Disease burden of Barrett's esophagus across the Paris metropolitan area.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of Barrett's esophagus (BE) in France is unknown. However, the management of dysplastic BE in expert centers is recommended and reduces the risk of developing invasive adenocarcinoma. Our aim was to determine the burden of BE patients in the Paris Region. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using the data from electronic medical records from the data warehouse of the 39 Greater Paris public hospitals (Entrepôt de données de santé de l' Assistance Publique- Hôpitaux de Paris) for the year 2018, and used natural language processing to search for occurrences of Barrett's esophagus in endoscopy and pathology reports. RESULTS: we observed a 2.2 % prevalence of Barrett's esophagus. Patients with Barrett's esophagus were older, more frequently males, with a hiatal hernia, proton pump inhibitor users, and less frequently infected by H. Pylori. Gastro-esophageal reflux symptoms were not more frequently encountered in Barrett's patients. Eleven percent of patients with Barrett's esophagus had dysplasia or adenocarcinoma. DISCUSSION: Over 200 000 patients with Barrett's esophagus are expected in the Paris Region, of which 11 % harbor dysplasia or adenocarcinoma. This data should be taken into account to tailor healthcare offer in France.

COMPUTER-AIDED DIAGNOSIS IMPROVES CHARACTERIZATION OF BARRETT'S NEOPLASIA BY GENERAL ENDOSCOPISTS.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Characterization of visible abnormalities in Barrett esophagus (BE) patients can be challenging, especially for unexperienced endoscopists. This results in suboptimal diagnostic accuracy and poor inter-observer agreement. Computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) systems may assist endoscopists. We aimed to develop, validate and benchmark a CADx system for BE neoplasia. METHODS: The CADx system received pretraining with ImageNet with consecutive domain-specific pretraining with GastroNet which includes 5 million endoscopic images. It was subsequently trained and internally validated using 1,758 narrow-band imaging (NBI) images of early BE neoplasia (352 patients) and 1,838 NBI images of non-dysplastic BE (173 patients) from 8 international centers. CADx was tested prospectively on corresponding image and video test sets with 30 cases (20 patients) of BE neoplasia and 60 cases (31 patients) of non-dysplastic BE. The test set was benchmarked by 44 general endoscopists in two phases (phase 1: no CADx assistance; phase 2: with CADx assistance). Ten international BE experts provided additional benchmark performance. RESULTS: Stand-alone sensitivity and specificity of the CADx system were 100% and 98% for images and 93% and 96% for videos, respectively. CADx outperformed general endoscopists without CADx assistance in terms of sensitivity (p=0.04). Sensitivity and specificity of general endoscopist increased from 84% to 96% and 90 to 98% with CAD assistance (p<0.001), respectively. CADx assistance increased endoscopists' confidence in characterization (p<0.001). CADx performance was similar to Barrett experts. CONCLUSION: CADx assistance significantly increased characterization performance of BE neoplasia by general endoscopists to the level of expert endoscopists. The use of this CADx system may thereby improve daily Barrett surveillance.

Safety and efficacy of salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection for Barrett's neoplasia recurrence after radiofrequency ablation.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for Barrett's neoplasia recurrence after radiofrequency ablation (RFA). METHODS: Data from patients at 16 centers were collected for a multicenter retrospective study. Patients who underwent at least one RFA treatment for Barrett's esophagus and thereafter underwent further esophageal ESD for neoplasia recurrence were included. RESULTS: Data from 56 patients who underwent salvage ESD between April 2014 and November 2022 were collected. Immediate complications included one muscular tear (1.8%) treated with stent (Agree classification: grade IIIa). Two transmural perforations (3.6%; treated with clips) and five muscular tears (8.9%; two treated with clips) had no clinical impact and were not considered as adverse events. Seven patients (12.5%) developed strictures (grade IIIa), which were treated with balloon dilation. Histological analysis showed 36 adenocarcinoma, 17 high grade dysplasia, and 3 low grade dysplasia. En bloc and R0 resection rates were 89.3% and 66.1%, respectively. Resections were curative in 33 patients (58.9%), and noncurative in 22 patients (39.3%), including 11 "local risk" (19.6%) and 11 "high risk" (19.6%) resections. At the end of follow-up with a median time of 14 (0-75) months after salvage ESD, and with further endoscopic treatment if necessary (RFA, argon plasma coagulation, endoscopic mucosal resection, ESD), neoplasia remission ratio was 37/53 (69.8%) and the median remission time was 13 (1-75) months. CONCLUSION: In expert hands, salvage ESD was a safe and effective treatment for recurrence of Barrett's neoplasia after RFA treatment.

