User login
Dear colleagues,
Many of us diagnose and treat patients with Barrett’s esophagus, estimated to affect up to 5.6% of the US adult population. There has been an expanding array of tools to help diagnose and effectively treat Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia and malignancy. In particular, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has emerged as an important method for treating early cancer in the gastrointestinal tract.
But how do we incorporate ESD into our algorithm for management, especially with the popularity and effectiveness of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR)? In this issue of Perspectives we aim to provide context for the use of ESD, as compared with EMR. Dr. Silvio de Melo discusses his preferred EMR technique and its many advantages in the management of BE, including for residual or refractory areas. In contrast, Dr. Mohamed Othman reviews the power of ESD and when we should consider this approach over EMR. We hope these discussions will facilitate your care for patients with Barrett’s esophagus.
We also welcome your thoughts on this topic — join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN.
Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: The ‘Workhorse’ for Patient Care
BY SILVIO W. DE MELO JR, MD, AGAF
Barrett’s esophagus (BE) remains an important clinical problem, being one of the modifiable risk factors for esophageal adenocarcinoma. The care for BE is complex and requires several steps to correctly formulate a therapeutic plan. It starts with a proper endoscopic examination. It is recommended to spend at least 1 minute inspecting and evaluating every centimeter of the salmon-colored epithelium, looking for change in vascular pattern, erosions/ulcers, nodules, and/or masses. After the inspection, random biopsies every 1-2 cm plus targeted biopsies will guide you. It is still controversial if the addition of other sampling strategies, such as brushings or confocal endomicroscopy, is needed.
The introduction of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) was paramount in popularizing the treatment options for BE and sunsetting the previous dominant modality, photodynamic therapy (PDT). RFA proved to have a superior clinical efficacy in replacing the intestinal metaplasia/BE with neosquamous epithelium while boosting a much better safety profile, compared with PDT. However, RFA is most efficacious for “flat BE” and it is not an effective, nor recommended, method to treat nodular BE or early cancer, such as carcinoma in situ or nodular high-grade dysplasia. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is utilized to overcome those limitations.
There are several techniques utilized for EMR:
- The lift and snare technique.
- The snare-in-cap technique.
- The Band-snare technique.
The free-hand submucosal lift and snare is not frequently used in the esophagus. It is difficult to maintain visualization while being confident that one has the whole lesion inside the snare and that the distal (anal side) part of the lesion is free of any unwanted tissue (to minimize complications such as perforations or unwelcomed gastric resections). It is difficult after the first resection to lift an adjacent area, as the fluid easily leaks from the first resected spot, thus removing larger lesions in piece-meal fashion is challenging. This technique can be used in small (in my personal experience, less than 5 mm) lesions, but, given that there are better and safer alternatives, I almost never use this technique for my esophageal EMR cases. I prefer to use the band-snare technique even for lesions under 5 mm.
The snare-in-cap technique has been utilized in the esophagus. In this technique, a cap is attached to the distal end of the scope and the size of the resection is determined by the size of the cap, usually under 1.5 cm. Because of the risk of perforation without previous lifting, it is required that the lesion is lifted with a submucosal fluid, saline or any Food and Drug Administration–approved EMR solution. The lesion is then suctioned inside the cap where the snare had been previously opened inside the cap, the snare is closed, and the tissue is resected. The same limitations regarding the inability to remove larger lesions (greater than 1.5 cm) because of the challenge in lifting the adjacent area applies here. However, the perforation risk for this technique is higher than the traditional lift and the band and snare techniques. Thus, this technique has fallen out of favor for most endoscopists.
The third technique (band-snare EMR) is the one that most endoscopists use for endoscopic mucosal resection. It is a small variation of the already time-tested and very familiar procedure of esophageal variceal band ligation (EVL). There are multiple commercially available kits for esophageal EMR. The kit contains the chamber with the bands and a proprietary hexagonal snare used to resect the specimen.
The advantages of this technique are:
- It is widely commercially available.
