Next Article in Journal
Cannabis Use, Cannabis Use Disorder, and Comorbid Psychiatric Illness: A Narrative Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy in the Management of Zenker’s Diverticulum: A Retrospective Multicenter Study
Previous Article in Journal
Longitudinal Outcomes in Octogenarian Critically Ill Patients with a Focus on Frailty and Cardiac Surgery
Previous Article in Special Issue
Comparative Analysis of Blood and Bone Marrow for the Detection of Circulating and Disseminated Tumor Cells and Their Prognostic and Predictive Value in Esophageal Cancer Patients
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 10
Issue 1
10.3390/jcm10010013
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Preoperative Diagnosis and Indications for Endoscopic Resection of Superficial Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma

by
Katsunori Matsueda
and
Ryu Ishihara
*
Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Osaka International Cancer Institute, 3-1-69 Otemae, Chuo-ku, Osaka 541-8567, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10(1), 13; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10010013
Submission received: 27 November 2020 / Revised: 16 December 2020 / Accepted: 21 December 2020 / Published: 23 December 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Treatments for Esophageal Diseases)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Endoscopic resection (ER) is the mainstay of treatment for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SESCC) instead of esophagectomy because of its minimal invasiveness and favorable clinical outcomes. Developments in endoscopic submucosal dissection have enabled en bloc resection of SESCCs regardless of size, thus reducing the risk of local recurrence. Although ER for SESCC is effective, metastasis may subsequently occur. Additionally, extensive esophageal ER confers a risk of postoperative esophageal stricture. Therefore, accurate assessment of the invasion depth and circumferential extent of SESCCs is important in determining the indications for ER. Diagnostic accuracies for SESCC invasion differ between epithelial (EP)/lamina propria (LPM), muscularis mucosa (MM)/submucosal (SM1), and SM2 cancers. ER is strongly indicated for clinically diagnosed (c)EP/LPM cancers because 90% of these are as pathologically diagnosed (p)EP/LPM, which has a very low risk of metastasis. Remarkably, the diagnostic accuracy for cMM/SM1 differs significantly with lateral spread of cancer. Eighty percent of cMM/SM1 cancers with ≤3/4 circumferential spread prove to be pEP/LPM or pMM/SM1, which have very low or low risk of metastasis. Thus, these are adequate candidates for ER. However, given the relatively low proportion of pEP/LPM or pMM/SM1 and high risk of subsequent stricture, ER is not recommended for whole circumferential cMM/SM1 cancers. For cMM/SM1 cancers that involve >3/4 but not the whole circumference, ER should be considered on a lesion-by-lesion basis because the risk of post-ER stricture is not very high, but the proportion of pEP/LPM or pMM/SM1 is relatively low. ER is contraindicated for cSM2 cancers because 75% of them are pSM2, which has high risk of metastasis.

1. Introduction

Esophageal cancer is the sixth most common cause of cancer-related mortality, with 455,800 new cases and 400,200 deaths worldwide in 2012 [1]. Although the survival rate of patients with esophageal cancer remains poor, they can potentially be cured by esophagectomy, endoscopic resection (ER), or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) if diagnosed at an early stage [2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. Esophagectomy is historically the standard treatment for patients with superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SESCC). However, this procedure is only possible in patients who can tolerate the procedure, and it is associated with significant mortality and substantial morbidity [9,10]. ER is a safer and less invasive procedure and better preserves esophageal function than surgical resection or CRT. ER has a high local cure rate for Stage I esophageal cancer [5] but not for metastases. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), a variation of ER, was widely implemented approximately 20 years ago [11]. Recent improvements in performing ESD have enabled en bloc resection of large lesions, even of whole circumferential lesions, and precise histological evaluation. Consequently, the indications for ER have gradually extended to include larger lesions that were previously treated surgically.
Many factors, including the patient’s condition, metastatic status, cancer invasion depth, tumor size, and tumor circumference, must be taken into account when choosing the appropriate treatment for SESCC. Among these factors, cancer invasion depth correlates well with the risk of metastasis and curability by ER [8,12], and tumor circumference is significantly associated with development of stricture following ER [13,14,15]. Therefore, accurate assessment of cancer invasion depth and tumor circumferential extent is crucial when selecting endoscopic treatment for patients with SESCC.
The indications for ER for SESCC of the Esophageal Cancer Practice Guidelines (2017) [16] are based on pathological findings. However, there can be considerable discrepancy between clinical and pathological diagnoses, especially concerning clinically (c)MM/SM1 and pathologically diagnosed (p)MM/SM1 cancers because the accuracy of endoscopic diagnosis of pMM/SM1 is relatively poor [17,18]. Considering that the indications for ER are determined on the basis of the clinical diagnosis, the applicability of ER should be investigated on that basis, not on the pathological diagnosis.
Furthermore, according to these guidelines, the extent of endoscopic resection is closely related to the risk of stricture. It is, therefore, strongly recommended that the circumferential extent of a lesion be evaluated preoperatively. It has also been reported that strictures are more likely to develop following ER when the lesion involves a large proportion of the circumference [13,14,15].
In this review, we evaluate the accuracy of preoperative diagnosis of depth of cancer invasion by various modalities by reviewing recent published reports and our institution’s data and discuss the applicability of ER according to the clinical diagnosis of SESCC.