Management after local excision of small rectal cancers. Indications for completion total mesorectal excision and possible alternatives.

The treatment of superficial rectal cancers (local excision, or proctectomy with total mesorectal excision (TME) remains controversial. Endoscopy and endorectal ultrasonography are essential for the precise initial definition of these small cancers. During endoscopy, the depth of the lesion can be estimated using virtual chromoendoscopy with magnification, thereby aiding the assessment of the possibilities of local excision. Current international recommendations indicate completion proctectomy after wide local excision for cases where the pathologic examination reveals poorly-differentiated lesions, lymphovascular invasion, grade 2 or 3 tumor budding, and incomplete resection. But debate persists regarding whether the depth of submucosal invasion can accurately predict the risk of lymph node spread. Recent data from the literature suggest that the depth of submucosal invasion should no longer, by itself, be an indication for additional oncological surgery. Adjuvant radio-chemotherapy could be an alternative to completion proctectomy in patients with pT1 rectal cancer and unfavorable histopathological criteria. A Dutch randomized controlled trial is underway to validate this strategy.

Endoscopic En Bloc Versus Piecemeal Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colonic Adenomas : A Randomized Comparative Trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic resection of adenomas prevents colorectal cancer, but the optimal technique for larger lesions is controversial. Piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has a low adverse event (AE) rate but a variable recurrence rate necessitating early follow-up. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) can reduce recurrence but may increase AEs. OBJECTIVE: To compare ESD and EMR for large colonic adenomas. DESIGN: Participant-masked, parallel-group, superiority, randomized controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03962868). SETTING: Multicenter study involving 6 French referral centers from November 2019 to February 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with large (≥25 mm) benign colonic lesions referred for resection. INTERVENTION: The patients were randomly assigned by computer 1:1 (stratification by lesion location and center) to ESD or EMR. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was 6-month local recurrence (neoplastic tissue on endoscopic assessment and scar biopsy). The secondary end points were technical failure, en bloc R0 resection, and cumulative AEs. RESULTS: In total, 360 patients were randomly assigned to ESD (n = 178) or EMR (n = 182). In the primary analysis set (n = 318 lesions in 318 patients), recurrence occurred after 1 of 161 ESDs (0.6%) and 8 of 157 EMRs (5.1%) (relative risk, 0.12 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.96]). No recurrence occurred in R0-resected cases (90%) after ESD. The AEs occurred more often after ESD than EMR (35.6% vs. 24.5%, respectively; relative risk, 1.4 [CI, 1.0 to 2.0]). LIMITATION: Procedures were performed under general anesthesia during hospitalization in accordance with the French health system. CONCLUSION: Compared with EMR, ESD reduces the 6-month recurrence rate, obviating the need for systematic early follow-up colonoscopy at the cost of more AEs. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: French Ministry of Health.

Systematic Resection of the Visible Scar After Incomplete Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors.

INTRODUCTION: When initial resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (r-NETs) is not R0, persistence of local residue could lead to disease recurrence. This study aimed to evaluate the interest of systematic resection of non-R0 r-NET scars. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all the consecutive endoscopic revisions and resections of the scar after non-R0 resections of r-NETs. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients were included. Salvage endoscopic procedure using endoscopic submucosal dissection or endoscopic full-thickness resection showed an R0 rate of near 100%. Residual r-NET was found in 43% of cases. DISCUSSION: In case of non-R0 resected r-NET, systematic scar resection by endoscopic full-thickness resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection seems necessary.

