Search

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 : The optimal management for patients with low grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett's esophagus (BE) is unclear. According to the Dutch national guideline, all patients with LGD with histological confirmation of the diagnosis by an expert pathologist (i. e. "confirmed LGD"), are referred for a dedicated re-staging endoscopy at an expert center. We aimed to assess the diagnostic value of re-staging endoscopy by an expert endoscopist for patients with confirmed LGD. METHODS : This retrospective cohort study included all patients with flat BE diagnosed in a community hospital who had confirmed LGD and were referred to one of the nine Barrett Expert Centers (BECs) in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with prevalent high grade dysplasia (HGD) or cancer during re-staging in a BEC. RESULTS : Of the 248 patients with confirmed LGD, re-staging in the BEC revealed HGD or cancer in 23 % (57/248). In 79 % (45/57), HGD or cancer in a newly detected visible lesion was diagnosed. Of the remaining patients, re-staging in the BEC showed a second diagnosis of confirmed LGD in 68 % (168/248), while the remaining 9 % (23/248) had nondysplastic BE. CONCLUSION : One quarter of patients with apparent flat BE with confirmed LGD diagnosed in a community hospital had prevalent HGD or cancer after re-staging at an expert center. This endorses the advice to refer patients with confirmed LGD, including in the absence of visible lesions, to an expert center for re-staging endoscopy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The use of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is gradually expanding for treatment of neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aimed to report outcomes of all ESDs for BE neoplasia performed in the Netherlands.Methods: Retrospective assessment of outcomes, using treatment and follow-up data from a joint database.Results: 130/138 patients had complete ESDs, with 126/130 (97 %) en bloc resections. Median (interquartile range (IQR)) procedure time was 121 minutes (90-180). Pathology findings were high grade dysplasia (HGD) (5 %) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) T1a (43 %) or T1b (52 %; 19 % sm1, 33 % ≥ sm2). Among resections of HGD or T1a EAC lesions, 87 % (95 %CI 75 %-92 %) were both en bloc and R0; the corresponding value for T1b EAC lesions was 49 % (36 %-60 %). Among R1 resections, 10/34 (29 %) showed residual cancer, all detected at first endoscopic follow-up. The remaining 24 patients (71 %) showed no residual neoplasia. Six of these patients underwent surgery with no residual tumor; the remaining 18 underwent endoscopic follow-up during median 31 months with 1 local recurrence (annual recurrence rate 2 %). Among R0 resections, annual local recurrence rate during median 27 months was 0.5 %.Conclusion: In expert hands, ESD allows safe removal of bulky intraluminal neoplasia and submucosal cancer. ESD of the latter showed R1 resection margins in 50 %, yet only one third had persisting neoplasia at follow-up. To better stratify R1 patients with an indication for additional surgery, repeat endoscopy after healing of the ESD might be a helpful possible prognostic factor for residual cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Complete endoscopic resection and accurate histological evaluation for T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) are critical in determining subsequent treatment. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a new treatment option for T1 CRC < 2 cm. We aimed to report clinical outcomes and short-term results.Methods: Consecutive eFTR procedures for T1 CRC, prospectively recorded in our national registry between November 2015 and April 2020, were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were technical success and R0 resection. Secondary outcomes were histological risk assessment, curative resection, adverse events, and short-term outcomes.Results: We included 330 procedures: 132 primary resections and 198 secondary scar resections after incomplete T1 CRC resection. Overall technical success, R0 resection, and curative resection rates were 87.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 82.7 %-90.3 %), 85.6 % (95 %CI 81.2 %-89.2 %), and 60.3 % (95 %CI 54.7 %-65.7 %). Curative resection rate was 23.7 % (95 %CI 15.9 %-33.6 %) for primary resection of T1 CRC and 60.8 % (95 %CI 50.4 %-70.4 %) after excluding deep submucosal invasion as a risk factor. Risk stratification was possible in 99.3 %. The severe adverse event rate was 2.2 %. Additional oncological surgery was performed in 49/320 (15.3 %), with residual cancer in 11/49 (22.4 %). Endoscopic follow-up was available in 200/242 (82.6 %), with a median of 4 months and residual cancer in 1 (0.5 %) following an incomplete resection.Conclusions: eFTR is relatively safe and effective for resection of small T1 CRC, both as primary and secondary treatment. eFTR can expand endoscopic treatment options for T1 CRC and could help to reduce surgical overtreatment. Future studies should focus on long-term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endoscopic eradication therapy with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is effective in most patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). However, some patients experience poor healing and/or poor squamous regeneration. We evaluated incidence and treatment outcomes of poor healing and poor squamous regeneration.Methods: We included all patients treated with RFA for early BE neoplasia from a nationwide Dutch registry based on a joint treatment protocol. Poor healing (active inflammatory changes or visible ulcerations ≥ 3 months post-RFA), poor squamous regeneration (< 50 % squamous regeneration), and treatment success (complete eradication of BE [CE-BE]) were evaluated.Results: 1386 patients (median BE C2M5) underwent RFA with baseline low grade dysplasia (27 %), high grade dysplasia (30 %), or early cancer (43 %). In 134 patients with poor healing (10 %), additional time and acid suppression resulted in complete esophageal healing, and 67/134 (50 %) had normal squamous regeneration with 97 % CE-BE. Overall, 74 patients had poor squamous regeneration (5 %). Compared with patients with normal regeneration, patients with poor squamous regeneration had a higher risk for treatment failure (64 % vs. 2 %, relative risk [RR] 27 [95 % confidence interval [CI] 18-40]) and progression to advanced disease (15 % vs. < 1 %, RR 30 [95 %CI 12-81]). Higher body mass index, longer BE segment, reflux esophagitis, and < 50 % squamous regeneration after baseline endoscopic resection were independently associated with poor squamous regeneration in multivariable logistic regression.Conclusions: In half of the patients with poor healing, additional time and acid suppression led to normal squamous regeneration and excellent treatment outcomes. In patients with poor squamous regeneration, however, the risk for treatment failure and progression to advanced disease was significantly increased. