Premium
Surgery for early stage esophageal adenocarcinoma
Author(s) -
Stein H.J.,
von Rahden B.H.A.,
Feith M.
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
journal of surgical oncology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.201
H-Index - 111
eISSN - 1096-9098
pISSN - 0022-4790
DOI - 10.1002/jso.20362
Subject(s) - medicine , esophagectomy , submucosa , lymphadenectomy , endoscopic mucosal resection , lymph node , esophageal cancer , adenocarcinoma , surgery , stage (stratigraphy) , esophagus , endoscopy , cancer , paleontology , biology
Abstract Current treatment recommendations for early esophageal adenocarcinoma range from radical esophagectomy with extensive lymphadenectomy, limited surgical resection with/without regional lymphadenectomy to endoscopic mucosectomy or ablation. A comparison of treatment associated morbidity, tumor recurrence rates, and functional outcome suggests that none of these alternatives can be universally recommended. Rather, an individualized strategy should be employed based on depth of tumor penetration into the mucosa/submucosa, presence of lymph node metastases, multicentricity of tumor growth, length of the underlying Barrett mucosa and comorbidity of the affected patient. Endoscopic mucosectomy may suffice for an isolated focus of high‐grade neoplasia or mucosal cancer, provided the neoplasia and underlying Barrett mucosa can be removed completely. Surgical resection is the treatment of choice for tumors invading the submucosa, multicentric tumors and recurrence after endoscopic mucosectomy. The extent of surgical resection must be guided by the length of the Barrett mucosa. In most instances a complete tumor resection and removal of the entire Barrett mucosa can be achieved by a limited transabdominal approach, and therefore subtotal esophagectomy may not be necessary. Application of the sentinel node technology may in the future allow to limit systematic lymphadenectomy to the rather small subgroup of patients who in fact have lymph node metastases. J. Surg. Oncol. 2005;92:210–217. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.