of procedures (median duration 14 days; 25th–75th percentiles [p25–p75] 11–14) and major pain for 64 % (95 %CI 58–69; median duration 8 days, p25–p75 3–13). Post-procedural pain significantly increased with BE length, younger age, and no prior ablation. Dysphagia was present after 83 % (95 %CI 79–88) of procedures (median duration 13 days, p25–p75 9–14). The risk of dysphagia decreased with age and increased when patients experienced more pain. Conclusions RFA treatment for BE-related neoplasia seems a significant burden for patients, and post-procedural symptoms should be taken into account when counseling patients before starting endoscopic eradication therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]