Preliminary results of antiscarring therapy in the prevention of postendoscopic esophageal mucosectomy strictures.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an effective minimally invasive therapy for early esophageal cancer and high-grade Barrett dysplasia. However, esophageal stricture formation after circumferential or large ESD has limited its wide adoption. Mitomycin C (MMC), halofuginone (Hal), and transforming growth factor ß3 (TGF-ß3) exhibits antiscarring effects that may prevent post-ESD stricture formation. METHODS: Using endoscopic mucosectomy (EEM) technique, an 8- to 10-cm-long circumferential esophageal mucosal segment was excised in a porcine model. The site was either untreated (control, n = 6) or received 40 evenly distributed injections of antiscarring agent immediately and at weeks 1 and 2. High and low doses were used: MMC 5 mg (n = 2), 0.5 mg (n = 2); Hal 5 mg (n = 2), 1.5 mg (n = 2), 0.5 mg (n = 2); TGF-ß3 2 µg (n = 2), 0.5 µg (n = 2). The degree of stricture formation was determined by the percentage reduction of the esophageal lumen on weekly fluoroscopic examination. Animals were euthanized when strictures exceeded 80 % or the animals were unable to maintain weight. RESULTS: The control group had a luminal diameter reduction of 78.2 ± 10.9 % by 2 weeks and were euthanized by week 3. Compared at 2 weeks, the Hal group showed a decrease in mean stricture formation (68.4 % low dose, 57.7 % high dose), while both TGF-ß3 dosage groups showed no significant change (65.3 % low dose, 76.2 % high dose). MMC was most effective in stricture prevention (53.6 % low dose, 35 % high dose). Of concern, the esophageal wall treated with high-dose MMC appeared to be necrotic and eventually led to perforation. In contrast, low dose MMC, TGF-ß3 and Hal treated areas appeared re-epithelialized and healthy. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary data on MMC and Hal demonstrated promise in reducing esophageal stricture formation after EEM. More animal data are needed to perform adequate statistical analysis in order to determine overall efficacy of antiscarring therapy.

Commercially available biological mesh does not prevent stricture after esophageal mucosectomy.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) offers a minimally invasive therapy for advanced esophageal dysplasia and early cancers but stricture formation limits its applicability. We aimed at assessing the efficacy of placement of a commercially available biological mesh for preventing stricture formation following esophageal EMR. METHODS: 25 swine were submitted to circumferential esophageal EMR with 10-cm extent and divided in five groups: one group with EMR only (control); one receiving an uncovered stent (stent-only group); and three groups receiving a stent covered with one of three extracellular matrices, namely small intestine submucosa (SIS group), acellular dermal matrix (ADM group), or urinary bladder matrix (UBM group). Stricture formation was evaluated with weekly esophagograms. RESULTS: The stent-only group had significantly less stricture formation and survival was extended compared with controls (4.8 vs. 2.4 weeks). Compared with stenting only, the addition of a biological mesh did not reduce stricture formation: percent reductions in esophageal diameter for the groups were SIS 86 %, ADM 94 %, and UBM 94 %, compared with 82 % in the stent-only group. CONCLUSIONS: Placement of commercially available biological meshes did not alter remodeling sufficiently to prevent stricture formation after esophageal EMR.