Subscribe to RSS
Download PDF
DOI: 10.1055/a-2272-9794
Vertical tumor-positive resection margins and the risk of residual neoplasia after endoscopic resection of Barrett’s neoplasia: a nationwide cohort with pathology reassessment
Trial Registration: Netherlands National Trial Register (http://www.trialregister.nl) Registration number (trial ID): NL7039 Type of study: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data
Abstract
Background This study evaluated the proportion of patients with residual neoplasia after endoscopic resection (ER) for Barrett’s neoplasia with confirmed tumor-positive vertical resection margin (R1v).
Methods This retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing ER for Barrett’s neoplasia with histologically documented R1v since 2008 in the Dutch Barrett Expert Centers. We defined R1v as cancer cells touching vertical resection margins and Rx as nonassessable margins. Reassessment of R1v specimens was performed by experienced pathologists until consensus was reached regarding vertical margins.
Results 101/110 included patients had macroscopically complete resections (17 T1a, 84 T1b), and 99/101 (98%) ER specimens were histologically reassessed, with R1v confirmed in 74 patients (75%), Rx in 16%, and R0 in 9%. Presence/absence of residual neoplasia could be assessed in 66/74 patients during endoscopic reassessment (52) and/or in the surgical resection specimen (14), and 33/66 (50%) had residual neoplasia. Residual neoplasia detected during endoscopy was always endoscopically visible and biopsies from a normal-appearing ER scar did not detect additional neoplasia. Of 25 patients who underwent endoscopic follow-up (median 37 months [interquartile range 12–50]), 4 developed local recurrence (16.0%), all detected as visible abnormalities.
Conclusions After ER with R1v, 50% of patients had no residual neoplasia. Histological evaluation of ER margins appears challenging, as in this study 75% of documented R1v cases were confirmed during reassessment. Endoscopic reassessment 8–12 weeks after ER seems to accurately detect residual neoplasia and can help to determine the most appropriate strategy for patients with R1v.
Publication History
Received: 11 October 2023
Accepted after revision: 20 February 2024
Accepted Manuscript online:
20 February 2024
Article published online:
05 April 2024
© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Pimentel-Nunes P, Libânio D, Bastiaansen BAJ. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2022. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 591-622
- 2 Weusten B, Bisschops R, Coron E. et al. Endoscopic management of Barrett’s esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 191-198
- 3 Van Munster S, Nieuwenhuis E, Weusten BLAM. et al. Long-term outcomes after endoscopic treatment for Barrett’s neoplasia with radiofrequency ablation ± endoscopic resection: results from the national Dutch database in a 10-year period. Gut 2022; 71: 265-276
- 4 Gotink AW, van de Ven SEM, Ten Kate FJC. et al. Individual risk calculator to predict lymph node metastases in patients with submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma: a multicenter cohort study. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 109-117
- 5 van Munster SN, Verheij EPD, Nieuwenhuis EA. et al. Extending treatment criteria for Barrett’s neoplasia: results of a nationwide cohort of 138 endoscopic submucosal dissections. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 531-541
- 6 Low DE, Kuppusamy MK, Alderson D. et al. Benchmarking complications associated with esophagectomy. Ann Surg 2019; 269: 291-298
- 7 Pech O, Bollschweiler E, Manner H. et al. Comparison between endoscopic and surgical resection of mucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus at two high-volume centers. Ann Surg 2011; 254: 67-72
- 8 Voeten DM, Busweiler LAD, van der Werf LR. et al. Outcomes of esophagogastric cancer surgery during eight years of surgical auditing by the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA). Ann Surg 2021; 274: 866-873
- 9 Kunzli HT, Belghazi K, Pouw RE. et al. Endoscopic management and follow-up of patients with a submucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma. United European Gastroenterol J 2018; 6: 669-677
- 10 Subramaniam S, Chedgy F, Longcroft-Wheaton G. et al. Complex early Barrett’s neoplasia at 3 Western centers: European Barrett’s Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Trial (E-BEST). Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 608-618
- 11 Yang D, Coman RM, Kahaleh M. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for Barrett’s early neoplasia: a multicenter study in the United States. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 600-607
- 12 Prasad GA, Buttar NS, Wongkeesong LM. et al. Significance of neoplastic involvement of margins obtained by endoscopic mucosal resection in Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 2380-2386
- 13 van Munster SN, Nieuwenhuis EA, Weusten BLAM. et al. Endoscopic resection without subsequent ablation therapy for early Barrett’s neoplasia: endoscopic findings and long-term mortality. J Gastrointest Surg 2021; 25: 67-76
- 14 World Health Organization. WHO classification of tumours, 5th edition: digestive system tumours. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2019
- 15 van der Wel MJ, Klaver E, Pouw RE. et al. Significant variation in histopathological assessment of endoscopic resections for Barrett’s neoplasia suggests need for consensus reporting: propositions for improvement. Dis Esophagus 2021; 34: doab034