Outcomes for endoscopic submucosal dissection of pathologically staged T1b esophageal cancer: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for T1b esophageal cancer (EC) and its recurrence rates remain unclear in the West. Using a multicenter cohort, we evaluated technical outcomes and recurrence rates of ESD in the treatment of pathologically staged T1b EC. METHODS: We included patients who underwent ESD of T1b EC at 7 academic tertiary referral centers in the United States (n = 6) and Brazil (n = 1). We analyzed demographic, procedural, and histopathologic characteristics and follow-up data. Time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence rates. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients with pathologically staged T1b EC after ESD were included in the study. A preprocedure staging EUS was available in 54 patients and was Tis/T1a in 27 patients (50%) and T1b in 27 patients (50%). En-bloc resection rate was 92.4% (61/66) and R0 resection rate was 54.5% (36/66). Forty-nine of 66 patients (74.2%) did not undergo surgery immediately after resection and went on to surveillance. Ten patients had ESD resection within the curative criteria, and no recurrences were seen in a 13-month (range, 3-18.5) follow-up period in these patients. Ten of 39 patients (25.6%) with noncurative resections had residual/recurrent disease. Of the 10 patients with noncurative resection, local recurrence alone was seen in 5 patients (12.8%) and metastatic recurrence in 5 patients (12.8%). On univariate analysis, R1 resection had a higher risk of recurrent disease (hazard ratio, 6.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.29-30.36; P = .023). CONCLUSIONS: EUS staging of T1b EC has poor accuracy, and a staging ESD should be considered in these patients. ESD R0 resection rates were low in T1b EC, and R1 resection was associated with recurrent disease. Patients with noncurative ESD resection of T1b EC who cannot undergo surgery should be surveyed closely, because recurrent disease was seen in 25% of these patients.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs. endoscopic mucosal resection for early Barrett's neoplasia in the West: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: The difference in clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia remains unclear. We compared the recurrence/residual tissue rates, resection outcomes, and adverse events after ESD and EMR for early BE neoplasia. METHODS: We included patients who underwent EMR or ESD for BE-associated high grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) at eight academic hospitals. We compared demographic, procedural, and histologic characteristics, and follow-up data. A time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence/residual disease and a Kaplan-Meier curve was used to compare the groups. RESULTS: 243 patients (150 EMR; 93 ESD) were included. EMR had lower en bloc (43 % vs. 89 %; P < 0.001) and R0 (56 % vs. 73 %; P = 0.01) rates than ESD. There was no difference in the rates of perforation (0.7 % vs. 0; P > 0.99), early bleeding (0.7 % vs. 1 %; P > 0.99), delayed bleeding (3.3 % vs. 2.1 %; P = 0.71), and stricture (10 % vs. 16 %; P = 0.16) between EMR and ESD. Patients with non-curative resections who underwent further therapy were excluded from the recurrence analysis. Recurrent/residual disease was 31.4 % [44/140] for EMR and 3.5 % [3/85] for ESD during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 15.5 (6.75-30) and 8 (2-18) months, respectively. Recurrence-/residual disease-free survival was significantly higher in the ESD group. More patients required additional endoscopic resection procedures to treat recurrent/residual disease after EMR (EMR 24.2 % vs. ESD 3.5 %; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: ESD is safe and results in more definitive treatment of early BE neoplasia, with significantly lower recurrence/residual disease rates and less need for repeat endoscopic treatments than with EMR.

A survey of physician training and credentialing in endoscopic submucosal dissection in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is technically challenging, has a longer learning curve and a greater complication rate than most new endoscopic procedures. Formal training and credentialing guidelines for ESD are currently lacking in the United States (US). AIM: To survey ESD experts across the US to determine their learning process and obtain their opinion on how training and credentialing for ESD should develop. DESIGN: Anonymous electronic survey. SUBJECTS: ASGE members who are practicing US endoscopists. METHODS: The survey was developed by iterative revisions of questions administered to three investigators who have been performing ESD for > 5 years. The final survey was distributed electronically to US endoscopists who had previously attended ESD expert conferences. RESULTS: Thirty-five (58.3%) of 60 practicing ESD experts responded to the survey. A majority (91%) were in university-based, community, or tertiary care hospitals. All practitioners practiced on porcine explants and observed live ESD procedures as part of the training. Out of the participants, 75.8% received formal supervised hands-on training on porcine explants and/or humans before performing ESD independently. Fifty percent indicated that their facility had written guidelines specifically for ESD credentialing. Four out of 5 felt that credentialing requirements should include attending weekend ESD courses, observing live procedures, practicing on explants, and advanced endoscopic training in interventional endoscopy such as an additional year of fellowship. LIMITATIONS: Survey completion rate of 58.3%. CONCLUSION: ESD training should include practicing on explants, observation of live procedures, training in interventional endoscopy, and attending educational courses. Credentialing guidelines for ESD based on expert opinion need to be developed in the US.

