» Articles » PMID: 19302207

Predictive Factors for Esophageal Stenosis After Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Superficial Esophageal Cancer

Overview
Journal Dis Esophagus
Specialty Gastroenterology
Date 2009 Mar 24
PMID 19302207
Citations 89
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been utilized as an alternative treatment to endoscopic mucosal resection for superficial esophageal cancer. We aimed to evaluate the complications associated with esophageal ESD and elucidate predictive factors for post-ESD stenosis. The study enrolled a total of 42 lesions of superficial esophageal cancer in 33 consecutive patients who underwent ESD in our department. We retrospectively reviewed ESD-associated complications and comparatively analyzed regional and technical factors between cases with and without post-ESD stenosis. The regional factors included location, endoscopic appearance, longitudinal and circumferential tumor sizes, depth of invasion, and lymphatic and vessel invasion. The technical factors included longitudinal and circumferential sizes of mucosal defects, muscle disclosure and cleavage, perforation, and en bloc resection. Esophageal stenosis was defined when a standard endoscope (9.8 mm in diameter) failed to pass through the stenosis. The results showed no cases of delayed bleeding, three cases of insidious perforation (7.1%), two cases of endoscopically confirmed perforation followed by mediastinitis (4.8%), and seven cases of esophageal stenosis (16.7%). Monovalent analysis indicated that the longitudinal and circumferential sizes of the tumor and mucosal defect were significant predictive factors for post-ESD stenosis (P < 0.005). Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed the highest sensitivity and specificity for a circumferential mucosal defect size of more than 71% (100 and 97.1%, respectively), followed by a circumferential tumor size of more than 59% (85.7 and 97.1%, respectively). It is of note that the success rate of en bloc resection was 95.2%, and balloon dilatation was effective for clinical symptoms in all seven patients with post-ESD stenosis. In conclusion, the most frequent complication with ESD was esophageal stenosis, for which the sizes of the tumor and mucosal defect were significant predictive factors. Although ESD enables large en bloc resection of esophageal cancer, practically, in cases with a lesion more than half of the circumference, great care must be taken because of the high risk of post-ESD stenosis.

Citing Articles

Is endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection better than endoscopic submucosal dissection in treating large superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Liu H, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Pang K, Xi W, Zou L Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2025; 18:17562848251324227.

PMID: 40028510 PMC: 11869307. DOI: 10.1177/17562848251324227.


Optimal diameter of endoscopic dilatation in anastomotic stricture after esophagectomy.

Ryu D, Choi C, Kim S, Park S, Jang J, Kim W Surg Endosc. 2024; 38(12):7253-7260.

PMID: 39394374 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-024-11342-4.


β-elemene alleviates esophageal fibrosis after endoscopic submucosal dissection via the FAP-mediated PTEN-PI3K/AKT signaling pathway.

Wu J, Hong C, Qiu T, Hu W, Chen J, Fang T Heliyon. 2024; 10(10):e31537.

PMID: 38807882 PMC: 11130724. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31537.


Anti-reflux mucosectomy (ARMS) for refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Zhu X, Shen J Eur J Med Res. 2024; 29(1):185.

PMID: 38500203 PMC: 10949751. DOI: 10.1186/s40001-024-01789-5.


Comparative efficacy and safety between endoscopic submucosal dissection, surgery and definitive chemoradiotherapy in patients with cT1N0M0 esophageal cancer.

Luo S, Sun Y, Zeng Y, Huang C World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2024; 16(2):72-82.

PMID: 38464816 PMC: 10921153. DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v16.i2.72.