Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 2, 2025
ADSC-sheet Transplantation to Prevent Stricture after Extended Esophageal Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection
Published on: February 10, 2017
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Versus Radical Surgery for T1 Superficial Esophageal Cell Carcinoma: a Subgroup
Xinyu Liu1, Hai-Ying Guan1, Qi Zhu1
1Department of Gastroenterology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, 17 Yongwaizheng Street, Nanchang, 330006, Jiangxi, China.
Background:
With the continuous advent of magnifying endoscopy, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has gradually become the mainstream treatment for early esophageal cancer. We aimed to compare the outcomes of patients with T1 superficial esophageal cell carcinoma treated with ESD vs. esophagectomy.
Methods:
We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent ESD or radical surgery at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018. The purpose of propensity score matching is to reduce selection bias. Precise subgroup analysis according to depth of invasion was performed to reduce the influence of confounding factors.
Result:
We reviewed patients who underwent ESD (n = 117) or radical surgery (n = 217) at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from 2010 to 2018. The OS rate and progression-free survival rate in the ESD group were better than those in the surgery group (OS, P = 0.002. PFS, P = 0.004). The ESD group had a lower early adverse event rate (74.6% vs. 91%, P = 0.012), shorter hospital stays (median 10 days vs. 18 days, P < 0.001), and lower hospitalization costs (median 15,455 vs. 62,376 RMB, P < 0.001). Multivariate Cox regression analysis found that the treatment method was an independent risk factor affecting the prognosis of patients with superficial esophageal cancer, and the death risk of patients in the ESD group was 0.377 times that of the radical surgery group (HR = 0.377, P = 0.023). We conducted a subgroup analysis of patients again according to the depth of invasion; 37 pairs of patients were included in the T1a stage, and 19 pairs of patients were included in the T1b stage. In T1a and T1b patients, the difference in OS rate and PFS rate between the two treatments was statistically significant (T1a, OS, P = 0.002, PFS, P = 0.004; T1b, OS, P = 0.019, PFS, P = 0.022), and the OS rates in the ESD group were better than those in the radical surgery group.
Conclusion:
For patients with T1b superficial esophageal cancer, ESD has a longer overall survival and progression-free survival compared with radical surgery. These results support ESD as the preferred treatment for stage T1b superficial esophageal cancer.