Epidemiology of Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Patients with Cystic Fibrosis: A Population-Based 5-Year Study.

Purpose: The prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has been on the rise since it was first described in the 1990s. Several diseases and exogenous factors have been associated with EoE. Our aim was to investigate the epidemiology of EoE in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients. Methods: We identified individuals with CF from September 2014 to September 2019 within a database (IBM Explorys Solutions, Inc.). The prevalence of EoE in patients with CF was compared to the general population. Results: The database included 36,111,860 patients during the 5-year study period: 12,950 with CF (0.036%) and 28,090 with EoE (0.078%). EoE prevalence was higher in CF patients than the general population (46 in 10,000 vs. 7.8 in 10,000, p<0.001). Patients with CF and EoE were more likely to be male (50% vs. 33.5%, p<0.008), children (33.3% vs. 16.5%, p<0.001), and non-Hispanic (100% vs. 88.7%, p<0.001) than CF patients without EoE. CF with EoE patients were more likely to be children than EoE only (33.3% vs. 10.5%, p<0.001). Allergic conditions were generally more prevalent in CF with EoE than CF only (83.3% vs. 68.3%, p=0.01) and EoE only (83.3% vs. 69.3%, p=0.014). Conclusion: EoE is nearly 6-times more prevalent in CF patients. Those patients had higher incidence of other atopic conditions. EoE must be considered in the differential diagnosis of patients with CF presenting with dysphagia, refractory gastroesophageal reflux, vomiting, and other esophagus-related symptoms.

Age of diagnosis in familial Barrett's associated neoplasia.

The identification of hereditary cancer genes for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and its precursor, Barrett's esophagus (BE), may prove critical for the development of novel prevention and treatment strategies. Specifically, efforts for detecting BE and EAC susceptibility genes have focused on families with three or more affected members, since these individuals have an earlier age onset compared to non-familial individuals. Given that the use of BE may overestimate the likelihood of disease heritability, we evaluated the age of diagnosis in kindreds with a restricted definition including only confirmed high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or EAC. The Familial Barrett's Esophagus Consortium database was used to identify individuals with HGD and EAC. These individuals were subsequently split into three kindred groups: non-familial-a single affected family member, duplex-two affected family members, and multiplex-three or more affected family members. Age of cancer diagnosis and other risk factors were compared between individuals in these groups. The study included 441 non-familial, 46 duplex, and 13 multiplex individuals. There was a statistically significant difference for age of diagnosis for individuals in the multiplex families compared to the non-familial and duplex families (56.0 versus 64.3, 63.5; p = 0.049). There was no significant difference between demographic factors and other cancer risk factors between family types. The results of this study support a genetic basis for familial Barrett's associated neoplasia and evaluation of the genetic susceptibility to this disease should continue to focus on families with multiple (three or more) affected members.

Comparative diagnostic accuracy of EUS needles in solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue sampling is the standard of care for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions. While many two-way comparisons between needle types have been made in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), it is unclear which size and type of needle offers the best probability of diagnosis. We therefore performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare different sized and shaped needles to rank the diagnostic performance of each needle. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases through August, 2020 for RCTs that compared the diagnostic accuracy of EUS fine-needle aspiration (FNA) and biopsy (FNB) needles in solid pancreatic masses. Using a random-effects NMA under the frequentist framework, RCTs were analyzed to identify the best needle type and sampling technique. Performance scores (P-scores) were used to rank the different needles based on pooled diagnostic accuracy. The NMA model was used to calculate pairwise relative risk (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals. Results Review of 2577 studies yielded 29 RCTs for quantitative synthesis, comparing 13 different needle types. All 22G FNB needles had an RR > 1 compared to the reference 22G FNA (Cook) needle. The highest P-scores were seen with the 22G Medtronic FNB needle (0.9279), followed by the 22G Olympus FNB needle (0.8962) and the 22G Boston Scientific FNB needle (0.8739). Diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between needles with or without suction. Conclusions In comparison to FNA needles, FNB needles offer the highest diagnostic performance in sampling pancreatic masses, particularly with 22G FNB needles.

Erratum: Comparative diagnostic accuracy of EUS needles in solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1055/a-1381-7301.].