Background The difference in clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia remains unclear. We compared the recurrence/residual tissue rates, resection outcomes, and adverse events after ESD and EMR for early BE neoplasia. Methods We included patients who underwent EMR or ESD for BE-associated high grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) at eight academic hospitals. We compared demographic, procedural, and histologic characteristics, and follow-up data. A time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence/residual disease and a Kaplan–Meier curve was used to compare the groups. Results 243 patients (150 EMR; 93 ESD) were included. EMR had lower en bloc (43 % vs. 89 %; P < 0.001) and R0 (56 % vs. 73 %; P = 0.01) rates than ESD. There was no difference in the rates of perforation (0.7 % vs. 0; P > 0.99), early bleeding (0.7 % vs. 1 %; P > 0.99), delayed bleeding (3.3 % vs. 2.1 %; P = 0.71), and stricture (10 % vs. 16 %; P = 0.16) between EMR and ESD. Patients with non-curative resections who underwent further therapy were excluded from the recurrence analysis. Recurrent/residual disease was 31.4 % [44/140] for EMR and 3.5 % [3/85] for ESD during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 15.5 (6.75–30) and 8 (2–18) months, respectively. Recurrence-/residual disease-free survival was significantly higher in the ESD group. More patients required additional endoscopic resection procedures to treat recurrent/residual disease after EMR (EMR 24.2 % vs. ESD 3.5 %; P < 0.001). Conclusions ESD is safe and results in more definitive treatment of early BE neoplasia, with significantly lower recurrence/residual disease rates and less need for repeat endoscopic treatments than with EMR.

No abstract

Background Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is the favored bariatric option in patients with gastroesophageal reflux and Barrett’s esophagus because it prevents reflux. Weight loss and decreased reflux following RYGB could theoretically minimize the risk of progression to cancer. We aimed to demonstrate the management of high grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) developing in patients after RYGB. Methods A prospectively maintained database was searched to identify cases of HGD and cancer in RYGB patients. Charts were reviewed for past history, endoscopic findings, endoscopic therapy, and pathology findings. Results There were five cases where HGD/EAC developed several years after RYGB. The prior bariatric surgery precluded curative esophagectomy, illustrating the management challenges. All but one of the patients were uniquely and successfully managed with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Conclusions RYGB patients are still at risk of developing esophageal cancer. Patients at risk should be screened prior to RYGB and those with Barret’s esophagus need to undergo rigorous endoscopic surveillance following surgery. If detected early, EMR and ESD are invaluable in managing those who progress.

Background and study aims  Risk factors for colorectal adenoma recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) have been well documented. We assessed the efficacy of the newer 190 colonoscope versus the standard 180 colonoscope for complete resection of lateral spreading lesions. Patients and methods  A single-center, retrospective study of patients who underwent EMR with Olympus 180 or 190 colonoscopes from January 1, 2010 to September 30, 2016. We included patients with lesions ≥ 20 mm and surveillance colonoscopy (SC1) after index EMR. A propensity score approach with inverse probability weighting was used to control for potential confounders. A secondary aim was to identify risk factors for recurrence and assess the applicability of the Sydney EMR recurrence tool (SERT) by grading each lesion of our cohort and analyzing associations with recurrence. Results  Two hundred ninety-one lesions met inclusion criteria for the study. Odds ratio (OR) for recurrence with the 190 colonoscope was 1.06 ( P  = .85). Adenoma size ( P  = .02) and use of argon plasma coagulation (APC; P  < .001) were risk factors for recurrence. Lesions with SERT scores > 0 had a higher recurrence risk during follow-up (32 % vs 21 %; OR 1.71; P  = .05). Lesions with SERT scores = 0 reached a plateau for recurrence at 12 and 18 months in Kaplan-Meier curves. Conclusions  The use of 190 colonoscopes did not measurably affect adenoma recurrence at SC1. Recurrence was associated with adenoma size, complementary APC for resection, and SERT scores > 0. Lesions with SERT scores = 0 that remain negative for recurrence at 18 months may return to routine surveillance.