- It builds on a familiar procedure, EVL, therefore the learning curve is short.
- The set-up is quick and the procedure can be completed safely and effectively.
- There is no need for injecting the submucosal with a lifting solution.
- Despite the band having a size limitation of 1 cm, one can remove larger lesions by repeating the band and resect process, using the rosette technique.
Band-snare EMR also has limitations:
- There are only six bands on each chamber. Depending on the size of the lesion, one may need to use multiple kits.
- It is not suitable for en bloc resection of lesions greater than 1 cm.
My experience with band EMR is that we can complete the procedure in under 1 hour. The dreaded complication of perforation occurs in under 1% of cases, most bleeding episodes can easily be controlled endoscopically, and the risk of post-EMR stricture is minimal. Therefore, band EMR is the most used technique for esophageal endoscopic resections.
Esophageal EMR is also effective for other indications in BE therapy, such as residual and recurrent BE. Band-snare EMR can be used for an en bloc resection or rosette technique for the areas resistant to ablation therapies with great success and safety.
From a financial standpoint, comparing EMR with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), EMR is the superior strategy given that EMR is widely available, has a much shorter learning curve, has a greater safety profile, is applicable to a wider variety of indications, and has a more favorable return on investment. EMR should be the workhorse for the care of patients with BE, reserving ESD for specific indications.
In summary, there is no “one-size-fits-all” endoscopic therapy in the care of BE. Most Barrett’s patients can be successfully treated with a combination of ablation plus EMR, reserving ESD for select cases.
Dr. de Melo is section chief of gastroenterology at the Orlando VA Healthcare System, Orlando, Florida. He declares no conflicts of interest.
ESD Over EMR for Resecting Esophageal Lesions
BY MOHAMED O. OTHMAN, MD, AGAF
Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the preferred endoscopic resection method in the East, the adoption of this technique in the West, particularly in the United States, has faced many hurdles. Many endoscopists who routinely perform piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) question the utility of ESD, arguing that EMR is just as effective. While this may hold true in certain situations, the global trend in the endoscopic treatment of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, nodular Barrett’s esophagus (BE), and early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has clearly shifted toward ESD. In this perspective, I will summarize why ESD is preferred over EMR for these indications and explore why ESD has yet to gain widespread adoption in the United States.
The superiority of ESD over EMR has been well established in multiple publications from both Eastern and Western literature. Mejia-Perez et al, in a multicenter cohort study from eight centers in North America, compared outcomes of ESD vs EMR for BE with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1a adenocarcinoma in 243 patients. ESD achieved significantly higher en bloc resection rates (89% vs 43%) and R0 resection rates (73% vs 56%), compared with EMR, along with a substantially lower recurrence/residual disease rate on follow-up (3.5% in the ESD group vs 31.4% in EMR group). Additionally, more patients required repeat endoscopic resection after EMR to treat residual or recurrent disease (EMR, 24.2% vs ESD, 3.5%; P < .001).
Han et al conducted a meta-analysis of 22 studies comparing ESD and EMR for early esophageal neoplasia, including both squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and BE-associated lesions. ESD was associated with significantly higher curative resection rates than EMR (OR, 9.74; 95% CI, 4.83-19.62; P < .0001). Of note, lesion size was a critical factor in determining the advantage of ESD. For lesions ≤ 10 mm, curative resection rates were comparable between ESD and EMR. However, for lesions > 10 mm, ESD achieved significantly higher curative resection rates. This size-based recommendation has been adopted by the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) in their recent guidelines on ESD indications for esophageal lesions. ASGE guidelines favors ESD over EMR for SCC lesions > 15 mm and for nodular BE with dysplasia or early EAC > 20 mm.
ESD is particularly beneficial in patients who develop early adenocarcinoma after RFA or EMR. Mesureur et al evaluated the efficacy of salvage ESD for Barrett’s recurrence or residual BE following RFA. In their multicenter retrospective study of 56 patients, salvage ESD achieved an en bloc resection rate of 89.3%, despite significant fibrosis, with an R0 resection rate of 66%. At a median follow-up of 14 months, most patients remained in endoscopic remission without the need for esophagectomy.