2. Pretreatment Evaluations

Endoscopic examinations with white light imaging, narrow band imaging (NBI), and iodine staining are performed on all patients before treatments. The tumor depth is generally determined based on collaborative diagnosis of morphology with white light imaging and intrapapillary capillary loops (IPCL) with NBI magnification. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) of the esophagus and computed tomography scans are optional, and are usually performed only when endoscopy suggests invasion into the muscularis mucosae or deeper. However, it is not clarified whether the additional use of EUS allows more advantageous depth assessment to patients. Clinical implication to use EUS in addition to white light imaging and NBI magnification should be evaluated in the future.
Image-enhanced magnifying endoscopy or iodine staining is recommended to diagnose the lateral extent of the lesion, whereby the lesion border can be clearly delineated by the latter. However, use of iodine solution at a high concentration may cause the superficial epithelium to peel off, making a subsequent diagnosis difficult. Additionally, a prospective double-blind randomized controlled study reported that 1% iodine solution had a significantly lower pain score than 2% iodine solution, and the visibility of iodine-voiding lesions was the same in terms of color difference and physician assessment [19]. Hence, iodine solution is recommended to be used at a low concentration of ≤1% [20].

3. Accuracy of Preoperative Diagnosis of Depth of Cancer Invasion

Preoperative diagnoses of cancer invasion depth are used to divide lesions into three categories: tumor invades the epithelium or the lamina propria mucosae (EP/LPM), tumor invades the muscularis mucosae or the submucosa to a depth of 200 μm or less from the muscularis mucosae (MM/SM1), and tumor invades the submucosa to a depth of more than 200 μm (SM2).
The typical non-magnifying endoscopy (non-ME) appearances of each tumor category are as follows: cEP/LPM, flat lesion without protrusion or depression; cMM/SM1, flat lesion with irregular surface and protrusion <1 mm or shallow depression; and cSM2, lesion with protrusion ≥1 mm or deep depression. Endoscopic stage by magnifying endoscopy (ME)-NBI is classified according to the Japan Esophageal Society (JES) classification [18]. IPCL that show severe morphological changes are defined as type B vessels according to the JES classification, corresponding to squamous cell carcinoma [18]. Type B vessels are subclassified into three groups: B1, loop-like abnormal vessels showing dilation, tortuosity, caliber variation, and shape non-uniformity; B2, abnormal vessels without a loop-like formation; and B3, highly dilated, irregular vessels (irregular vessels more than about 60 μm in diameter, about three times thicker than B2 vessels). B1 vessels are defined as indicating EP/LPM invasion; B2 vessels, MM/SM1 invasion; and B3 vessels, SM2 invasion.
An area with no or low vascularity that is surrounded by type B vessels is defined as an avascular area (AVA). AVAs are classified into three groups according to size: AVA-small (<0.5 mm), AVA-middle (≥0.5 to <3.0 mm), and AVA-large (≥3.0 mm). These groups are defined as corresponding to EP/LPM invasion, MM/SM1 invasion, and SM2 invasion, respectively. However, an AVA surrounded by B1 vessels is defined as corresponding to EP/LPM invasion regardless of size.
The JES classification is used to make a comprehensive diagnosis on the basis of the evaluation of type B vessels and AVA.
Endoscopic stage by EUS is determined according to the destruction/preservation of the nine-layered structure as follows: cEP/LPM, lesion confined to the upper two layers with intact third and deeper layers; cMM/SM1, lesion that disrupts the first three layers with intact fourth and deeper layers; and cSM2, lesion with thinning or disruption of the fourth layer [21].

