A growing body of evidence shows that deeper and larger tumors can be safely removed with endoscopy instead of surgery when individual patient risk is taken into account, according to a review by Eva P.D. Verheij, a doctoral candidate at Amsterdam University Medical Center, and colleagues.
“Management of patients with superficial esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is becoming less invasive and more patient-tailored,” the researchers wrote in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. “In the future, watchful waiting may be a valid alternative to surgery in selected cases.”
Courtesy Eva P. D. Verheij
Eva P. D. Verheij
The investigators examined new advances that have been made in the management of superficial esophageal adenocarcinomas by endoscopy, and they address how guidelines may be falling short in light of newly published evidence.
Surgery is usually the first choice for the management of advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma. “Endoscopic treatment has become the cornerstone for early cancer confined to the mucosa,” the authors wrote.
“For low-risk submucosal EAC, which only invades the superficial submucosa (sm1, i.e. less than 500 mcm) without any other risk factors, endoscopic treatment as an alternative to surgery is gaining acceptance because multiple studies have demonstrated a very low risk of lymph node metastases (less than 2% for these lesions),” the investigators wrote. Although surgical resection with lymphadenectomy is currently the recommended treatment for cases with deep submucosal invasion, poor differentiation, or lymphovascular invasion, the investigators suggested that even these tumors may be within an endoscopist’s reach.
While the rate of lymph node metastasis for such patients has been reported to be as high as 46%, more recent endoscopic studies show a metastasis rate range of up to 20% after 23-63 months of follow-up.
“One possible explanation for the discrepancy in lymph node metastases rates between surgical and endoscopic studies could be the different preparation of slides for histopathological assessment,” the investigators wrote. “In general, the cuts in surgical specimen are made with wider intervals (±5 mm) than the cuts in endoscopic resection specimens (2-3 mm), with additional cuts in case of submucosal invasion. The hypothesis is that this wider interval may result in missing the area with the deepest tumor infiltration. This could result in an underdiagnosis of the actual invasion depth, and therefore an overestimation of the associated lymph node metastases risk.” A study published in August 2022 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy found an annual metastases risk of 6.9% in patients with high-risk T1a EAC.
“Given its invasiveness and associated morbidity and mortality, esophagectomy may be overtreatment in those patients who will not develop lymph node metastases,” the investigators wrote. “Given the technical advances in endoscopy that enable us to radically remove large EACs, and to perform more meticulous follow-up, it might be time to swing the pendulum and only send those patients for surgery who have an indisputable indication for surgery, instead of performing esophagectomy as a prophylactic treatment.”
To truly find the limits of endoscopic resection for EAC, however, more research is needed.
“Ongoing studies are necessary to evaluate the lymph node metastases risk on an individual basis, using presence of histological risk factors. By predicting the risk of lymph node metastases, and considering patients’ wishes and condition, one might decide to perform esophagectomy or watchful waiting with strict endoscopic follow-up. In high-risk cases, we may use sentinel node navigated surgery in the future as an extra safety check before deciding on optimal management,” the authors wrote.
The investigators disclosed relationships Medtronic, C2 Therapeutics/Pentax Medical, MicroTech, and Aqua Medical.