Comparing long-term outcomes between endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for type II esophagogastric junction neoplasm

Abstract

BackgroundEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are used to remove esophagogastric junction (EGJ) neoplasm. This study aimed to compare feasibility, safety, and effectiveness between ESD and EMR to help endoscopists choose treatment methods.MethodsA total of 130 patients with EGJ neoplasm underwent endoscopic resection, including 52 patients with EMR and 78 patients with ESD. Cap-assisted EMR (EMRC) was performed with typical sequences. Larger lesions required removal in multiple pieces (i.e., piecemeal EMR). The ESD procedures were included that marking the periphery of the lesion, submucosa injected, circumferentially cutting and submucosal dissection. Resection time, adverse events, en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate and recurrence rate were compared between the two groups.ResultsThere were no significant differences in demographic characteristics or histopathological features between the two groups. Resection time was longer in the ESD group than in the EMR group (64.4±33.9 vs. 22.1±8.0 minutes; P<0.01). Adverse events were more common in the ESD group than in the EMR group (16.7% vs. 3.8%; P=0.03), including bleeding (7.7% vs. 3.8%), perforation (5.1% vs. 0%) and stenosis (5.1% vs. 0%). The en bloc resection rate and R0 resection rate were much higher in the ESD group than in the EMR group (98.7% and 92.3% vs. 23.1% and 23.1%, respectively; P<0.01). The 5-year overall survival rate and disease-free survival rate were 100% vs. 92.0% and 100% vs. 90.1% between the ESD and EMR groups, respectively (P=0.01 and P=0.01). The 5-year cancer-specific survival rate was 100% vs. 96.0% between the ESD and EMR groups (P=0.08). The recurrence rate was lower in the ESD group than in the EMR group (0% vs. 9.6%; P=0.01).ConclusionsESD is an acceptable first-line endoscopic treatment for type II EGJ neoplasm, however, it is time-consuming and has a higher rate of adverse events. Furthermore, EMR is a safe and alternative technique, particularly when EMR could achieve en bloc resection.