3.1. cEP/LPM Cancer

The positive predictive value (PPV) is reportedly 86–91% for cEP/LPM diagnosis based on non-ME [17,22] and 93–97% for diagnosis based on the JES classification [17,22], indicating very good results. Because the PPV of cEP/LPM diagnosis based on the JES classification is higher than that of diagnosis based on non-ME, the additional use of ME-NBI can be expected to enhance the accuracy of diagnosis of cEP/LPM. The sensitivity of Type B1 vessels for diagnosing pEP/LPM is also high [17,18,23,24]. Thus, identification of Type B1 vessels is useful for diagnosing pEP/LPM cancers.
The PPV for diagnosis of cEP/LPM cancers by EUS is 84%, which is lower than that for non-ME and ME [25]. Mizumoto et al. [25] reported that the sensitivity and accuracy with which ME-NBI distinguishes EP/LPM from MM/SM1 and SM2 are significantly higher than for EUS (83 vs. 72%, p = 0.048 and 82 vs. 70%, p = 0.017, respectively). Thus, EUS has limited additional value in patients with cEP/LPM identified by non-ME or ME.

3.2. cMM/SM1 Cancer

The PPV with which non-ME diagnoses cMM/SM1 is reportedly 53–65% [17,22] and 65–71% for JES classification diagnosis [17,22], which are relatively poor. The PPV for Type B2 vessels is insufficient, despite the high diagnostic yield for Type B1 and B3 vessels, because lesions with type B2 vessels ranges widely from pLPM to pSM2, with relatively high ratio in pSM2 cancers.
A previous study focused on the diameter of type B2 vessel area for misdiagnosis of SESCCs with type B2 vessels [26,27]. Takeuchi et al. [27] reported that the median diameter of type B2 vessel area in pSM2 was 10mm, which was significantly larger compared with that in pLPM cancers (5 mm) and pMM/SM1 cancers (4 mm). Adjusted by this factor, the PPV of type B2 vessels improved. Thus, lesions with a large type B2 area (≥10 mm) should be diagnosed as cSM2. On the other hand, Kimura et al. [26] showed that a type B2 vessel area diameter <6 mm and type B2 vessels around erosion were significantly associated with overdiagnosis in multivariate analysis. Therefore, lesions with a small type B2 area (<6 mm) and/or type B2 vessels around erosion should be diagnosed as cEP/LPM.

3.3. cSM2 Cancer

The PPV with which non-ME diagnoses cSM2 is reportedly 74–83% [17,22] and 77–93% for JES classification diagnosis [17,24], which are relatively good. Of note, the PPV of cSM2 diagnosis based on the JES classification is higher than that of diagnosis based on non-ME. Therefore, the additional use of ME-NBI is expected to improve the PPV for cSM2 cancer.
Although the PPV of cSM2 diagnosis based on the JES classification is excellent, the sensitivity is very low [16,18,27], being particularly low for Type B2 vessels with AVA-large (6–12%) [24,28]. To supplement the low sensitivity for Type B3 vessels and Type B2 vessels with AVA-large for SM2 cancers, Kimura et al. [26] reported Type B2 vessels with the findings such as nodular protrusion, thickness, and clearly depressed area, which are based on collaborative diagnosis of non-ME and ME-NBI, are reliable indicators of cSM2 invasion. Additionally, Matsuura et al. [29] have reported that Type B2 vessels on 0–I protrusions can be considered a criterion for cSM2 cancers.

4. Accuracy of Diagnosis of Cancer Invasion Depth According to Tumor Size or Circumference and Assessment of Curability

When determining the tumor depth based on collaborative diagnosis of non-ME and ME-NBI, we have to identify slight morphological irregularities and changes in IPCL or AVA, which can be accurately detected in small size lesions. However, it is more difficult to detect small infiltrating portions showing such irregularities and changes in entire area of larger lesions [28,30]. Thus, as the area of SESCC becomes larger, the rate of underdiagnosis is expected to increase, which is supported by our institution’s data analyzing diagnostic accuracy for cEP/LPM and cMM/SM1 cancers according to tumor size or circumference.

4.1. cEP/LPM Cancer

According to our institution’s data, the PPVs for comprehensive diagnosis (diagnosis based on non-ME and ME without EUS) for cEP/LPM in lesions <25 mm, ≥25 to <50 mm, and ≥50 mm are 94, 87, and 72%, respectively (p < 0.001) [30] (Table 1). Although the PPV decreases and the underdiagnosis of pMM/SM1 or pSM2 increases in parallel increasing lesions size, the PPV is acceptable at 70% even for cEP/LPM cancers ≥50 mm [31].

4.2. cMM/SM1 Cancer

According to our institution’s data, the PPV for the comprehensive diagnosis of cMM/SM1 in lesions <25 mm, ≥25 to <50 mm, and ≥50 mm in length is 44, 42, and 56%, respectively (Table 1). Comprehensive diagnoses were made mainly based on non-ME and ME, and EUS was conducted less than half of the cases.
When cMM/SM1 cancers are classified into three subgroups according to tumor circumference (≤3/4, >3/4 to <1, and whole circumference), the PPVs for comprehensive diagnosis of each subgroup are almost the same according to our institution’s data (Table 1 and Table 2). Remarkably, the underdiagnosis of pSM2 increases by 20, 33, and 36% in ≤3/4, >3/4 to <1, and whole circumferential extent, respectively.