Impact of surgery after endoscopically resected high-risk T1 colorectal cancer: results of an emulated target trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We aimed to compare the long-term outcomes of patients with high-risk T1 colorectal cancer (CRC) resected endoscopically who received either additional surgery or surveillance. METHODS: We used data from routine care to emulate a target trial aimed at comparing 2 strategies after endoscopic resection of high-risk T1 CRC: surgery with lymph node dissection (treatment group) versus surveillance alone (control group). All patients from 14 tertiary centers who underwent an endoscopic resection for high-risk T1 CRC between March 2012 and August 2019 were included. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of cancer recurrence or death at 48 months. RESULTS: Of 197 patients included in the analysis, 107 were categorized in the treatment group and 90 were categorized in the control group. From baseline to 48 months, 4 of 107 patients (3.7%) died in the treatment group and 6 of 90 patients (6.7%) died in the control group. Four of 107 patients (3.7%) in the treatment group experienced a cancer recurrence and 4 of 90 patients (4.4%) in the control group experienced a cancer recurrence. After balancing the baseline covariates by inverse probability of treatment weighting, we found no significant difference in the rate of death and cancer recurrence between patients in the 2 groups (weighted hazard ratio, .95; 95% confidence interval, .52-1.75). CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that patients with high-risk T1 CRC initially treated with endoscopic resection may not benefit from additional surgery.

Factors associated with early failure of peroral endoscopic myotomy in achalasia.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Achalasia can be treated very effectively with peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM), but factors associated with early failure remain to be determined, especially in European cohorts. METHODS: All consecutive adult patients who underwent a first POEM to treat primary achalasia were included in this multicenter retrospective study. Early failure was defined by an Eckardt score (ES) >3 at 3 months after POEM. When evaluating factors predictive of early failure, 2 cohorts were considered: one consisted of the total population, for whom only basic variables were collected, and the other a cohort built for a case-control study that included matched early-failure and early-success patients (ratio, 1:2). RESULTS: Among 746 patients, the early failure rate was 9.4%. Predictive factors were age ≤45 years (P = .019), achalasia types I and III (P < .001), and the development of a severe adverse event during the procedure (P = .023). In the case-control study, the only additional independent risk factor for early failure was a high pre-POEM ES (P = .001). Only the retrosternal pain subscore was significantly associated with the early failure rate. CONCLUSION: The early failure rate of POEM used to treat primary achalasia is <10%. Younger age, type I/III achalasia, and a high pre-POEM ES were significantly associated with failure.

Diagnosis and management of Barrett esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

MR1 : ESGE recommends the following standards for Barrett esophagus (BE) surveillance:- a minimum of 1-minute inspection time per cm of BE length during a surveillance endoscopy- photodocumentation of landmarks, the BE segment including one picture per cm of BE length, and the esophagogastric junction in retroflexed position, and any visible lesions- use of the Prague and (for visible lesions) Paris classification- collection of biopsies from all visible abnormalities (if present), followed by random four-quadrant biopsies for every 2-cm BE length.Strong recommendation, weak quality of evidence. MR2: ESGE suggests varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance are advised.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR3: ESGE suggests that, if a patient has reached 75 years of age at the time of the last surveillance endoscopy and/or the patient's life expectancy is less than 5 years, the discontinuation of further surveillance endoscopies can be considered. Weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence. MR4: ESGE recommends offering endoscopic eradication therapy using ablation to patients with BE and low grade dysplasia (LGD) on at least two separate endoscopies, both confirmed by a second experienced pathologist.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR5: ESGE recommends endoscopic ablation treatment for BE with confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD) without visible lesions, to prevent progression to invasive cancer.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR6: ESGE recommends offering complete eradication of all remaining Barrett epithelium by ablation after endoscopic resection of visible abnormalities containing any degree of dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. MR7: ESGE recommends endoscopic resection as curative treatment for T1a Barrett's cancer with well/moderate differentiation and no signs of lymphovascular invasion.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR8: ESGE suggests that low risk submucosal (T1b) EAC (i. e. submucosal invasion depth ≤ 500 µm AND no [lympho]vascular invasion AND no poor tumor differentiation) can be treated by endoscopic resection, provided that adequate follow-up with gastroscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and computed tomography (CT)/positrion emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in expert centers.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR9: ESGE suggests that submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (tumor invasion > 500 µm into the submucosa), and/or (lympho)vascular invasion, and/or a poor tumor differentiation should be considered high risk. Complete staging and consideration of additional treatments (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and/or surgery) or strict endoscopic follow-up should be undertaken on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR10 A: ESGE recommends that the first endoscopic follow-up after successful endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) of BE is performed in an expert center.Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence. B: ESGE recommends careful inspection of the neo-squamocolumnar junction and neo-squamous epithelium with high definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy during post-EET surveillance, to detect recurrent dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. C: ESGE recommends against routine four-quadrant biopsies of neo-squamous epithelium after successful EET of BE.Strong recommendation, low level of evidence. D: ESGE suggests, after successful EET, obtaining four-quadrant random biopsies just distal to a normal-appearing neo-squamocolumnar junction to detect dysplasia in the absence of visible lesions.Weak recommendation, low level of evidence. E: ESGE recommends targeted biopsies are obtained where there is a suspicion of recurrent BE in the tubular esophagus, or where there are visible lesions suspicious for dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. MR11: After successful EET, ESGE recommends the following surveillance intervals:- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of HGD or EAC:at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of LGD:at 1, 3, and 5 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