Combining ESD with RFA has also been shown to accelerate the eradication of BE with dysplasia while reducing the number of required sessions. Our group demonstrated the high efficacy of ESD followed by RFA in 18 patients, most of whom had long-segment BE with HGD or EAC. On average, patients required only one to two RFA sessions after ESD to achieve complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM). Over a median follow-up of 42.5 months (IQR, 28-59.25), complete eradication of early esophageal cancer was achieved in 13 patients (100%), eradication of dysplasia in 15 patients (100%), and CE-IM in 14 patients (77.8%).
Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting ESD and the strong endorsement from professional societies, adoption in the West continues to lag. Several factors contribute to this gap. First, ESD has a steep learning curve. Our data showed that, on average, an untutored practitioner achieved competency after 150-250 procedures, a finding corroborated by other US groups.
Second, there is no specific CPT code for ESD in the United States. Physicians are forced to bill the procedure as EMR or use an unlisted code, resulting in reimbursement that does not reflect the time and complexity of the procedure. Our group showed that physician reimbursement for ESD is highly variable, ranging from $50 to $800 per case, depending on insurance type.
Third, the increasing emphasis on productivity and RVU generation in academic settings has hindered the growth of ESD training in many institutions. Still, the outlook for ESD in the United States remains encouraging. Multiple industry-sponsored training courses are held annually, and professional societies are investing heavily in expanding access to structured education in ESD. Industry is also innovating devices that improve procedural efficiency and safety. Adopting novel approaches, such as traction-assisted ESD, has made the technique more appealing to endoscopists concerned about long procedure times. For example, our group proposed a standardized esophageal ESD technique that incorporates specimen self-retraction. This method improves both safety and speed and has helped address several procedural challenges. We’ve demonstrated that consistency in technique can substantially expedite esophageal ESD.
Fast forward 5 years: We anticipate a dedicated CPT code for ESD, broader access to advanced resection tools, and an expanding number of fellowships offering structured ESD training. These developments are poised to eliminate many of the current barriers. In summary, with robust data supporting the efficacy of ESD in early esophageal cancer, the focus in the United States should shift toward mastering and integrating the technique, rather than dismissing it in favor of piecemeal EMR.
Dr. Othman is chief of the gastroenterology and hepatology section at Baylor College of Medicine and Medicine Subspecialities Service Line Chief at Baylor St Luke’s Medical Center, both in Houston. He declares no conflicts of interest.
Dear colleagues,
Many of us diagnose and treat patients with Barrett’s esophagus, estimated to affect up to 5.6% of the US adult population. There has been an expanding array of tools to help diagnose and effectively treat Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia and malignancy. In particular, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has emerged as an important method for treating early cancer in the gastrointestinal tract.
But how do we incorporate ESD into our algorithm for management, especially with the popularity and effectiveness of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR)? In this issue of Perspectives we aim to provide context for the use of ESD, as compared with EMR. Dr. Silvio de Melo discusses his preferred EMR technique and its many advantages in the management of BE, including for residual or refractory areas. In contrast, Dr. Mohamed Othman reviews the power of ESD and when we should consider this approach over EMR. We hope these discussions will facilitate your care for patients with Barrett’s esophagus.
We also welcome your thoughts on this topic — join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN.
Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: The ‘Workhorse’ for Patient Care
BY SILVIO W. DE MELO JR, MD, AGAF
Barrett’s esophagus (BE) remains an important clinical problem, being one of the modifiable risk factors for esophageal adenocarcinoma. The care for BE is complex and requires several steps to correctly formulate a therapeutic plan. It starts with a proper endoscopic examination. It is recommended to spend at least 1 minute inspecting and evaluating every centimeter of the salmon-colored epithelium, looking for change in vascular pattern, erosions/ulcers, nodules, and/or masses. After the inspection, random biopsies every 1-2 cm plus targeted biopsies will guide you. It is still controversial if the addition of other sampling strategies, such as brushings or confocal endomicroscopy, is needed.