5. Risk of Post-ER Stricture

Although ER is an effective treatment, extensive esophageal ER can lead to postoperative esophageal strictures. For example, in the absence of any preventive measures, the rates of postoperative stricture after non-circumferential resection and whole circumferential resection are 50–80% and 100%, respectively; and the required numbers of endoscopic balloon dilations (EBDs) are 6–9 and 22–33, respectively [32,33,34,35,36,37,38]. Stricture formation after esophageal ER causes dysphagia and requires multiple, long-term EBDs. It thus has a negative impact on patients’ quality of life and may delay additional CRT after non-curative resection [39]. Previous studies have shown that a mucosal defect >3/4 of the esophageal circumference after ER is a risk factor for stricture development [13,14,15].
Steroid therapy remains the mainstay of prevention of strictures. Local steroid injection is preferred for non-circumferential resection because of its efficacy (stricture rate: 4–45%), lower rate of complications, and convenience [33,36,40,41,42,43]. However, irrespective of preventive measures, whole circumferential resection is associated with an extremely high risk of stricture. It should, therefore, be primarily avoided whenever possible. When it is unavoidable, administration of oral steroids or a combination of oral steroids and local steroid injection may be the most effective strategies (stricture rate: 33–100% [35,38,44] and 18–92% [33,40,45], respectively).

6. Adequacy of Indications for ER for cEP/LPM, cMM/SM1, and cSM2 Cancers

As described above, the indications for ER are primarily determined on the basis of preoperative clinical assessment of cancer invasion depth and tumor circumferential extent, because cancer invasion depth correlates well with the risk of metastasis and curability by ER and tumor circumference is significantly associated with development of stricture following ER.
Previous guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of SESCC recommend the following treatment strategies based on pathological findings: (1) ER is absolutely indicated for pEP/LPM cancers because of the extremely low risk of lymph-node metastasis, (2) ER is relatively indicated for pMM/SM1 cancers because the rate of lymph-node metastasis is 10 to 15%, and (3) SM2 cancers should be treated by surgery or definitive CRT because the rate of lymph-node metastasis is 30 to 50% [16,46,47,48].
On the other hand, as summarized in Table 2, our proposal for the indications for ER are based on clinical comprehensive diagnosis, not on pathological diagnosis, as follows. Previous studies [8,49,50] have reported that pEP/LPM cancers have a very low risk of metastasis and pMM/SM1 a low risk of metastasis, whereas pSM2 cancers have a high risk of metastasis.

6.1. cEP/LPM Cancer

Considering that more than approximately 90% of cEP/LPM cancers are finally diagnosed as pEP/LPM cancers, which have very low risk of metastasis, cEP/LPM cancers are a good indication for ER.

6.2. cMM/SM1 Cancer

The diagnostic accuracy for cMM/SM1 differs significantly with lateral spread of these lesions. In total, 80% of cMM/SM1 cancers with ≤3/4 circumferential spread are pEP/LPM or pMM/SM1 cancers, which have a very low or low risk of metastasis. Thus, cMM/SM1 cancers with ≤3/4 circumferential spread are adequate candidates for ER.
In contrast, ER is not recommended for whole circumferential cMM/SM1 cancers given the relatively low proportion of pEP/LPM or pMM/SM1 cancers and high risk of post-ER stricture. We recommend CRT or surgery to patients with whole circumferential cMM/SM1 cancers. As esophagectomy is associated with significant mortality and substantial morbidity, CRT is first recommended for patients who cannot tolerate surgery. ER may be an option for patients who would not receive CRT because of their wish to receive surgery as an additional treatment or poor condition. However, ER is likely to be non-curative resection, and delay of CRT due to refractory stricture must be taken into account when considering the use of ESD for whole circumferential cMM/SM1 cancers.
For cMM/SM1 cancers that involve >3/4 but not the whole circumference, ER should be considered on an individual basis because steroid therapy is effective in preventing stricture formation after non-circumferential resection, but the proportion of pEP/LPM or pMM/SM1 is relatively low at 67%.

6.3. cSM2 Cancer

Considering that 75% of cSM2 cancers are finally diagnosed as pSM2 cancers, which have a high risk of metastasis, cSM2 cancers are a contraindication to ER.

7. Conclusions

cEP/LPM cancers are a good indication for ER. ER is suitable as the first-line treatment for cMM/SM1 cancers with ≤3/4 circumferential spread, while ER is not recommended for whole circumferential cMM/SM1 cancers. For cMM/SM1 cancers that involve >3/4 but not the whole circumference, ER should be considered on an individual basis. cSM2 cancers are a contraindication to ER.

