4.5 Article

Endoscopic submucosal dissection is associated with less pathologic uncertainty than endoscopic mucosal resection in diagnosing and staging Barrett's-related neoplasia

Journal

DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY
Volume 32, Issue 3, Pages 346-354

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/den.13487

Keywords

Barrett's esophagus; endoscopic mucosal resection; esophageal adenocarcinoma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background & Aims Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) have demonstrated similar efficacy in removal of neoplastic esophageal lesions. However, significant controversy exists over the preferred resection technique. Our primary aim was to compare the pathologic specimens produced via EMR and ESD and secondarily gauge their effect on clinical decision making and patient outcomes. Methods Using a retrospective cohort study design, all esophageal Barrett's-associated neoplastic lesions resected by a single provider from 2012 to 2017 were reviewed. The pathology was re-reviewed by two blinded authors for diagnosis, margins, and adverse outcomes and recurrence rates were also collected. Results Thirty-one EMR and 20 ESD cases were identified. Baseline demographics and lesion characteristics were similar. ESD produced more R0 resections and more en bloc resections compared to EMR. EMR produced more equivocal lateral (13/31, 41.9% vs 1/20, 5.0%) and vertical margins (13/31, 41.9% vs. 0/20, 0%, both P < 0.05). This led to an inability to reach a definitive diagnosis in 13/31 EMR vs 0/20 ESD pathology specimens (P = 0.003). Of the 13 EMR specimens with equivocal pathology, 11 were noted to have 'at least intramucosal adenocarcinoma'. Four of the 11 patients chose to undergo elective esophagectomy with final surgical pathology demonstrating <= T1a disease in 2, and >= T1b disease in two. Conclusion Compared to ESD, EMR was associated with greater pathologic uncertainty in Barrett's-associated neoplasia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available