The introduction of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) was paramount in popularizing the treatment options for BE and sunsetting the previous dominant modality, photodynamic therapy (PDT). RFA proved to have a superior clinical efficacy in replacing the intestinal metaplasia/BE with neosquamous epithelium while boosting a much better safety profile, compared with PDT. However, RFA is most efficacious for “flat BE” and it is not an effective, nor recommended, method to treat nodular BE or early cancer, such as carcinoma in situ or nodular high-grade dysplasia. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is utilized to overcome those limitations.
There are several techniques utilized for EMR:
- The lift and snare technique.
- The snare-in-cap technique.
- The Band-snare technique.
The free-hand submucosal lift and snare is not frequently used in the esophagus. It is difficult to maintain visualization while being confident that one has the whole lesion inside the snare and that the distal (anal side) part of the lesion is free of any unwanted tissue (to minimize complications such as perforations or unwelcomed gastric resections). It is difficult after the first resection to lift an adjacent area, as the fluid easily leaks from the first resected spot, thus removing larger lesions in piece-meal fashion is challenging. This technique can be used in small (in my personal experience, less than 5 mm) lesions, but, given that there are better and safer alternatives, I almost never use this technique for my esophageal EMR cases. I prefer to use the band-snare technique even for lesions under 5 mm.
The snare-in-cap technique has been utilized in the esophagus. In this technique, a cap is attached to the distal end of the scope and the size of the resection is determined by the size of the cap, usually under 1.5 cm. Because of the risk of perforation without previous lifting, it is required that the lesion is lifted with a submucosal fluid, saline or any Food and Drug Administration–approved EMR solution. The lesion is then suctioned inside the cap where the snare had been previously opened inside the cap, the snare is closed, and the tissue is resected. The same limitations regarding the inability to remove larger lesions (greater than 1.5 cm) because of the challenge in lifting the adjacent area applies here. However, the perforation risk for this technique is higher than the traditional lift and the band and snare techniques. Thus, this technique has fallen out of favor for most endoscopists.
The third technique (band-snare EMR) is the one that most endoscopists use for endoscopic mucosal resection. It is a small variation of the already time-tested and very familiar procedure of esophageal variceal band ligation (EVL). There are multiple commercially available kits for esophageal EMR. The kit contains the chamber with the bands and a proprietary hexagonal snare used to resect the specimen.
The advantages of this technique are:
- It is widely commercially available.
- It builds on a familiar procedure, EVL, therefore the learning curve is short.
- The set-up is quick and the procedure can be completed safely and effectively.
- There is no need for injecting the submucosal with a lifting solution.
- Despite the band having a size limitation of 1 cm, one can remove larger lesions by repeating the band and resect process, using the rosette technique.
Band-snare EMR also has limitations:
- There are only six bands on each chamber. Depending on the size of the lesion, one may need to use multiple kits.
- It is not suitable for en bloc resection of lesions greater than 1 cm.
My experience with band EMR is that we can complete the procedure in under 1 hour. The dreaded complication of perforation occurs in under 1% of cases, most bleeding episodes can easily be controlled endoscopically, and the risk of post-EMR stricture is minimal. Therefore, band EMR is the most used technique for esophageal endoscopic resections.
Esophageal EMR is also effective for other indications in BE therapy, such as residual and recurrent BE. Band-snare EMR can be used for an en bloc resection or rosette technique for the areas resistant to ablation therapies with great success and safety.
From a financial standpoint, comparing EMR with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), EMR is the superior strategy given that EMR is widely available, has a much shorter learning curve, has a greater safety profile, is applicable to a wider variety of indications, and has a more favorable return on investment. EMR should be the workhorse for the care of patients with BE, reserving ESD for specific indications.
In summary, there is no “one-size-fits-all” endoscopic therapy in the care of BE. Most Barrett’s patients can be successfully treated with a combination of ablation plus EMR, reserving ESD for select cases.
