Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2017 May;66(5):783-793.
doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310126. Epub 2016 Jan 22.

A randomised trial of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for early Barrett's neoplasia

Affiliations
Free PMC article
Randomized Controlled Trial

A randomised trial of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for early Barrett's neoplasia

Grischa Terheggen et al. Gut. 2017 May.
Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: For endoscopic resection of early GI neoplasia, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) achieves higher rates of complete resection (R0) than endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). However, ESD is technically more difficult and evidence from randomised trial is missing.

Objective: We compared the efficacy and safety of ESD and EMR in patients with neoplastic Barrett's oesophagus (BO).

Design: BO patients with a focal lesion of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN) or early adenocarcinoma (EAC) ≤3 cm were randomised to either ESD or EMR. Primary outcome was R0 resection; secondary outcomes were complete remission from neoplasia, recurrences and adverse events (AEs).

Results: There were no significant differences in patient and lesion characteristics between the groups randomised to ESD (n=20) or EMR (n=20). Histology of the resected specimen showed HGIN or EAC in all but six cases. Although R0 resection defined as margins free of HGIN/EAC was achieved more frequently with ESD (10/17 vs 2/17, p=0.01), there was no difference in complete remission from neoplasia at 3 months (ESD 15/16 vs EMR 16/17, p=1.0). During a mean follow-up period of 23.1±6.4 months, recurrent EAC was observed in one case in the ESD group. Elective surgery was performed in four and three cases after ESD and EMR, respectively (p=1.0). Two severe AEs were recorded for ESD and none for EMR (p=0.49).

Conclusions: In terms of need for surgery, neoplasia remission and recurrence, ESD and EMR are both highly effective for endoscopic resection of early BO neoplasia. ESD achieves a higher R0 resection rate, but for most BO patients this bears little clinical relevance. ESD is, however, more time consuming and may cause severe AE.

Trial registration number: NCT1871636.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01871636.

Keywords: BARRETT’S OESOPHAGUS; ENDOSCOPIC PROCEDURES; ENDOSCOPY.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(A) Early Barrett adenocarcinoma, type 0–IIa and IIc (between yellow markers). (B) Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) showing part of the lesion including coagulation markers in the resection cap. (C) Area after complete resection of the lesion by piecemeal EMR. (D) Histology of one of the resected specimen showing mucosal adenocarcinoma pT1a (m1), L0, V0, tumour cell dissociation=0, pNX, R1 (HM1, VM0) G1 (blue bar: extension of AC, blue circle: deepest vertical tumour margin, yellow bar: upper muscularis mucosae, orange bar: lower muscularis mucosae).
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A) Early Barrett adenocarcinoma, type 0–IIa and IIc (between yellow markers). (B) Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) with circumferential incision of the mucosa at the periphery of coagulation markers with the HybridKnife. (C) Dissection of the submucosal layer by injection of saline solution with indigocarmine and subsequent cutting. (D) Area after complete en-bloc resection of the lesion by ESD. (E) Histology of the resected specimen showing mucosal adenocarcinoma pT1a (m2), L0, V0, tumour cell dissociation (TCD)=0, pNX, R0 (HM0, VM0) G2 (bar: upper layer of muscular mucosa; arrow: tumour cell complex invading the upper layer of the muscularis mucosae).

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bennett C, Vakil N, Bergman J, et al. . Consensus statements for management of Barrett's dysplasia and early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma, based on a Delphi process. Gastroenterology 2012;143:336–46. 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.04.032 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fitzgerald RC, di Petro M, Ragunath K, et al. . British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett's oesophagus. Gut 2014;63:7–42. 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305372 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ell C, May A, Gossner L, et al. . Endoscopic mucosal resection of early cancer and high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus. Gastroenterology 2000;118: 670–7. 10.1016/S0016-5085(00)70136-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Behrens A, May A, Gossner L, et al. . Curative treatment for high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus. Endoscopy 2005;37:999–1005. 10.1055/s-2005-870352 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Conio M, Repici A, Cestari R, et al. . Endoscopic mucosal resection for high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal carcinoma in Barrett's esophagus: An Italian experience. World J Gastroenterol 2005;11:6650–5. 10.3748/wjg.v11.i42.6650 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data