Effect of endoscopic submucosal dissection on histologic diagnosis in Barrett’s esophagus visible neoplasia

Published:December 11, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2021.11.046

      Background and Aims

      Data are limited on the role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as a potential diagnostic and staging tool in Barrett’s esophagus (BE) neoplasia. We aimed to evaluate the frequency and factors associated with change of histologic diagnosis by ESD compared with pre-ESD histology.


      This was a multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients who underwent ESD for BE visible neoplasia. A change in histologic diagnosis was defined as “upstaged” or “downstaged” if the ESD specimen had a higher or lower degree, respectively, of dysplasia or neoplasia when compared with pre-ESD specimens.


      Two hundred five patients (median age, 69 years; 81% men) with BE visible neoplasia underwent ESD from 2016 to 2021. Baseline histology was obtained using forceps (n = 182) or EMR (n = 23). ESD changed the histologic diagnosis in 55.1% of cases (113/205), of which 68.1% were upstaged and 31.9% downstaged. The frequency of change in diagnosis after ESD was similar whether baseline histology was obtained using forceps (55.5%) or EMR (52.2%) (P = .83). In aggregate, 23.9% of cases (49/205) were upstaged to invasive cancer on ESD histopathology. On multivariate analysis, lesions in the distal esophagus and gastroesophageal junction (odds ratio, 2.1; 95 confidence interval, 1.1-3.9; P = .02) and prior radiofrequency ablation (odds ratio, 2.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-5.5; P = .02) were predictors of change in histologic diagnosis.


      ESD led to a change of diagnosis in more than half of patients with BE visible neoplasia. Selective ESD can serve as a potential diagnostic and staging tool, particularly in those with suspected invasive disease. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02989818.)