Dr. de Melo is section chief of gastroenterology at the Orlando VA Healthcare System, Orlando, Florida. He declares no conflicts of interest.
ESD Over EMR for Resecting Esophageal Lesions
BY MOHAMED O. OTHMAN, MD, AGAF
Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the preferred endoscopic resection method in the East, the adoption of this technique in the West, particularly in the United States, has faced many hurdles. Many endoscopists who routinely perform piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) question the utility of ESD, arguing that EMR is just as effective. While this may hold true in certain situations, the global trend in the endoscopic treatment of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, nodular Barrett’s esophagus (BE), and early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has clearly shifted toward ESD. In this perspective, I will summarize why ESD is preferred over EMR for these indications and explore why ESD has yet to gain widespread adoption in the United States.
The superiority of ESD over EMR has been well established in multiple publications from both Eastern and Western literature. Mejia-Perez et al, in a multicenter cohort study from eight centers in North America, compared outcomes of ESD vs EMR for BE with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1a adenocarcinoma in 243 patients. ESD achieved significantly higher en bloc resection rates (89% vs 43%) and R0 resection rates (73% vs 56%), compared with EMR, along with a substantially lower recurrence/residual disease rate on follow-up (3.5% in the ESD group vs 31.4% in EMR group). Additionally, more patients required repeat endoscopic resection after EMR to treat residual or recurrent disease (EMR, 24.2% vs ESD, 3.5%; P < .001).
Han et al conducted a meta-analysis of 22 studies comparing ESD and EMR for early esophageal neoplasia, including both squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and BE-associated lesions. ESD was associated with significantly higher curative resection rates than EMR (OR, 9.74; 95% CI, 4.83-19.62; P < .0001). Of note, lesion size was a critical factor in determining the advantage of ESD. For lesions ≤ 10 mm, curative resection rates were comparable between ESD and EMR. However, for lesions > 10 mm, ESD achieved significantly higher curative resection rates. This size-based recommendation has been adopted by the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) in their recent guidelines on ESD indications for esophageal lesions. ASGE guidelines favors ESD over EMR for SCC lesions > 15 mm and for nodular BE with dysplasia or early EAC > 20 mm.
ESD is particularly beneficial in patients who develop early adenocarcinoma after RFA or EMR. Mesureur et al evaluated the efficacy of salvage ESD for Barrett’s recurrence or residual BE following RFA. In their multicenter retrospective study of 56 patients, salvage ESD achieved an en bloc resection rate of 89.3%, despite significant fibrosis, with an R0 resection rate of 66%. At a median follow-up of 14 months, most patients remained in endoscopic remission without the need for esophagectomy.
Combining ESD with RFA has also been shown to accelerate the eradication of BE with dysplasia while reducing the number of required sessions. Our group demonstrated the high efficacy of ESD followed by RFA in 18 patients, most of whom had long-segment BE with HGD or EAC. On average, patients required only one to two RFA sessions after ESD to achieve complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM). Over a median follow-up of 42.5 months (IQR, 28-59.25), complete eradication of early esophageal cancer was achieved in 13 patients (100%), eradication of dysplasia in 15 patients (100%), and CE-IM in 14 patients (77.8%).
Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting ESD and the strong endorsement from professional societies, adoption in the West continues to lag. Several factors contribute to this gap. First, ESD has a steep learning curve. Our data showed that, on average, an untutored practitioner achieved competency after 150-250 procedures, a finding corroborated by other US groups.
Second, there is no specific CPT code for ESD in the United States. Physicians are forced to bill the procedure as EMR or use an unlisted code, resulting in reimbursement that does not reflect the time and complexity of the procedure. Our group showed that physician reimbursement for ESD is highly variable, ranging from $50 to $800 per case, depending on insurance type.
