| International Session (Panel Discussion)1 (JGES・JSGE・JSGS) |
| Sat. October 14th 9:00 - 11:20 Room 11: Fukuoka International Congress Center 502+503 |
| Endoscopic Diagnosis and Treatment of Superficial Barrett`s Esophageal Adenocarcinoma | |||
| A. Takahashi1, T. Oyama1, N. Yorimitsu1 | |||
| 1Department of Endoscopy, Saku Central Hospital Advanced Care Center | |||
|
|||
|
|||
| Aim The aim of this study is to clarify the efficacy of magnified endoscopy (ME) and ESD for the diagnosis and treatment of superficial Barrett`s EAC (esophageal adenocarcinoma). Methods Sixty-three EAC from 49 patients treated by ESD from January 2000 to March 2016 were enrolled in this retrospective study. The number of EAC in SSBE and LSBE were 48 and 15, respectively. Median tumor sizes were 13 (4-116) and 45(2-96) mm (p=0.01). Mean age was 67 and 55. Gender (M/F) was 37/3 and 9/0. All lesions were diagnosed by ME and treated by ESD. The diagnosis was judged as correct when the cancer was confined to the markings. Results 1. The accuracy for EAC diagnosis on SSBE using WLI and ME was 56% and 96%, respectively (p=0.01), and that on LSBE was 7% and 100% (p=0.01). 2. The rate of subsquamous cell epithelial invasion for SSBE and LSBE was 60% and 27%, respectively (p=0.47). The following endoscopic findings of redness, thickness, irregular vessels, and small holes, were observed in 88%, 36%, 88%, and 42% cases, respectively. 3. En-bloc was 100% on SSBE and LSBE. R0 resection rate was 96% (46/48) and 100%, respectively. 4. Delayed perforation was 0% and 7% (1/15), respectively (p=0.24). Stricture was 8% (4/48) and 13% (2/15) (p=0.62). Conclusion ME and ESD was safe and useful for the diagnosis and treatment of EAC, not only from SSBE but also LSBE. |
|||
|
Index Term 1: Barrett`s Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Index Term 2: ESD |
|||
| Page Top | |||