      BE (Barrett’s esophagus), EAC (esophageal adenocarcinoma), ESD (endoscopic submucosal dissection), GEJ (gastroesophageal junction), HGD (high-grade dysplasia), IMC (intramucosal cancer), IQR (interquartile range), LGD (low-grade dysplasia), RFA (radiofrequency ablation)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Coleman H.G.
        • Xie S.-H.
        • Lagergren J.
        The epidemiology of esophageal adenocarcinoma.
        Gastroenterology. 2018; 154: 390-405
        • Wani S.
        • Sayana H.
        • Sharma P.
        Endoscopic eradication of Barrett's esophagus.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2010; 71: 147-166
        • Weusten B.
        • Bisschops R.
        • Coron E.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic management of Barrett’s esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) position statement.
        Endoscopy. 2017; 49: 191-198
        • Wani S.
        • Qumseya B.
        • Sultan S.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic eradication therapy for patients with Barrett’s esophagus-associated dysplasia and intramucosal cancer. Standards of Practice Committee.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2018; 87: 907-931
        • Wani S.
        • Drahos J.
        • Cook M.B.
        • et al.
        Comparison of endoscopic therapies and surgical resection in patients with early esophageal cancer: a population-based study.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2014; 79: 224-232
        • Li C.
        • Yamashita D.
        • Hawel J.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic mucosal resection versus esophagectomy for intramucosal adenocarcinoma in the setting of Barrett’s esophagus.
        Surg Endosc. 2017; 31: 4211-4216
        • Yang D.
        • Othman M.
        • Draganov P.V.
        Endoscopic mucosal resection vs endoscopic submucosal dissection for Barrett’s esophagus and colorectal neoplasia.
        Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019; 17: 1019-1028
        • Yang D.
        • Coman R.M.
        • Kahaleh M.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic submucosal dissection for Barrett’s early neoplasia: a multicenter study in the United States.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 86: 600-607
        • Yang D.
        • Zou F.
        • Xiong S.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early Barrett’s neoplasia: a meta-analysis.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2018; 87: 1383-1393
        • Draganov P.V.
        • Aihara H.
        • Karasik M.S.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic submucosal dissection in North America: a large prospective multicenter study.
        Gastroenterology. 2021; 160: 2317-2327
      1. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 58: S3-S43
        • Schlemper R.J.
        • Riddell R.H.
        • Kato Y.
        • et al.
        The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia.
        Gut. 2000; 47: 251-255
        • Tanaka S.
        • Kashida H.
        • Saito Y.
        • et al.
        JGES guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection.
        Dig Endosc. 2015; 27: 417-434
        • Pimentel-Nunes P.
        • Dinis-Ribeiro M.
        • Ponchon T.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline.
        Endoscopy. 2015; 47: 829-854
        • Cotton P.B.
        • Eisen G.M.
        • Aabakken L.
        • et al.
        A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2010; 71: 446-454
        • Shaheen N.J.
        • Falk G.W.
        • Prasad I.
        • et al.
        ACG clinical guideline: diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2016; 111: 30-50
        • Kumarasinghe M.P.
        • Armstrong M.
        • Foo J.
        • et al.
        The modern management of Barrett’s oesophagus and related neoplasia: role of pathology.
        Histopathology. 2021; 78: 18-38
        • Kumarasinghe M.P.
        • Bourke M.J.
        • Brown I.
        • et al.
        Pathological assessment of endoscopic resection of the gastrointestinal tract: a comprehensive clinicopathologic review.
        Mod Pathol. 2020; 33: 986-1006
        • Wani S.
        • Mathur S.C.
        • Curvers W.L.
        • et al.
        Greater interobserver agreement by endoscopic mucosal resection than biopsy samples in Barrett’s dysplasia.
        Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010; 8: 783-788
        • Downs-Kelly E.
        • Mendelin J.E.
        • Bennet A.E.
        • et al.
        poor interobserver agreement in the distinction of high-grade dysplasia and adenocarcinoma in pretreatment Barrett’s esophagus biopsies.
        An J Gastroenterol. 2008; 103: 2333-2340
        • Elsadek H.M.
        • Radwan M.M.
        Diagnostic accuracy of mucosal biopsy versus endoscopic mucosal resection in Barrett’s esophagus and related superficial lesions.
        Int Sch Res Notices. 2015; 2015: 73807
        • Mino-Kenudson M.
        • Hull M.J.
        • Brown I.
        • et al.
        EMR for Barrett’s esophagus-related superficial neoplasms offers better diagnostic reproducibility than mucosal biopsy.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2007; 66: 660-666
        • Zemler B.
        • May A.
        • Ell C.
        • et al.
        Early Barrett’s carcinoma: the depth of infiltration of the tumour correlates with the degree of differentiation, the incidence of lymphatic vessel and venous invasion.
        Virchows Arch. 2010; 456: 609-614
        • Liu L.
        • Hofstetter W.L.
        • Rashid A.
        • et al.
        Significance of the depth of tumor invasion and lymph node metastasis in superficially invasive (T1) esophageal adenocarcinoma.
        Am J Surg Pathol. 2005; 29: 1079-1085
        • Worrell S.G.
        • Boys J.A.
        • Chandrasoma P.
        • et al.
        Inter-observer variability in the interpretation of endoscopic mucosal resection specimens of esophageal adenocarcinoma: interpretation of ER specimens.
        J Gastrointest Surg. 2016; 20: 140-144
        • Podboy A.
        • Kolahi K.S.
        • Friedland S.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic submucosal dissection is associated with less pathologic uncertainty than endoscopic mucosal resection in diagnosing and staging Barrett’s-related neoplasia.
        Dig Endosc. 2020; 32: 346-354
        • Martelli M.G.
        • Duckworth L.V.
        • Draganov P.V.
        Endoscopic submucosal dissection is superior to endoscopic mucosal resection for histologic evaluation of Barrett’s esophagus and Barrett’s related neoplasia.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2016; 111: 902-903
        • Draganov P.V.
        • Wang A.Y.
        • Othman M.O.
        • et al.
        AGA Institute clinical practice update: endoscopic submucosal dissection in the United States.
        Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019; 17: 16-25
        • Nagami Y.
        • Ominami M.
        • Otani K.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic submucosal dissection for adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction.
        Digestion. 2018; 97: 38-44
        • Goda K.
        • Singh R.
        • Oda I.
        • et al.
        Current status of endoscopic diagnosis and treatment of superficial Barrett’s adenocarcinoma in Asia-Pacific region.
        Dig Endosc. 2014; 25: 146-150
        • Van Laethem J.L.
        • Peny M.O.
        • Salmon I.
        • et al.
        Intramucosal adenocarcinoma arising under squamous re-epithelialisation of Barrett’ oesophagus.
        Gut. 2000; 46: 574-577
        • Peters F.P.
        • Brakenhoff K.P.M.
        • Curvers W.L.
        • et al.
        Histologic evaluation of resection specimens obtained at 293 endoscopic resections in Barrett’s esophagus.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2008; 67: 604-609