Third, the increasing emphasis on productivity and RVU generation in academic settings has hindered the growth of ESD training in many institutions. Still, the outlook for ESD in the United States remains encouraging. Multiple industry-sponsored training courses are held annually, and professional societies are investing heavily in expanding access to structured education in ESD. Industry is also innovating devices that improve procedural efficiency and safety. Adopting novel approaches, such as traction-assisted ESD, has made the technique more appealing to endoscopists concerned about long procedure times. For example, our group proposed a standardized esophageal ESD technique that incorporates specimen self-retraction. This method improves both safety and speed and has helped address several procedural challenges. We’ve demonstrated that consistency in technique can substantially expedite esophageal ESD.
Fast forward 5 years: We anticipate a dedicated CPT code for ESD, broader access to advanced resection tools, and an expanding number of fellowships offering structured ESD training. These developments are poised to eliminate many of the current barriers. In summary, with robust data supporting the efficacy of ESD in early esophageal cancer, the focus in the United States should shift toward mastering and integrating the technique, rather than dismissing it in favor of piecemeal EMR.
Dr. Othman is chief of the gastroenterology and hepatology section at Baylor College of Medicine and Medicine Subspecialities Service Line Chief at Baylor St Luke’s Medical Center, both in Houston. He declares no conflicts of interest.
Dear colleagues,
Many of us diagnose and treat patients with Barrett’s esophagus, estimated to affect up to 5.6% of the US adult population. There has been an expanding array of tools to help diagnose and effectively treat Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia and malignancy. In particular, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has emerged as an important method for treating early cancer in the gastrointestinal tract.
But how do we incorporate ESD into our algorithm for management, especially with the popularity and effectiveness of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR)? In this issue of Perspectives we aim to provide context for the use of ESD, as compared with EMR. Dr. Silvio de Melo discusses his preferred EMR technique and its many advantages in the management of BE, including for residual or refractory areas. In contrast, Dr. Mohamed Othman reviews the power of ESD and when we should consider this approach over EMR. We hope these discussions will facilitate your care for patients with Barrett’s esophagus.
We also welcome your thoughts on this topic — join the conversation on X at @AGA_GIHN.
Gyanprakash A. Ketwaroo, MD, MSc, is associate professor of medicine, Yale University, New Haven, and chief of endoscopy at West Haven VA Medical Center, both in Connecticut. He is an associate editor for GI & Hepatology News.
Endoscopic Mucosal Resection: The ‘Workhorse’ for Patient Care
BY SILVIO W. DE MELO JR, MD, AGAF
Barrett’s esophagus (BE) remains an important clinical problem, being one of the modifiable risk factors for esophageal adenocarcinoma. The care for BE is complex and requires several steps to correctly formulate a therapeutic plan. It starts with a proper endoscopic examination. It is recommended to spend at least 1 minute inspecting and evaluating every centimeter of the salmon-colored epithelium, looking for change in vascular pattern, erosions/ulcers, nodules, and/or masses. After the inspection, random biopsies every 1-2 cm plus targeted biopsies will guide you. It is still controversial if the addition of other sampling strategies, such as brushings or confocal endomicroscopy, is needed.
The introduction of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) was paramount in popularizing the treatment options for BE and sunsetting the previous dominant modality, photodynamic therapy (PDT). RFA proved to have a superior clinical efficacy in replacing the intestinal metaplasia/BE with neosquamous epithelium while boosting a much better safety profile, compared with PDT. However, RFA is most efficacious for “flat BE” and it is not an effective, nor recommended, method to treat nodular BE or early cancer, such as carcinoma in situ or nodular high-grade dysplasia. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is utilized to overcome those limitations.
There are several techniques utilized for EMR:
- The lift and snare technique.
- The snare-in-cap technique.
- The Band-snare technique.
The free-hand submucosal lift and snare is not frequently used in the esophagus. It is difficult to maintain visualization while being confident that one has the whole lesion inside the snare and that the distal (anal side) part of the lesion is free of any unwanted tissue (to minimize complications such as perforations or unwelcomed gastric resections). It is difficult after the first resection to lift an adjacent area, as the fluid easily leaks from the first resected spot, thus removing larger lesions in piece-meal fashion is challenging. This technique can be used in small (in my personal experience, less than 5 mm) lesions, but, given that there are better and safer alternatives, I almost never use this technique for my esophageal EMR cases. I prefer to use the band-snare technique even for lesions under 5 mm.
