Kim Minjee, Kim Tae Jun, Kim Ga Hee, Lee Yeong Chan, Lee Hyuk, Min Byung-Hoon, Lee Jun Haeng, Rhee Poong-Lyul, Kim Jae J, Min Yang Won
Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul 06351, Republic of Korea.
Department of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul 05505, Republic of Korea.
Cancers (Basel). 2023 Nov 23;15(23):5542. doi: 10.3390/cancers15235542.
Even though the conventional treatment for T1 esophageal cancer is surgery, ESD is becoming the primary treatment. Currently, it is unknown whether secondary esophagectomy after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is comparable to primary esophagectomy when considering outcomes in patients with T1 esophageal cancer. We compared short- and long-term clinical outcomes between the two groups. Primary surgery (esophagectomy) was performed in 191 patients between 2003 and 2014, and 62 patients underwent secondary surgery (esophagectomy) after ESD for T1 esophageal cancer between 2007 and 2019. Propensity matching was performed for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), location, pathology, degree of differentiation, tumor size, and invasion depth. Lymph node metastasis (LNM), overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and post-operative complications were compared between groups. Sixty-eight patients were included after propensity score matching; LNM, OS, DSS, and RFS were comparable between the two groups. Comparing primary and secondary surgery, the respective LNM rates were 23.5% and 26.5%, 6-year OS 78.0% and 89.7%, = 0.15; DSS were 80.4% and 96.8%, = 0.057; and RFS were 80.8% and 89.7%, = 0.069. Comparing the adverse events between the two groups, there was no significant difference in the overall adverse events. However, more early complications were observed in the primary surgery group than in the secondary surgery group (50% vs. 20.6%, = 0.021). Secondary surgery did not increase the risk of LNM. The long-term outcomes were comparable. Therefore, attempts to perform upfront ESD for superficial esophageal squamous cell cancers are justified.
尽管T1期食管癌的传统治疗方法是手术,但内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)正成为主要治疗方法。目前,在内镜黏膜下剥离术(ESD)后进行二期食管切除术与T1期食管癌患者一期食管切除术的疗效是否相当尚不清楚。我们比较了两组患者的短期和长期临床结局。2003年至2014年间,191例患者接受了一期手术(食管切除术),2007年至2019年间,62例T1期食管癌患者在ESD后接受了二期手术(食管切除术)。对年龄、性别、查尔森合并症指数(CCI)、病变部位、病理、分化程度、肿瘤大小和浸润深度进行倾向匹配。比较两组之间的淋巴结转移(LNM)、总生存期(OS)、疾病特异性生存期(DSS)、无复发生存期(RFS)和术后并发症。倾向评分匹配后纳入68例患者;两组之间的LNM、OS、DSS和RFS相当。比较一期和二期手术,各自的LNM发生率分别为23.5%和26.5%,6年OS分别为78.0%和89.7%,P = 0.15;DSS分别为80.4%和96.8%,P = 0.057;RFS分别为80.8%和89.7%,P = 0.069。比较两组之间的不良事件,总体不良事件无显著差异。然而,一期手术组观察到的早期并发症比二期手术组更多(50%对20.6%,P = 0.021)。二期手术并未增加LNM风险。长期结局相当。因此,对浅表性食管鳞状细胞癌尝试先行ESD是合理的。