Endoscopic management and follow-up of patients with a submucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: The risk of lymph node metastases (LNM) in submucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) patients is subject to debate. These patients might be treated endoscopically if the risk of LNM appears to be low. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to evaluate the outcome of patients who underwent an endoscopic resection (ER) and subsequent endoscopic follow-up for a submucosal EAC. METHODS: All patients who underwent ER for submucosal EAC between January 2012 and August 2016 and were subsequently managed with endoscopic follow-up were retrospectively identified. Primary outcome was the number of patients diagnosed with LNM; secondary outcomes included intraluminal recurrences. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients (median age 68 years) were included: 17 low-risk (submucosal invasion <500 microns, G1-G2, no lymphovascular invasion (LVI)), and 18 high-risk (submucosal invasion >500 microns, and/or G3-G4, and/or LVI, and/or a tumor-positive deep resection margin (R1)) EACs. After a median follow-up of 23 (IQR 15-43) months, in which patients underwent a median of six (IQR 4-8) endoscopies and a median of four (IQR 2-8) endoscopic ultrasound procedures, none of the included patients were diagnosed with LNM. Five (14%) patients developed a local intraluminal recurrence a median of 18 (IQR 11-21) months after baseline ER that were treated endoscopically. CONCLUSIONS: In 35 patients with a submucosal EAC, no LNM were found during a median follow-up of 23 months. Endoscopic therapy may be an alternative for surgery in selected patients with a submucosal EAC.

Pilot-study on the feasibility of sentinel node navigation surgery in combination with thoracolaparoscopic lymphadenectomy without esophagectomy in early esophageal adenocarcinoma patients.

High-risk submucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma's might be treated curatively by means of radical endoscopic resection, followed by thoracolaparoscopic lymphadenectomy without concomitant esophagectomy. A preclinical study has shown the feasibility and safety of this approach; however, no studies are performed in a clinical setting. In addition, sentinel node navigation surgery could be valuable in tailoring the extent of the lymphadenectomy. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of thoracolaparoscopic lymphadenectomy without esophagectomy (phase I) and sentinel node navigation surgery (phase II) in patients with early esophageal adenocarcinoma. Patients with T1N0M0 early esophageal adenocarcinoma scheduled for esophagectomy without neoadjuvant therapy were included. Phase I: Two-field, esophagus preserving, thoracolaparoscopic lymphadenectomy was performed, followed by esophagectomy in the same session. Primary outcome parameters were the number of lymph nodes resected, and number of retained lymph nodes in the esophagectomy specimen. Phase II: A radioactive tracer was injected endoscopically the day before surgery. Static imaging was performed 15 and 120 minutes after injection. The day of surgery, sentinel node navigation surgery followed by esophagectomy was performed. Primary outcome parameters were the percentage of patients with a detectable sentinel node, and the concordance between static imaging and probe-based detection of sentinel node. Phase I: Five patients were included, and a median of 30 (IQR: 25-46) lymph nodes was resected. A median of 6 (IQR: 2-9) retained lymph nodes was found in the esophagectomy specimen. No acute adverse events occurred, but near the end of lymphadenectomy esophageal discoloration was observed, possibly indicating ischemia. Phase II: In all five included patients sentinel nodes could be visualized and resected, at a median of 3 (IQR: 2-5) locations. There was a high concordance between imaging and probe-based detection of sentinel nodes. In conclusion, sentinel node navigation surgery followed by lymphadenectomy without concomitant esophagectomy seems feasible in patients with high-risk submucosal early esophageal adenocarcinoma. More evidence is however needed before applying this technique in clinical practice.

Thoracolaparoscopic dissection of esophageal lymph nodes without esophagectomy is feasible in human cadavers and safe in a porcine survival study.

High-risk early esophageal adenocarcinoma (i.e. submucosal invasion >500 nm, poor differentiation, and/or presence of lymphovascular invasion) is currently treated with esophagectomy with lymph node (LN) dissection given the high rates of LN metastases. However, esophagectomy is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic radical resection followed by thoracolaparoscopic LN dissection without concomitant esophagectomy could be an alternative. The study aim was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of thoracolaparoscopic dissection of esophageal LNs in a preclinical setting. (i) In human cadavers, thoracolaparoscopic dissection of LNs involved in drainage of the esophagus was performed. Subsequently, esophagectomy was performed to be able to detect retained LNs. Outcome parameters included the number of dissected LNs, the number of retained LNs in the esophagectomy specimen (ES), and technical success. (ii) In swine, thoracolaparoscopic LN dissection was also performed. After the procedure, the swine survived for 28 days. Thereafter, the swine were sacrificed and esophagectomy was performed. Outcome parameters included the presence of ischemia and/or stenosis in the ES and other complications. (i) In five human cadavers, a median of 26 LNs (interquartile range 22-46) were dissected. In two ES, one retained LN was found: one high paraesophageal, one low paraesophageal. Technical success rate was 100%. (ii) None of the seven porcine ES showed signs of ischemia or stenosis. One swine died because of ventricular fibrillation during surgery; during follow up no complications were observed. Thoracolaparoscopic dissection of LNs involved in the drainage of the esophagus is feasible in human cadavers and swine. The porcine survival study suggests that the esophageal vascularity is not severely compromised by the procedure. As anatomy differs between swine and humans, safety of the procedure will have to be investigated thoroughly before applying this new technique as the treatment of choice.