Non eosinophilic chronic stricturing esophagitis: Lessons from thirty eight cases.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The endoscopic workup of dysphagia can lead to the diagnosis of atypical esophagitis, with thickened esophageal mucosa, strictures, mucosal exudates, furrows, and sloughing. While these aspects suggest eosinophilic esophagitis, pathology might not report the presence of eosinophils, but rather chronic inflammation, with spongiosis, parakeratosis, and lymphocytic infiltrate. We aimed to report the management of this disease and assess the prevalence of associated dermatological conditions. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the medical records of our patients with non-eosinophilic stricturing esophagitis for clinical, endoscopy, and pathology data. Patients were evaluated by a dermatologist. A blood immunoassay and skin biopsy were performed if needed. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients (twenty-six women) were included in the study. The median age at onset of symptoms was 56.5 years, with a median duration of symptoms of two years. Thirty-five patients presented with dysphagia at diagnosis and eighteen with weight loss. At endoscopy, a single esophageal stenosis was diagnosed in 19 patients, localized in the upper third in 22 patients. Thirty patients received endoscopic treatment (dilatation in 29/38 and local triamcinolone injection in 11/38 patients). In 21 patients, oral, skin or vulvo-anal lesions were found on dermatological examination. Nineteen patients received systemic treatment, including corticosteroids, immunosuppressive drugs and plasmapheresis. Five patients developed esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. CONCLUSION: The management of non-eosinophilic chronic stricturing esophagitis is challenging, because of a low contribution of esophageal biopsies and the refractory nature of the strictures. In our experience, a dermatological evaluation helped in 55% of cases to introduce a systemic treatment, leading to limit the use of endoscopic dilatation. Endoscopic follow-up is needed, considering the significant risk of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma.

Performance of endoscopic submucosal dissection for undifferentiated early gastric cancer: a multicenter retrospective cohort.

Background and study aims Undifferentiated early gastric cancer (UD-EGC) represents an extended indication for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) based on the existing guidelines. This study evaluated the prevalence of UD-EGC recurrence after ESD, and potentially implicated risk factors. Patients and methods Data from 17 centers were collected retrospectively including demographics, endoscopic and pathological findings, and follow-up data from UD-EGC cases treated by ESD. Patients with incomplete resection or advanced disease were excluded. Descriptive statistics quantified variables and calculated the incidence of recurrence. Chi-square test was applied to assess any link between independent variables and relapse; significantly associated variables were inserted to a multivariable regression model. Results Seventy-one patients were eligible, with 2:1 female to male ratio and age of 65.8 ± 11.8 years. Mean lesion size was 33.5 ± 18.8 mm and the most frequent histological subtype was signet ring-cells UGC (2:1). Patients were followed-up every 5.6 ± 3.7 months with a mean surveillance period of 29.3 ± 15.3 months until data collection. Four patients (5.6%) developed local recurrence 8.8 ± 6.5 months post-ESD, with no lymph node or distal metastases been reported. Lesion size was not associated with recurrence ( P = 0.32), in contrast to lymphovascular and perineural invasion which were independently associated with local recurrence ( P = 0.006 and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusions ESD could be considered as the initial step to manage UD-EGC, providing at least an "entire-lesion" biopsy to guide therapeutic strategy. When histology confirms absence of lymphovascular and perineural invasion, this modality could be therapeutic, providing low recurrence rates.

