Endoscopic Resection Without Subsequent Ablation Therapy for Early Barrett's Neoplasia: Endoscopic Findings and Long-Term Mortality.

INTRODUCTION: After endoscopic resection (ER) of neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus (BE), it is recommended to ablate the remaining BE to minimize the risk for metachronous disease. However, we report long-term outcomes for a nationwide cohort of all patients who did not undergo ablation of the remaining BE after ER for early BE neoplasia, due to clinical reasons or performance status. METHODS: Endoscopic therapy for BE neoplasia in the Netherlands is centralized in 8 expert centers with specifically trained endoscopists and pathologists. Uniformity is ensured by a joint protocol and regular group meetings. We report all patients who underwent ER for a neoplastic lesion between 2008 and 2018, without further ablation therapy. Outcomes include progression during endoscopic FU and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients were included with mean age 74 (± 10) years. ER was performed for low-grade dysplasia (LGD) (10%), high-grade dysplasia (HGD) (25%), or low-risk esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) (65%). No additional ablation was performed for several reasons; in 73 patients (78%), the main argument was expected limited life expectancy. Median C2M5 BE persisted after ER, and during median 21 months (IQR 11-51) with 4 endoscopies per patient, no patient progressed to advanced cancer. Seventeen patients (18%) developed HGD/EAC: all were curatively treated endoscopically. In total, 29/73 patients (40%) with expected limited life expectancy died due to unrelated causes during FU, none of EAC. CONCLUSION: In selected patients, ER monotherapy with endoscopic surveillance of the residual BE is a valid alternative to eradication therapy with ablation.

Simultaneous use of endoscopic resection and radiofrequency ablation is not safe in an esophageal porcine model.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is safe and effective for eradication of Barrett's esophagus after endoscopic resection (ER) of neoplasia. Widespread ER, however, is likely to induce stenosis, hampering subsequent circumferential RFA. A 'single step' procedure with ER and circumferential RFA in the same session may avoid this problem. Two variants are possible: circumferential RFA of Barrett's esophagus including the lesion followed by ER of the ablated lesion ('RFA→ER'), or ER of the lesion directly followed by circumferential RFA of remaining Barrett's esophagus including the resection wound ('ER→RFA'). First aim was to evaluate perforation risk of 'ER→RFA' using increasing RFA energies. Second aim was to compare stenosis rate after 'ER→RFA' versus 'RFA→ER'. In Experiment 1, 24 areas in six pigs underwent widespread ER directly followed by circumferential RFA with increasing energies (2 x 10, 2 x 12-6 x 12 J/cm(2)) in the esophagus. In Experiment 2, eight pigs each had four treatment areas randomized: 'ER→RFA', RFA alone, ER alone, and 'RFA→ER'. No acute perforations occurred when ablating ER wounds. Two delayed perforations occurred: one in experiment 1, another in experiment n2 at the 'ER→RFA' area. The remaining seven pigs in experiment 2 showed stenosis in all 'ER→RFA' and 'RFA→ER' areas versus 5/7 RFA alone areas, and 0/7 ER alone areas. In conclusion, the 'single step' variant 'ER→RFA' is not safe in this porcine model and seems therefore not ethical to evaluate in humans at this stage. Given the high rate of stenosis after 'RFA→ER' and RFA alone, one might question the validity of the porcine model for this type of experiments.