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.