8. Future Perspectives

We have presented here the accuracy of diagnosis of SESCC invasion by assessing the findings of recent published reports and our institution’s data, and evaluated the indications for ER according to the clinical diagnosis of SESCC. However, all findings were retrospectively collected at single centers. Multicenter prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings and conclusions.

Author Contributions

K.M. wrote the manuscript. R.I. revised it critically for important intellectual content. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Acknowledgments

We thank Trish Reynolds, MBBS, FRACP, from Edanz Group (https://en-author-services.edanzgroup.com/ac) for editing a draft of this manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Torre, L.A.; Bray, F.; Siegel, R.L.; Ferlay, J.; Lortet-Tieulent, J.; Jemal, A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2015, 65, 87–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Igaki, H.; Kato, H.; Tachimori, Y.; Daiko, H.; Fukaya, M.; Yajima, S.; Nakanishi, Y. Clinicopathologic characteristics and survival of patients with clinical Stage I squamous cell carcinomas of the thoracic esophagus treated with three-field lymph node dissection. Eur. J. Cardio Thoracic Surg. 2001, 20, 1089–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Ishihara, R.; Tanaka, H.; Iishi, H.; Takeuchi, Y.; Higashino, K.; Uedo, N.; Tatsuta, M.; Yano, M.; Ishiguro, S. Long-term outcome of esophageal mucosal squamous cell carcinoma without lymphovascular involvement after endoscopic resection. Cancer 2008, 112, 2166–2172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Katada, C.; Muto, M.; Momma, K.; Arima, M.; Tajiri, H.; Kanamaru, C.; Ooyanagi, H.; Endo, H.; Michida, T.; Hasuike, N.; et al. Clinical outcome after endoscopic mucosal resection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma invading the muscularis mucosae—A multicenter retrospective cohort study. Endoscopy 2007, 39, 779–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kato, H.; Sato, A.; Fukuda, H.; Kagami, Y.; Udagawa, H.; Togo, A.; Ando, N.; Tanaka, O.; Shinoda, M.; Yamana, H.; et al. A Phase II Trial of Chemoradiotherapy for Stage I Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Japan Clinical Oncology Group Study (JCOG9708). Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 2009, 39, 638–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Shimizu, Y.; Tsukagoshi, H.; Fujita, M.; Hosokawa, M.; Kato, M.; Asaka, M. Long-term outcome after endoscopic mucosal resection in patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma invading the muscularis mucosae or deeper. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2002, 56, 387–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yamamoto, S.; Ishihara, R.; Motoori, M.; Kawaguchi, Y.; Uedo, N.; Takeuchi, Y.; Higashino, K.; Yano, M.; Nakamura, S.; Iishi, H. Comparison Between Definitive Chemoradiotherapy and Esophagectomy in Patients with Clinical Stage I Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2011, 106, 1048–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Yamashina, T.; Ishihara, R.; Nagai, K.; Matsuura, N.; Matsui, F.; Ito, T.; Fujii, M.; Yamamoto, S.; Hanaoka, N.; Takeuchi, Y.; et al. Long-Term Outcome and Metastatic Risk After Endoscopic Resection of Superficial Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2013, 108, 544–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Chang, A.C.; Ji, H.; Birkmeyer, N.J.; Orringer, M.B.; Birkmeyer, J.D. Outcomes After Transhiatal and Transthoracic Esophagectomy for Cancer. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2008, 85, 424–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Birkmeyer, J.D.; Siewers, A.E.; Finlayson, E.V.; Stukel, T.A.; Lucas, F.L.; Batista, I.; Welch, H.G.; Wennberg, D.E. Hospital Volume and Surgical Mortality in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 2002, 346, 1128–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Oyama, T.; Tomori, A.; Hotta, K.; Morita, S.; Kominato, K.; Tanaka, M.; Miyata, Y. Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection of Early Esophageal Cancer. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2005, 3, S67–S70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pimentel-Nunes, P.; Dinis-Ribeiro, M.; Ponchon, T.; Repici, A.; Vieth, M.; De Ceglie, A.; Amato, A.; Berr, F.; Bhandari, P.; Bialek, A.; et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2015, 47, 829–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Katada, C.; Muto, M.; Manabe, T.; Boku, N.; Ohtsu, A.; Yoshida, S. Esophageal stenosis after endoscopic mucosal resection of superficial esophageal lesions. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2003, 57, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ono, S.; Fujishiro, M.; Niimi, K.; Goto, O.; Kodashima, S.; Yamamichi, N.; Omata, M. Predictors of postoperative stricture after esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial squamous cell neoplasms. Endoscopy 2009, 41, 661–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Shi, Q.; Ju, H.; Yao, L.-Q.; Zhou, P.-H.; Xu, M.-D.; Chen, T.; Zhou, J.-M.; Chen, T.-Y.; Zhong, Y.-S. Risk factors for postoperative stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal carcinoma. Endoscopy 2014, 46, 640–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Kitagawa, Y.; Uno, T.; Oyama, T.; Kato, K.; Kato, H.; Kawakubo, H.; Kawamura, O.; Kusano, M.; Kuwano, H.; Takeuchi, H.; et al. Esophageal cancer practice guidelines 2017 edited by the Japan Esophageal Society: Part 1. Esophagus 2019, 16, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Katada, C.; Tanabe, S.; Wada, T.; Ishido, K.; Yano, T.; Furue, Y.; Kondo, Y.; Kawanishi, N.; Yamane, S.; Watanabe, A.; et al. Retrospective Assessment of the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Depth of Invasion by Narrow Band Imaging Magnifying Endoscopy in Patients with Superficial Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. J. Gastrointest. Cancer 2018, 50, 292–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Oyama, T.; Inoue, H.; Arima, M.; Momma, K.; Tomori, A.; Ishihara, R.; Hirasawa, D.; Takeuchi, M.; Goda, K. Prediction of the invasion depth of superficial squamous cell carcinoma based on microvessel morphology: Magnifying endoscopic classification of the Japan Esophageal Society. Esophagus 2017, 14, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Gotoda, T.; Kanzaki, H.; Okamoto, Y.; Obayashi, Y.; Baba, Y.; Hamada, K.; Sakae, H.; Abe, M.; Iwamuro, M.; Kawano, S.; et al. Tolerability and efficacy of the concentration of iodine solution during esophageal chromoendoscopy: A double-blind randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2020, 91, 763–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ishihara, R.; Arima, M.; Iizuka, T.; Oyama, T.; Katada, C.; Kato, M.; Goda, K.; Goto, O.; Tanaka, K.; Yano, T. Endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection guidelines for esophageal cancer. Dig. Endosc. Off. J. Jpn. Gastroenterol. Endosc. Soc. 2020, 32, 452–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Esaki, M.; Matsumoto, T.; Moriyama, T.; Hizawa, K.; Ohji, Y.; Nakamura, S.; Hirakawa, K.; Hirahashi, M.; Yao, T.; Iida, M. Probe EUS for the diagnosis of invasion depth in superficial esophageal cancer: A comparison between a jelly-filled method and a water-filled balloon method. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2006, 63, 389–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Shimada, H.; Chino, O.; Nishi, T. Diagnosing depth of invasion of superficial esophageal cancer –routine endoscopic diagnosis. Stomach Intest. 2015, 50, 539–552, (in Japanese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  23. Fujiwara, J.; Momma, K.; Tateishi, Y. Endoscopic and pathological studies on Type B2 blood vessels in estimation of invasion depth of superficial esophageal cancer. Stomach Intest. 2014, 49, 174–185, (in Japanese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  24. Takeuchi, M.; Hashimoto, S.; Kobayashi, M. Accuracy of the Japan Esophageal Society Classification of NBI-magnifying endoscopy in diagnosing superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma invasion depth. Stomach Intest. 2015, 50, 553–562, (in Japanese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  25. Mizumoto, T.; Hiyama, T.; Oka, S.; Yorita, N.; Kuroki, K.; Kurihara, M.; Yoshifuku, Y.; Sanomura, Y.; Urabe, Y.; Arihiro, K.; et al. Diagnosis of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma invasion depth before endoscopic submucosal dissection. Dis. Esophagus 2017, 31, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kimura, H.; Yoshida, M.; Tanaka, M.; Kawata, N.; Kakushima, N.; Takizawa, K.; Kishida, Y.; Imai, K.; Ito, S.; Hotta, K.; et al. Preoperative indicators of misdiagnosis in invasion depth staging of esophageal cancer: Pitfalls of magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging. Dig. Endosc. 2019, 32, 56–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Takeuchi, M.; Mori, Y.; Hashimoto, S. The Significance of Type B2 Vessels by the Japan Esophageal Society Classification of NBI Magnifying Endoscopy for the Diagnosis of Invasion Depth of Superficial Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Stomach Intest. 2018, 53, 1343–1352, (In Japanese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  28. Takeuchi, M.; Hashimoto, S.; Kobayashi, M. Usefulness of NBI magnifying endoscopy for the diagnosis of invasion depth of superficially spreading esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Stomach Intest. 2014, 49, 1157–1163, (In Japanese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  29. Matsuura, N.; Ishihara, R.; Shichijo, S. Prediction of the invasion depth of SM2 superficial squamous cell carcinoma based on a magnifying endoscopic classification of the Japan Esophageal Society. Stomach Intest. 2018, 53, 1394–1403, (In Japanese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  30. Ishihara, R.; Yamashina, T.; Aoi, K. Endoscopic diagnosis of invasion depth for superficial spreading-type esophagus cancer. Stomach Intest. 2014, 49, 1164–1172, (In Japanese with English abstract). [Google Scholar]