Diagnosis and management of barrett esophagus: european society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) guideline

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It is an update of the previous (2017) Position Statement on the endoscopic management of Barrett esophagus.

Achalasia and Hiatal Hernia: A Rare Association and a Therapeutic Challenge.

Background/Aims: Achalasia and hiatal hernia are rarely associated. The aim of the current study is to explore the clinical and manometric findings in patients with achalasia and hiatal hernia, and to determine if the presence of a hiatal hernia should influence therapeutic management in patients with achalasia. Methods: This retrospective single center analysis included a group of patients with achalasia and hiatal hernia (study group) and a group of matched patients with achalasia but no hiatal hernia (control group). We recorded demographic, clinical, endoscopic, and manometric parameters and compared initial presentation and treatment outcomes between the groups. Results: Between 2015 and 2022, achalasia was diagnosed in 294/1513 (19.4%) patients. Concomitant hiatal hernia was identified in 13/294 (4.4%) patients. Compared to patients with achalasia and no hiatal hernia, patients in the study group had lower Eckardt scores at baseline (5.4 ± 2.0 vs 7.8 ± 2.4; P = 0.005) but similar integrated relaxation pressure. Following treatment, patients in the study and control group had similar clinical success and prevalence of gastroesophageal reflux symptoms. Conclusions: Hiatal hernia is rarely associated with achalasia. The presence of a hiatal hernia should not influence treatment decisions in patients with achalasia.

Diagnostic Yield of Repeat Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Solid Pancreatic Lesions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: we performed a retrospective case-control study, including cases with repeat EUS FNB for a solid pancreatic lesion, matched on a 1:2 ratio on age, sex, tumor location and presence of chronic pancreatitis with cases diagnosed on the first EUS FNB. RESULTS: thirty-four cases and 68 controls were included in the analysis. Diagnostic accuracies were 80% and 88% in the repeat and single EUS FNB groups, respectively (p = 0.824). The second EUS FNB had a sensitivity of 80%, a specificity of 75%, a positive predictive value of 96%, and a negative predictive value of 33%. Of the 34 patients in the repeat EUS FNB group, 25 (74%) had a positive diagnosis with the second EUS FNB, 4 (12%) after surgery due to a second negative EUS FNB, 4 (12%) during clinical follow-up, and 1 (3%) after a third EUS FNB. Of the 25 patients diagnosed on the repeat EUS FNB, 17 (68%) had pancreatic adenocarcinomas, 2 (8%) neuroendocrine tumors, 2 (8%) other autoimmune pancreatitis, 2 (8%) chronic pancreatitis nodules, 1 (4%) renal cancer metastasis, and 1 (4%) other malignant diagnostic. There were no complications reported after the second EUS FNB in this study. CONCLUSION: repeat EUS FNB made a diagnosis in three fourths of patients with solid pancreatic lesions and a first negative EUS FNB, with 26% of benign lesions. This supports the repetition of EUS FNB sampling in this clinical situation.

Use of endoscopic submucosal dissection or full-thickness resection device to treat residual colorectal neoplasia after endoscopic resection: a multicenter historical cohort study.

