Copyright
©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Oct 16, 2019; 11(10): 491-503
Published online Oct 16, 2019. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v11.i10.491
Published online Oct 16, 2019. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v11.i10.491
Technique | History | Indications/role |
EMR | EMR was introduced in Japan to treat early gastric cancer and its use in esophagus was first reported by Inoue in 1990[14]. EMR use determines local stage, degree of differentiation and lymphovascular invasion[15] | EMR is indicated to remove sessile, flat or discrete mucosal lesions < 2 cm in size and involving less than two-thirds of the circumference of esophageal wall[14] Focal EMR is removal of visible lesions only. Stepwise radical EMR is removal of entire Barrett’s segment in single or multiple sessions |
ESD | ESD was introduced in 1988 in Japan to treat gastric cancer and subsequently, its use was extended to treat superficial esophageal cancer[17] | ESD is indicated for en-bloc resection of lesions irrespective of the size. ESD is a technically demanding and time consuming procedure |
STER | STER was introduced in 2011 and is based on the principles of peroral endoscopic myotomy and ESD[21] | STER is used to resect submucosal tumors[21]. The advantage of STER is preservation of mucosal integrity that lowers adverse outcomes[23] |
RFA | RFA was introduced in 2005 and is now a well-established modality for early esophageal cancer which utilizes high frequency alternating electrical current to generate thermal energy for ablation[25] | RFA is the standard of care in flat mucosal lesions[25]. In RFA, a circumferential catheter is used to ablate ≥ 3 cm Barrett’s segment or a focal catheter for shorter segments |
PDT | PDT was one of the first techniques described for treatment of Barrett’s associated neoplasia | PDT is associated with many complications and is not commonly used in the United States any more |
Cryotherapy | Cryotherapy was introduced in 1851 by James Arnott to freeze tumors[27]. The application of Cryotherapy was extended to the esophagus in 1997 using an endoscope | Cryotherapy circumvents the need for mucosal contact making ablation of an uneven or nodular surface feasible[27]. CbFAS uses cryogenic fluid and overcomes the challenges of unequal distribution and need for decompression tube |
Hybrid-APC | APC was introduced in the early 1990s to perform thermal coagulation of tissue[25]. More recently, Hybrid APC in which a submucosal cushion is created before APC is being used[28] | Hybrid APC is indicated in Barrett’s esophagus up to 3-5 cm in length and the cushion controls the depth of ablation[28] |
Technique | Efficacy | Complications |
Focal EMR and ablation | CE in EAC: 96.3%[13] and ESCC: 90%[54] | Major bleeding: 1.4%[13] Perforation: 0.1% Strictures: 1.3% |
Stepwise radical EMR | CE-N: 94.9%[42] CE-IM: 79.6% | Bleeding: 1.0%[16] Perforation: 1.0% Strictures: 49.7% |
ESD | En-bloc resection rate in EAC: 92.9%[18] and ESCC: 90%-100%[55-57] Complete resection rate in EAC: 74.5%[18] Curative resection rate in EAC: 64.9%[18] and ESCC: 88%-97%[55-57] | Bleeding: 1.5%-1.8%[18,19] Perforation: 1.5%-4.6% Strictures: 6.5%-11.6% |
STER | Complete Resection rates in SMTs: 100%[24] En-bloc resection rates in SMTs: 98.6% | Subcutaneous emphysema and pneumomediastinum: 14.8%[24] Pleural effusion: 16.9% Pneumoperitoneum: 6.8% Pneumothorax: 6.1% Mucosal injury: 5.6% |
RFA | CE-D: 81%[44] CE-IM: 77.4%[44] CE in ESCC: 84%[61] | Strictures: 6%[25] Chest pain: 2% Bleeding: 1% |
PDT | Discontinued in the United States | Photosensitivity reactions: 69%[25] Esophageal strictures: 36% Chest pain: 20% |
Cryotherapy | CE-HGD: 98%[46] CE-D: 94% CE-IM: 82% | Abdominal pain: 19.3%[27] Dysphagia: 10.2% Sore throat: 9% Chest pain: 8% Strictures: 0-12.5% |
Hybrid-APC | CE-IM:78%[28] | Strictures: 2%[28] |
- Citation: Sanghi V, Amin H, Sanaka MR, Thota PN. Resection of early esophageal neoplasms: The pendulum swings from surgical to endoscopic management. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 11(10): 491-503
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v11/i10/491.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v11.i10.491