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lymph node metastasis (LNM) is possible after endoscopic resection of early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). This study aimed to develop and internally validate a prediction model that estimates the individual risk of metastases in patients with pT1b EAC.Methods: A nationwide, retrospective, multicenter cohort study was conducted in patients with pT1b EAC treated with endoscopic resection and/or surgery between 1989 and 2016. The primary end point was presence of LNM in surgical resection specimens or detection of metastases during follow-up. All resection specimens were histologically reassessed by specialist gastrointestinal pathologists. Subdistribution hazard regression analysis was used to develop the prediction model. The discriminative ability of this model was assessed using the c-statistic.Results: 248 patients with pT1b EAC were included. Metastases were seen in 78 patients, and the 5-year cumulative incidence was 30.9 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 25.1 %-36.8 %). The risk of metastases increased with submucosal invasion depth (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 1.08, 95 %CI 1.02-1.14, for every increase of 500 μm), lymphovascular invasion (SHR 2.95, 95 %CI 1.95-4.45), and for larger tumors (SHR 1.23, 95 %CI 1.10-1.37, for every increase of 10 mm). The model demonstrated good discriminative ability (c-statistic 0.81, 95 %CI 0.75-0.86).Conclusions: A third of patients with pT1b EAC experienced metastases within 5 years. The probability of developing post-resection metastases was estimated with a personalized predicted risk score incorporating tumor invasion depth, tumor size, and lymphovascular invasion. This model requires external validation before implementation into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND : Clinical tumor stage of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is determined by endoscopic ultrasound and/or computed tomography scan, which have low accuracy for stages T1 and T2, potentially leading to overtreatment. We aimed to assess the proportion of cT2 EACs downstaged to cT1 after endoscopic reassessment (ERA) by an experienced interventional endoscopist. METHODS : We performed a prospective multicenter cohort study. Patients with cT2N0M0 EAC were included and underwent ERA. The primary outcome was proportion of cT2 EACs downstaged to cT1 after ERA. RESULTS : 15/25 included patients (60 %) were downstaged from cT2 to cT1 EAC after ERA and underwent attempted endoscopic resection. Endoscopic resection was aborted in 3/15 patients because of tumor invasion into the muscle layer; all three underwent successful surgical resection. Endoscopic resection was successful in 12/15 patients (80 %), all of whom had pT1 tumors. Overall, 10/25 (40 %) were treated with endoscopic resection alone. CONCLUSIONS : ERA downstaged about half of the cT2 tumors to cT1, rendering them suitable for endoscopic resection. ERA had substantial clinical impact on therapeutic management, preventing overtreatment in 40 % of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (eFTR) is a minimally invasive resection technique that allows definite diagnosis and treatment for complex colorectal lesions ≤ 30 mm unsuitable for conventional endoscopic resection. This study reports clinical outcomes from the Dutch colorectal eFTR registry.Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing eFTR in 20 hospitals were prospectively included. The primary outcome was technical success, defined as macroscopic complete en bloc resection. Secondary outcomes were: clinical success, defined as tumor-free resection margins (R0 resection); full-thickness resection rate; and adverse events. RESULTS : Between July 2015 and October 2018, 367 procedures were included. Indications were difficult polyps (non-lifting sign and/or difficult location; n = 133), primary resection of suspected T1 colorectal cancer (CRC; n = 71), re-resection after incomplete resection of T1 CRC (n = 150), and subepithelial tumors (n = 13). Technical success was achieved in 308 procedures (83.9 %). In 21 procedures (5.7 %), eFTR was not performed because the lesion could not be reached or retracted into the cap. In the remaining 346 procedures, R0 resection was achieved in 285 (82.4 %) and full-thickness resection in 288 (83.2 %). The median diameter of resected specimens was 23 mm. Overall adverse event rate was 9.3 % (n = 34/367): 10 patients (2.7 %) required emergency surgery for five delayed and two immediate perforations and three cases of appendicitis. CONCLUSION : eFTR is an effective and relatively safe en bloc resection technique for complex colorectal lesions with the potential to avoid surgery. Further studies assessing the role of eFTR in early CRC treatment with long-term outcomes are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

B Impact of expert center endoscopic assessment of confirmed low grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus diagnosed in community hospitals b Nieuwenhuis EA, van Munster SN, Curvers WL et al. Correct is: Impact of expert center endoscopic assessment of confirmed low grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus diagnosed in community hospitals.. This was corrected in the online version on August 5, 2022. [Extracted from the article]