We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Endoscopic submucosal dissection is superior to conventional endoscopic resection as a curative treatment for early squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (with video).
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2010 August
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was originally developed in Japan for en bloc resection of gastric neoplasms.
OBJECTIVE: To clarify whether the novel ESD procedure is feasible and gives results that justify the pursuit of integrated minimally invasive procedures aimed at curing early squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (SCCE).
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: A single-institution trial by experienced endoscopists.
PATIENTS: This study involved 300 consecutively enrolled patients with SCCE (Tumor, Nodes, Metastasis classification T1, N0) who underwent either EMR (n = 184) or ESD (n = 116) from March 1994 to July 2007.
INTERVENTION: The patients underwent endoscopic resection and then were followed by periodic endoscopy for 8 to 174 months (mean 65 months).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Resectability, cure rates, complications, disease-free survival of the two groups, and risk factors for local recurrence were explored.
RESULTS: En bloc resection and the local recurrence rate were significantly better in the ESD group (P = .0009 and .065, respectively). The frequency of perforation was not significantly different between the two groups (P = .68). Four independent risk factors for local recurrence were identified by the Cox regression model: EMR, deep cancer invasion, upper esophagus location, and family history of esophageal cancer. Radical cure is mostly obtained by successful endoscopic retreatment of local recurrence after previous endoscopic resection. Disease-free survival was significantly better with ESD.
LIMITATIONS: The study's retrospective nature prevents definitive conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS: We provide evidence that ESD gives a higher cure rate and is safer than conventional endoscopic resection when applied to early SCCE. ESD warrants prospective comparative studies with conventional endoscopic resection.
OBJECTIVE: To clarify whether the novel ESD procedure is feasible and gives results that justify the pursuit of integrated minimally invasive procedures aimed at curing early squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus (SCCE).
DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.
SETTING: A single-institution trial by experienced endoscopists.
PATIENTS: This study involved 300 consecutively enrolled patients with SCCE (Tumor, Nodes, Metastasis classification T1, N0) who underwent either EMR (n = 184) or ESD (n = 116) from March 1994 to July 2007.
INTERVENTION: The patients underwent endoscopic resection and then were followed by periodic endoscopy for 8 to 174 months (mean 65 months).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Resectability, cure rates, complications, disease-free survival of the two groups, and risk factors for local recurrence were explored.
RESULTS: En bloc resection and the local recurrence rate were significantly better in the ESD group (P = .0009 and .065, respectively). The frequency of perforation was not significantly different between the two groups (P = .68). Four independent risk factors for local recurrence were identified by the Cox regression model: EMR, deep cancer invasion, upper esophagus location, and family history of esophageal cancer. Radical cure is mostly obtained by successful endoscopic retreatment of local recurrence after previous endoscopic resection. Disease-free survival was significantly better with ESD.
LIMITATIONS: The study's retrospective nature prevents definitive conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS: We provide evidence that ESD gives a higher cure rate and is safer than conventional endoscopic resection when applied to early SCCE. ESD warrants prospective comparative studies with conventional endoscopic resection.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app