The snare-in-cap technique has been utilized in the esophagus. In this technique, a cap is attached to the distal end of the scope and the size of the resection is determined by the size of the cap, usually under 1.5 cm. Because of the risk of perforation without previous lifting, it is required that the lesion is lifted with a submucosal fluid, saline or any Food and Drug Administration–approved EMR solution. The lesion is then suctioned inside the cap where the snare had been previously opened inside the cap, the snare is closed, and the tissue is resected. The same limitations regarding the inability to remove larger lesions (greater than 1.5 cm) because of the challenge in lifting the adjacent area applies here. However, the perforation risk for this technique is higher than the traditional lift and the band and snare techniques. Thus, this technique has fallen out of favor for most endoscopists.
The third technique (band-snare EMR) is the one that most endoscopists use for endoscopic mucosal resection. It is a small variation of the already time-tested and very familiar procedure of esophageal variceal band ligation (EVL). There are multiple commercially available kits for esophageal EMR. The kit contains the chamber with the bands and a proprietary hexagonal snare used to resect the specimen.
The advantages of this technique are:
- It is widely commercially available.
- It builds on a familiar procedure, EVL, therefore the learning curve is short.
- The set-up is quick and the procedure can be completed safely and effectively.
- There is no need for injecting the submucosal with a lifting solution.
- Despite the band having a size limitation of 1 cm, one can remove larger lesions by repeating the band and resect process, using the rosette technique.
Band-snare EMR also has limitations:
- There are only six bands on each chamber. Depending on the size of the lesion, one may need to use multiple kits.
- It is not suitable for en bloc resection of lesions greater than 1 cm.
My experience with band EMR is that we can complete the procedure in under 1 hour. The dreaded complication of perforation occurs in under 1% of cases, most bleeding episodes can easily be controlled endoscopically, and the risk of post-EMR stricture is minimal. Therefore, band EMR is the most used technique for esophageal endoscopic resections.
Esophageal EMR is also effective for other indications in BE therapy, such as residual and recurrent BE. Band-snare EMR can be used for an en bloc resection or rosette technique for the areas resistant to ablation therapies with great success and safety.
From a financial standpoint, comparing EMR with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), EMR is the superior strategy given that EMR is widely available, has a much shorter learning curve, has a greater safety profile, is applicable to a wider variety of indications, and has a more favorable return on investment. EMR should be the workhorse for the care of patients with BE, reserving ESD for specific indications.
In summary, there is no “one-size-fits-all” endoscopic therapy in the care of BE. Most Barrett’s patients can be successfully treated with a combination of ablation plus EMR, reserving ESD for select cases.
Dr. de Melo is section chief of gastroenterology at the Orlando VA Healthcare System, Orlando, Florida. He declares no conflicts of interest.
ESD Over EMR for Resecting Esophageal Lesions
BY MOHAMED O. OTHMAN, MD, AGAF
Although endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is the preferred endoscopic resection method in the East, the adoption of this technique in the West, particularly in the United States, has faced many hurdles. Many endoscopists who routinely perform piecemeal endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) question the utility of ESD, arguing that EMR is just as effective. While this may hold true in certain situations, the global trend in the endoscopic treatment of early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, nodular Barrett’s esophagus (BE), and early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has clearly shifted toward ESD. In this perspective, I will summarize why ESD is preferred over EMR for these indications and explore why ESD has yet to gain widespread adoption in the United States.
