Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Adenocarcinomas of the Esophagogastric Junction.

BACKGROUND: Adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) is uncommon in Eastern countries, including Japan, but it is believed that the incidence of EGJ adenocarcinoma will increase in Asia in the future due to the decreasing incidence of Helicobacter pylori infection. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a minimally invasive and curative treatment that allows precise pathological assessment. SUMMARY: Magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging may be useful for differential diagnoses and for delineating the cancer margin of EGJ adenocarcinoma, but subsquamous carcinoma extension, which is the invasion of EGJ adenocarcinoma beneath the normal esophageal squamous epithelium, makes it difficult to detect cancer margins of the oral side in ESD for EGJ adenocarcinoma. Since subsquamous carcinoma extension was reported to be less than 1 cm in most cases, the oral safety margin that is placed 1 cm from the squamocolumnar junction is useful for negative cancerous horizontal margin. A multicenter retrospective study of esophageal adenocarcinoma including EGJ adenocarcinoma showed that mucosal and submucosal cancer within 500 µm from the muscularis mucosa without lymphovascular involvement, a poorly differentiated component, and lesion size over 3 cm were not associated with metastasis. Several retrospective studies about ESD for EGJ adenocarcinoma have suggested feasible short-term and long-term outcomes using curative criteria based on gastric cancer guidelines. Key Messages: ESD would be a good first-line treatment for superficial EGJ adenocarcinoma, including Barrett's adenocarcinoma. Additional information about the incidence of metastasis would help confirm the indication of ESD for EGJ adenocarcinoma.

Economic value of narrow-band imaging versus white light endoscopy for the diagnosis and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus: Cost-consequence model.

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is an abnormality arising from gastroesophageal reflux disease that can progressively evolve into a sequence of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma. Progression of Barrett's esophagus into dysplasia is monitored with endoscopic surveillance. The current surveillance standard requests random biopsies plus targeted biopsies of suspicious lesions under white-light endoscopy, known as the Seattle protocol. Recently, published evidence has shown that narrow-band imaging (NBI) can guide targeted biopsies to identify dysplasia and reduce the need for random biopsies. We aimed to assess the health economic implications of adopting NBI-guided targeted biopsy vs. the Seattle protocol from a National Health Service England perspective. A decision tree model was developed to undertake a cost-consequence analysis. The model estimated total costs (i.e. staff and overheads; histopathology; adverse events; capital equipment) and clinical implications of monitoring a cohort of patients with known/suspected BE, on an annual basis. In the simulation, BE patients (N = 161,657 at Year 1; estimated annual increase: +20%) entered the model every year and underwent esophageal endoscopy. After 7 years, the adoption of NBI with targeted biopsies resulted in cost reduction of £458.0 mln vs. HD-WLE with random biopsies (overall costs: £1,966.2 mln and £2,424.2 mln, respectively). The incremental investment on capital equipment to upgrade hospitals with NBI (+£68.3 mln) was offset by savings due to the reduction of histological examinations (-£505.2 mln). Reduction of biopsies also determined savings for avoided adverse events (-£21.1 mln). In the base-case analysis, the two techniques had the same accuracy (number of correctly identified cases: 1.934 mln), but NBI was safer than HD-WLE. Budget impact analysis and cost-effectiveness analyses confirmed the findings of the cost-consequence analysis. In conclusion, NBI-guided targeted biopsies was a cost-saving strategy for NHS England, compared to current practice for detection of dysplasia in patients with BE, whilst maintaining at least comparable health outcomes for patients.

Tolerability of magnifying narrow band imaging endoscopy for esophageal cancer screening.

AIM: To compare the tolerability of magnifying narrow band imaging endoscopy for esophageal cancer screening with that of lugol chromoendoscopy. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled and analyzed 51 patients who were at high risk for esophageal cancer. All patients were divided into two groups: a magnifying narrow band imaging group, and a lugol chromoendoscopy group, for comparison of adverse symptoms. Esophageal cancer screening was performed on withdrawal of the endoscope. The primary endpoint was a score on a visual analogue scale for heartburn after the examination. The secondary endpoints were scale scores for retrosternal pain and dyspnea after the examinations, change in vital signs, total procedure time, and esophageal observation time. RESULTS: The scores for heartburn and retrosternal pain in the magnifying narrow band imaging group were significantly better than those in the lugol chromoendoscopy group (P = 0.004, 0.024, respectively, ANOVA for repeated measures). The increase in heart rate after the procedure was significantly greater in the lugol chromoendoscopy group. There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to other vital sign. The total procedure time and esophageal observation time in the magnifying narrow band imaging group were significantly shorter than those in the lugol chromoendoscopy group (450 ± 116 vs 565 ± 174, P = 0.004, 44 ± 26 vs 151 ± 72, P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Magnifying narrow band imaging endoscopy reduced the adverse symptoms compared with lugol chromoendoscopy. Narrow band imaging endoscopy is useful and suitable for esophageal cancer screening periodically.