Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 58, Issue 6, pp 1703–1709 | Cite as

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Results in Change of Histologic Diagnosis in Barrett’s Esophagus Patients with Visible and Flat Neoplasia: A Multicenter Cohort Study

  • Sachin Wani
  • Julian Abrams
  • Steven A. Edmundowicz
  • Srinivas Gaddam
  • Christine E. Hovis
  • Daniel Green
  • Neil Gupta
  • April Higbee
  • Ajay Bansal
  • Amit Rastogi
  • Dayna Early
  • Charles J. Lightdale
  • Prateek Sharma
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Background

There are limited data on the effect of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) on changes of histopathologic diagnosis for Barrett’s esophagus (BE) patients undergoing endoscopic eradication therapy (EET); especially those without visible lesions.

Aim

To compare the frequency of changes of diagnosis by EMR compared with pre-EMR biopsy diagnosis for patients with and without visible lesions.

Methods

In this multicenter outcomes project, patients with Barrett’s-related neoplasia undergoing EET at three tertiary-care centers were included. Patients undergoing biopsies followed by EMR within six months were included. The main outcome measures were frequency of overall change of histopathologic diagnosis, change based on pre-EMR biopsy diagnosis, and change based on the presence of visible lesions.

Results

One-hundred and thirty-eight BE patients (low-grade dysplasia (LGD) 15 (10.9 %), high-grade dysplasia (HGD) 87 (63 %), esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) 36 (26.1 %)) were included; 114 (82.6 %) patients had visible lesions. EMR resulted in a change of diagnosis for 43 (31.1 %) patients (upgrade 14 (10.1 %); downgrade 29 (21 %)). For HGD patients, EMR downstaged dysplasia grade for 17 (19.5 %) cases and upstaged it to EAC for nine (10.3 %) cases. There was a change of diagnosis for 26 (29.9 %) HGD patients, irrespective of the presence or absence of visible lesions (p = 0.76). For EAC patients, EMR downstaged dysplasia grade in 10 (27.8 %) cases. There was a change of diagnosis for 10 (27.8 %) EAC patients, irrespective of the presence or absence of endoscopically visible lesions (p = 0.48).

Conclusions

EMR results in a change of diagnosis for approximately 30 % of BE patients with early neoplasia (with and without visible lesions) referred for EET.