The superiority of ESD over EMR has been well established in multiple publications from both Eastern and Western literature. Mejia-Perez et al, in a multicenter cohort study from eight centers in North America, compared outcomes of ESD vs EMR for BE with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1a adenocarcinoma in 243 patients. ESD achieved significantly higher en bloc resection rates (89% vs 43%) and R0 resection rates (73% vs 56%), compared with EMR, along with a substantially lower recurrence/residual disease rate on follow-up (3.5% in the ESD group vs 31.4% in EMR group). Additionally, more patients required repeat endoscopic resection after EMR to treat residual or recurrent disease (EMR, 24.2% vs ESD, 3.5%; P < .001).
Han et al conducted a meta-analysis of 22 studies comparing ESD and EMR for early esophageal neoplasia, including both squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and BE-associated lesions. ESD was associated with significantly higher curative resection rates than EMR (OR, 9.74; 95% CI, 4.83-19.62; P < .0001). Of note, lesion size was a critical factor in determining the advantage of ESD. For lesions ≤ 10 mm, curative resection rates were comparable between ESD and EMR. However, for lesions > 10 mm, ESD achieved significantly higher curative resection rates. This size-based recommendation has been adopted by the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) in their recent guidelines on ESD indications for esophageal lesions. ASGE guidelines favors ESD over EMR for SCC lesions > 15 mm and for nodular BE with dysplasia or early EAC > 20 mm.
ESD is particularly beneficial in patients who develop early adenocarcinoma after RFA or EMR. Mesureur et al evaluated the efficacy of salvage ESD for Barrett’s recurrence or residual BE following RFA. In their multicenter retrospective study of 56 patients, salvage ESD achieved an en bloc resection rate of 89.3%, despite significant fibrosis, with an R0 resection rate of 66%. At a median follow-up of 14 months, most patients remained in endoscopic remission without the need for esophagectomy.
Combining ESD with RFA has also been shown to accelerate the eradication of BE with dysplasia while reducing the number of required sessions. Our group demonstrated the high efficacy of ESD followed by RFA in 18 patients, most of whom had long-segment BE with HGD or EAC. On average, patients required only one to two RFA sessions after ESD to achieve complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM). Over a median follow-up of 42.5 months (IQR, 28-59.25), complete eradication of early esophageal cancer was achieved in 13 patients (100%), eradication of dysplasia in 15 patients (100%), and CE-IM in 14 patients (77.8%).
Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting ESD and the strong endorsement from professional societies, adoption in the West continues to lag. Several factors contribute to this gap. First, ESD has a steep learning curve. Our data showed that, on average, an untutored practitioner achieved competency after 150-250 procedures, a finding corroborated by other US groups.
Second, there is no specific CPT code for ESD in the United States. Physicians are forced to bill the procedure as EMR or use an unlisted code, resulting in reimbursement that does not reflect the time and complexity of the procedure. Our group showed that physician reimbursement for ESD is highly variable, ranging from $50 to $800 per case, depending on insurance type.
Third, the increasing emphasis on productivity and RVU generation in academic settings has hindered the growth of ESD training in many institutions. Still, the outlook for ESD in the United States remains encouraging. Multiple industry-sponsored training courses are held annually, and professional societies are investing heavily in expanding access to structured education in ESD. Industry is also innovating devices that improve procedural efficiency and safety. Adopting novel approaches, such as traction-assisted ESD, has made the technique more appealing to endoscopists concerned about long procedure times. For example, our group proposed a standardized esophageal ESD technique that incorporates specimen self-retraction. This method improves both safety and speed and has helped address several procedural challenges. We’ve demonstrated that consistency in technique can substantially expedite esophageal ESD.
Fast forward 5 years: We anticipate a dedicated CPT code for ESD, broader access to advanced resection tools, and an expanding number of fellowships offering structured ESD training. These developments are poised to eliminate many of the current barriers. In summary, with robust data supporting the efficacy of ESD in early esophageal cancer, the focus in the United States should shift toward mastering and integrating the technique, rather than dismissing it in favor of piecemeal EMR.
Dr. Othman is chief of the gastroenterology and hepatology section at Baylor College of Medicine and Medicine Subspecialities Service Line Chief at Baylor St Luke’s Medical Center, both in Houston. He declares no conflicts of interest.