  31. Yamashina, T.; Ishihara, R.; Uedo, N.; Nagai, K.; Matsui, F.; Kawada, N.; Oota, T.; Kanzaki, H.; Hanafusa, M.; Yamamoto, S.; et al. Safety and curative ability of endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal cancers at least 50 mm in diameter. Dig. Endosc. 2011, 24, 220–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Hashimoto, S.; Mizuno, K.-I.; Takahashi, K.; Sato, H.; Yokoyama, J.; Takeuchi, M.; Sato, Y.; Kobayashi, M.; Terai, S. Evaluating the effect of injecting triamcinolone acetonide in two sessions for preventing esophageal stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endosc. Int. Open 2019, 7, E764–E770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Kadota, T.; Yano, T.; Kato, T.; Imajoh, M.; Noguchi, M.; Morimoto, H.; Osera, S.; Yoda, Y.; Oono, Y.; Ikematsu, H.; et al. Prophylactic steroid administration for strictures after endoscopic resection of large superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Endosc. Int. Open 2016, 4, E1267–E1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. De Lima, A.; Galjart, B.; Wisse, P.H.A.; Bramer, W.M.; Van Der Woude, C.J. Does lower gastrointestinal endoscopy during pregnancy pose a risk for mother and child?—A systematic review. BMC Gastroenterol. 2015, 15, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Sato, H.; Inoue, H.; Kobayashi, Y.; Maselli, R.; Santi, E.G.R.; Hayee, B.; Igarashi, K.; Yoshida, A.; Ikeda, H.; Onimaru, M.; et al. Control of severe strictures after circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal carcinoma: Oral steroid therapy with balloon dilation or balloon dilation alone. Gastrointest. Endosc. 2013, 78, 250–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Pih, G.Y.; Kim, H.; Gong, E.J.; Na, H.K.; Jung, K.W.; Lee, J.H.; Ahn, J.Y.; Choi, K.D.; Song, H.J.; Lee, G.H.; et al. Preventing esophageal strictures with steroids after endoscopic submucosal dissection in superficial esophageal neoplasm. J. Dig. Dis. 2019, 20, 609–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhou, G.; Yuan, F.; Cai, J.; Tang, X.; Gong, W.; Su, L.; Zhang, Y. Efficacy of prednisone for prevention of esophageal stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Thorac. Cancer 2017, 8, 489–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Kataoka, M.; Anzai, S.; Shirasaki, T.; Ikemiyagi, H.; Fujii, T.; Mabuchi, K.; Suzuki, S.; Yoshida, M.; Kawai, T.; Kitajima, M. Efficacy of short period, low dose oral prednisolone for the prevention of stricture after circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for esophageal cancer. Endosc. Int. Open 2014, 3, E113–E117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Siersema, P.D. Treatment options for esophageal strictures. Nat. Clin. Pr. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2008, 5, 142–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hanaoka, N.; Ishihara, R.; Uedo, N.; Takeuchi, Y.; Higashino, K.; Akasaka, T.; Kanesaka, T.; Matsuura, N.; Yamasaki, Y.; Hamada, K.; et al. Refractory strictures despite steroid injection after esophageal endoscopic resection. Endosc. Int. Open 2016, 4, E354–E359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Nagami, Y.; Ominami, M.; Shiba, M.; Sakai, T.; Fukunaga, S.; Sugimori, S.; Otani, K.; Hosomi, S.; Tanaka, F.; Taira, K.; et al. Prediction of esophageal stricture in patients given locoregional triamcinolone injections immediately after endoscopic submucosal dissection. Dig. Endosc. 2018, 30, 198–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Okamoto, K.; Matsui, S.; Watanabe, T.; Asakuma, Y.; Komeda, Y.; Okamoto, A.; Rei, I.; Kono, M.; Yamada, M.; Nagai, T.; et al. Clinical Analysis of Esophageal Stricture in Patients Treated with Intralesional Triamcinolone Injection after Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Superficial Esophageal Cancer. Oncology 2017, 93, 9–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Takahashi, H.; Arimura, Y.; Okahara, S.; Kodaira, J.; Hokari, K.; Tsukagoshi, H.; Shinomura, Y.; Hosokawa, M. A randomized controlled trial of endoscopic steroid injection for prophylaxis of esophageal stenoses after extensive endoscopic submucosal dissection. BMC Gastroenterol. 