Keywords

Barrett’s esophagus Dysplasia Esophageal adenocarcinoma Endoscopic mucosal resection 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Pohl H, Welch HG. The role of overdiagnosis and reclassification in the marked increase of esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:142–146.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wani S, Sayana H, Sharma P. Endoscopic eradication of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:147–166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wani S, Mathur SC, Curvers WL, et al. Greater interobserver agreement by endoscopic mucosal resection than biopsy samples in Barrett’s dysplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:783–788.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang KK, Sampliner RE. Updated guidelines 2008 for the diagnosis, surveillance and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:788–797.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spechler SJ, Sharma P, Souza RF, et al. American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the management of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:e18–e52; quiz e13.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stein HJ, Feith M, Bruecher BL, et al. Early esophageal cancer: pattern of lymphatic spread and prognostic factors for long-term survival after surgical resection. Ann Surg. 2005;242:566–573; discussion 573–575.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rice TW, Zuccaro G Jr, Adelstein DJ, et al. Esophageal carcinoma: depth of tumor invasion is predictive of regional lymph node status. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998;65:787–792.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Badreddine RJ, Prasad GA, Lewis JT, et al. Depth of submucosal invasion does not predict lymph node metastasis and survival of patients with esophageal carcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:248–253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Downs-Kelly E, Mendelin JE, Bennett AE, et al. Poor interobserver agreement in the distinction of high-grade dysplasia and adenocarcinoma in pretreatment Barrett’s esophagus biopsies. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:2333–2340; quiz 2341.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Montgomery E, Bronner MP, Goldblum JR, et al. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus: a reaffirmation. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:368–378.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pouw RE, Heldoorn N, Herrero LA, et al. Do we still need EUS in the workup of patients with early esophageal neoplasia? A retrospective analysis of 131 cases. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:662–668.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Young PE, Gentry AB, Acosta RD, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound does not accurately stage early adenocarcinoma or high-grade dysplasia of the esophagus. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:1037–1041.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mino-Kenudson M, Hull MJ, Brown I, et al. EMR for Barrett’s esophagus-related superficial neoplasms offers better diagnostic reproducibility than mucosal biopsy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66:660–666; quiz 767, 769.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sharma P, Bansal A, Mathur S, et al. The utility of a novel narrow band imaging endoscopy system in patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:167–175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Inoue H, Takeshita K, Hori H, et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted panendoscope for esophagus, stomach, and colon mucosal lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 1993;39:58–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chandrasekhara V, Ginsberg GG. Endoscopic mucosal resection: not your father’s polypectomy anymore. Gastroenterology. 2011;141:42–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Larghi A, Lightdale CJ, Memeo L, et al. EUS followed by EMR for staging of high-grade dysplasia and early cancer in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62:16–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Namasivayam V, Wang KK, Prasad GA. Endoscopic mucosal resection in the management of esophageal neoplasia: current status and future directions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:743–754; quiz e96.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fleischer DE, Wang GQ, Dawsey S, et al. Tissue band ligation followed by snare resection (band and snare): a new technique for tissue acquisition in the esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44:68–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schlemper RJ, Riddell RH, Kato Y, et al. The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. Gut. 2000;47:251–255.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Riddell RH, Goldman H, Ransohoff DF, et al. Dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease: standardized classification with provisional clinical applications. Hum Pathol. 1983;14:931–968.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Abraham SC, Krasinskas AM, Correa AM, et al. Duplication of the muscularis mucosae in Barrett esophagus: an underrecognized feature and its implication for staging of adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31:1719–1725.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lewis JT, Wang KK, Abraham SC. Muscularis mucosae duplication and the musculo-fibrous anomaly in endoscopic mucosal resections for Barrett esophagus: implications for staging of adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32:566–571.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Peters FP, Brakenhoff KP, Curvers WL, et al. Histologic evaluation of resection specimens obtained at 293 endoscopic resections in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:604–609.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sayana H, Wani S, Keighley J, et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) as a diagnostic tool in Barrett’s esophagus (BE) patients with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC): a systematic review. Gastroenterology. 2008;132:W1878.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Moss A, Bourke MJ, Hourigan LF, et al. Endoscopic resection for Barrett’s high-grade dysplasia and early esophageal adenocarcinoma: an essential staging procedure with long-term therapeutic benefit. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1276–1283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chennat J, Konda VJ, Ross AS, et al. Complete Barrett’s eradication endoscopic mucosal resection: an effective treatment modality for high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal carcinoma—an American single-center experience. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104:2684–2692.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    May A, Gunter E, Roth F, et al. Accuracy of staging in early oesophageal cancer using high resolution endoscopy and high resolution endosonography: a comparative, prospective, and blinded trial. Gut. 2004;53:634–640.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pech O, Gunter E, Dusemund F, et al. Accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound in preoperative staging of esophageal cancer: results from a referral center for early esophageal cancer. Endoscopy. 2010;42:456–461.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chemaly M, Scalone O, Durivage G, et al. Miniprobe EUS in the pretherapeutic assessment of early esophageal neoplasia. Endoscopy. 2008;40:2–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pouw RE, van Vilsteren FG, Peters FP, et al. Randomized trial on endoscopic resection-cap versus multiband mucosectomy for piecemeal endoscopic resection of early Barrett’s neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:35–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sachin Wani
    • 1
  • Julian Abrams
    • 3
  • Steven A. Edmundowicz
    • 2
  • Srinivas Gaddam
    • 2
  • Christine E. Hovis
    • 2
  • Daniel Green
    • 3
  • Neil Gupta
    • 4
  • April Higbee
    • 4
  • Ajay Bansal
    • 4
  • Amit Rastogi
    • 4
  • Dayna Early
    • 2
  • Charles J. Lightdale
    • 3
  • Prateek Sharma
    • 4
  1. 1.Division of Gastroenterology and HepatologyUniversity of Colorado and Veterans Affairs Medical CenterDenverUSA
  2. 2.Division of Gastroenterology and HepatologyWashington University School of MedicineSt. LouisUSA
  3. 3.Division of Digestive and Liver DiseasesColumbia University College of Physicians and SurgeonsNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Division of Gastroenterology and HepatologyDepartment of Veterans Affairs Medical Center and University of Kansas School of MedicineKansas CityUSA

Personalised recommendations