INTRODUCTION : Residual colorectal neoplasia (RCN) after previous endoscopic mucosal resection is a frequent challenge. Different management techniques are feasible including endoscopic full-thickness resection using the full-thickness resection device (FTRD) system and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of these two techniques for the treatment of such lesions. METHODS : All consecutive patients with RCN treated either using the FTRD or by ESD were retrospectively included in this multicenter study. The primary outcome was the R0 resection rate, defined as an en bloc resection with histologically tumor-free lateral and deep margins. RESULTS : 275 patients (median age 70 years; 160 men) who underwent 177 ESD and 98 FTRD procedures for RCN were included. R0 resection was achieved in 83.3 % and 77.6 % for ESD and FTRD, respectively (P = 0.25). Lesions treated by ESD were however larger than those treated by FTRD (P < 0.001). The R0 rates for lesions of 20-30 mm were 83.9 % and 57.1 % in the ESD and FTRD groups, respectively, and for lesions of 30-40 mm were 93.6 % and 33.3 %, respectively. On multivariable analysis, ESD procedures were associated with statistically higher en bloc and R0 resection rates after adjustment for lesion size (P = 0.02 and P < 0.001, respectively). The adverse event rate was higher in the ESD group (16.3 % vs. 5.1 %), mostly owing to intraoperative perforations. CONCLUSION: ESD is effective in achieving R0 resection for RCN whatever the size and location of the lesions. When residual lesions are smaller than 20 mm, the FTRD is an effective alternative.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for early esophageal adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allow endoscopic resection of early esophageal adenocarcinoma. The choice between the two techniques takes into account the morphology of the lesion, and the experience of the endoscopist. The aim of this study was to compare EMR to ESD for the treatment of early esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Patients who underwent an endoscopic resection for esophageal adenocarcinomas between March 2015 and December 2019 were included. ESD was compared to EMR in terms of clinical, procedural, histologic, and oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: 85 patients were included: 57 ESD and 28 EMR. The median (IQR) diameter of the lesion was 20(15-25) mm in the ESD group, and 15(8-16) mm in the EMR group, p<0.01. ESD allowed en bloc resection in 100% of cases, and EMR in 39% of cases, p<0.001. The R0 and curative resection rate in the ESD group versus the EMR group were 88% and 67%, respectively, versus 21% and 11%, p<0.001. We recorded one severe adverse event, in the EMR group. After a median (IQR) follow-up of 27.5 (14.5-38.7) months, the local recurrence rate was 23% vs. 18% (p = 0.63), and the overall survival 89% vs. 86% (p = 0.72), in the ESD and EMR groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: ESD was as safe as EMR and allowed higher en bloc, R0 and curative resection rates. Although these results did not translate into long-term outcomes, these data prompt for a broader adoption of ESD for the resection of esophageal lesions suspected of harboring early esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Endoscopic resection of early esophageal tumors in patients with cirrhosis or portal hypertension: a multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: Liver cirrhosis and esophageal cancer share several risk factors, such as alcohol intake and excess weight. Endoscopic resection is the gold standard treatment for superficial tumors. Portal hypertension and coagulopathy may increase the bleeding risk in these patients. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of endoscopic resection for early esophageal neoplasia in patients with cirrhosis or portal hypertension. METHODS: This retrospective multicenter international study included consecutive patients with cirrhosis or portal hypertension who underwent endoscopic resection in the esophagus from January 2005 to March 2021. RESULTS: 134 lesions in 112 patients were treated, including by endoscopic submucosal dissection in 101 cases (75 %). Most lesions (128/134, 96 %) were in patients with liver cirrhosis, with esophageal varices in 71 procedures. To prevent bleeding, 7 patients received a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, 8 underwent endoscopic band ligation (EBL) before resection, 15 received vasoactive drugs, 8 received platelet transfusion, and 9 underwent EBL during the resection procedure. Rates of complete macroscopic resection, en bloc resection, and curative resection were 92 %, 86 %, and 63 %, respectively. Adverse events included 3 perforations, 8 delayed bleedings, 8 sepsis, 6 cirrhosis decompensations within 30 days, and 22 esophageal strictures; none required surgery. In univariate analysis, cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection was associated with delayed bleeding (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with liver cirrhosis or portal hypertension, endoscopic resection of early esophageal neoplasia appeared to be effective and should be considered in expert centers with choice of resection technique, following European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines to avoid undertreatment.