2015, 15, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Iizuka, T.; Kikuchi, D.; Hoteya, S.; Kaise, M. Effectiveness of modified oral steroid administration for preventing esophageal stricture after entire circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection. Dis. Esophagus 2018, 31, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Chu, Y.; Chen, T.; Li, H.; Zhou, P.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, W.; Zhong, Y.; Yao, L.; Xu, M. Long-term efficacy and safety of intralesional steroid injection plus oral steroid administration in preventing stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal epithelial neoplasms. Surg. Endosc. 2019, 33, 1244–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Eguchi, T.; Nakanishi, Y.; Shimoda, T.; Iwasaki, M.; Igaki, H.; Tachimori, Y.; Kato, H.; Yamaguchi, H.; Saito, D.; Umemura, S. Histopathological criteria for additional treatment after endoscopic mucosal resection for esophageal cancer: Analysis of 464 surgically resected cases. Mod. Pathol. 2006, 19, 475–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Kim, D.U.; Lee, J.H.; Min, B.-H.; Shim, S.G.; Chang, N.K.; Kim, Y.-H.; Rhee, P.-L.; Kim, J.J.; Rhee, J.C.; Kim, K.-M.; et al. Risk factors of lymph node metastasis in T1 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2008, 23, 619–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tajima, Y.; Nakanishi, Y.; Ochiai, A.; Tachimori, Y.; Kato, H.; Watanabe, H.; Yamaguchi, H.; Yoshimura, K.; Kusano, M.; Shimoda, T. Histopathologic findings predicting lymph node metastasis and prognosis of patients with superficial esophageal carcinoma: Analysis of 240 surgically resected tumors. Cancer 2000, 88, 1285–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Akutsu, Y.; Uesato, M.; Shuto, K.; Kono, T.; Hoshino, I.; Horibe, D.; Sazuka, T.; Takeshita, N.; Maruyama, T.; Isozaki, Y.; et al. The overall prevalence of metastasis in T1 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: A retrospective analysis of 295 patients. Ann. Surg. 2013, 257, 1032–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Takahashi, K.; Hashimoto, S.; Mizuno, K.-I.; Kobayashi, T.; Tominaga, K.; Sato, H.; Kohisa, J.; Ikarashi, S.; Hayashi, K.; Takeuchi, M.; et al. Management decision based on lymphovascular involvement leads to favorable outcomes after endoscopic treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Endoscopy 2017, 50, 662–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. The positive predictive value (PPV) for comprehensive diagnosis of cancer invasion depth according to tumor size or circumference.
Table 1. The positive predictive value (PPV) for comprehensive diagnosis of cancer invasion depth according to tumor size or circumference.
pEP/LPMpMM/SM1pSM2
cEP/LPM †tumor size~24 mm94%6%0%
25~49 mm87%11%2%
50~ mm72%22%6%
cMM/SM1 ††tumor size~24 mm40%44%16%
25~49 mm31%42%27%
50~ mm22%56%22%
tumor circumference≤3/436%44%20%
>3/4 to <117%50%33%
whole14%50%36%
cSM2 † 0%25%75%
† Diagnosis based on non-magnifying endoscopy (non-ME) and magnifying endoscopy (ME) without endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). †† Diagnosis based on non-ME and ME, EUS less than half of the cases.
Table
Table 2. The indications for endoscopic resection (ER) according to clinical diagnosis of cancer invasion depth and circumferential spread.
Table 2. The indications for endoscopic resection (ER) according to clinical diagnosis of cancer invasion depth and circumferential spread.
pEP/LPMpMM/SM1pSM2Risk of Stricture
cEP/LPM 90%9%1%
cMM/SM1≤3/436%44%20%Low
>3/4 to <117%50%33%Moderate
whole14%50%36%High
cSM2 0%25%75%
Our proposal. Jcm 10 00013 i001 Indication of ER with very low risk of metastasis. Jcm 10 00013 i002 Indication of ER with low risk of metastasis. Jcm 10 00013 i003 Contra-indication of ER with high risk of metastasis or stenosis.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Matsueda, K.; Ishihara, R. Preoperative Diagnosis and Indications for Endoscopic Resection of Superficial Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10010013

AMA Style

Matsueda K, Ishihara R. Preoperative Diagnosis and Indications for Endoscopic Resection of Superficial Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2021; 10(1):13. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10010013

Chicago/Turabian Style

Matsueda, Katsunori, and Ryu Ishihara. 2021. "Preoperative Diagnosis and Indications for Endoscopic Resection of Superficial Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma" Journal of Clinical Medicine 10, no. 1: 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10010013

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop