Esophageal Stricture Prevention after Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Article information

Clin Endosc. 2016;49(3):241-256

Publication date (electronic) : 2016 March 7

doi : https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2015.099

¹Department of Internal Medicine, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA

²Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA

Correspondence: Shashideep Singhal, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 6431 Fannin, MSB 4.234, Houston, TX 77030, USA Tel: +1-713-500-6677, Fax: +1-713-500-6699, E-mail: sdsinghal@gmail.com

Received 2015 August 4; Revised 2015 September 16; Accepted 2015 October 14.

Abstract

Advances in diagnostic modalities and improvement in surveillance programs for Barrett esophagus has resulted in an increase in the incidence of superficial esophageal cancers (SECs). SEC, due to their limited metastatic potential, are amenable to non-invasive treatment modalities. Endoscopic ultrasound, endoscopic mucosal resection, and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are some of the new modalities that gastroenterologists have used over the last decade to diagnose and treat SEC. However, esophageal stricture (ES) is a very common complication and a major cause of morbidity post-ESD. In the past few years, there has been a tremendous effort to reduce the incidence of ES among patients undergoing ESD. Steroids have shown the most consistent results over time with minimal complications although the preferred mode of delivery is debatable, with both systemic and local therapy having pros and cons for specific subgroups of patients. Newer modalities such as esophageal stents, autologous cell sheet transplantation, polyglycolic acid, and tranilast have shown promising results but the depth of experience with these methods is still limited. We have summarized case reports, prospective single center studies, and randomized controlled trials describing the various methods intended to reduce the incidence of ES after ESD. Indications, techniques, outcomes, limitations, and reported complications are discussed.

Keywords: Esophageal neoplasms; Esophageal stenosis; Endoscopic submucosal dissection

INTRODUCTION

In 2015 13,570 men and 3,410 women in the United States are expected to be newly diagnosed with esophageal cancer (EC) [1]. Although EC accounts for only 1% of newly diagnosed cancers in the United States, it is much more prevalent in Iran, northern China, India, and southern Africa [1]. Based on the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, the 5-year survival rate for localized, regional, and distant EC is 40%, 21%, and 4%, respectively [2].

With advancements in diagnostic technology and active surveillance programs for patients with Barrett esophagus, more cases of EC are being diagnosed in their early stages. Superficial esophageal cancer (SEC) is a term used to represent ECs limited to the mucosa with minimum metastatic potential, and they are thus amenable to non-surgical treatment options. Endoscopic modality has evolved as the preferred diagnostic and therapeutic treatment choice for these SECs. Endoscopic ultrasound offers an accuracy of 85% in diagnosing SEC [3]. Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an alternative modality to stage SEC. In the last decade, there has been a gradual shift of focus from EMR to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for SEC. ESD allows en bloc resection of the lesion irrespective of its size and is associated with a lower recurrence rate as compared to EMR, which essentially involves piecemeal resection of lesions more than 2 cm in size [4].

Esophageal stricture (ES) is the most common complication following ESD [5]. Histologic depth and circumferential extension of the EC are independent risk factors for post-operative ES [6]. There has been a constant effort to minimize the rate of ES after ESD. In this review article, we have summarized case reports, prospective single-center studies, and randomized controlled trials describing the various methods intended to reduce the rate of post-ESD ES. Indications, techniques, outcomes, limitations, and reported complications are discussed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An extensive English language literature search was conducted through May 2015, using Pubmed, Medline, and Google to identify peer-reviewed original and review articles using the following key words: ‘esophageal cancer,’ ‘endoscopic submucosal dissection,’ and ‘esophageal stricture prophylaxis.’ Only studies on humans were selected. The references of the pertinent studies were manually searched to identify additional relevant studies. The indications, procedural details, technical success rates, clinical outcomes, complications, and limitations were considered as part of the inclusion criteria. The searches yielded case reports, prospective single center studies, and a few randomized controlled trials.

RESULTS

Twelve original articles were considered appropriate to be included in the review article. Ten studies were from Japan, which included two prospective studies that used a historical population as the control group [7,8], seven single-center prospective studies [9-15], and one retrospective study [16]. One prospective randomized controlled study from China [17] and one case report from Korea [18] were also included in the review. All included studies have been summarized in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Summary of All the Studies: Intervention, Results, and Complications

DISCUSSION

Indications

Patients with superficial or early EC, who were considered appropriate for ESD, were included by the authors of all the studies. All selected patients had an expected post-ESD mucosal defect of more than half of the esophageal circumference [7-18]. There is a strong correlation between the extent of mucosal defect and the incidence of ES after ESD. There was a wide variation in the extent of mucosal defect among the subjects from each study. The procedure details for the ESD and the resultant size of mucosal defect for subjects across all studies have been summarized in Table 2.

Table 2.

Procedure Details of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Resultant Mucosal Defect Size across Subjects for Each Study

Subjects with evidence of lymph node metastases, active synchronous cancer, multiple ECs, prior radiation therapy/adjuvant chemotherapy, or surgery for EC; coexisting severe comorbidities such as uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, or liver cirrhosis; or active corticosteroid or anticoagulant use were excluded from the study groups by the respective authors [7-18].

Type of intervention with technical aspects

The authors have reported a wide variety of modalities used to prevent ES formation after ESD: local steroid injections [7-10,18], topical steroid gel application [9], oral steroids [14,16], pre-emptive scheduled endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) [14-16], a combination of EBD and tranilast [15], transplantation of autologous cell sheets [11], polyglycolic acid (PGA) sheets [12,13], and stents [14].

Steroids oral, injection, or gel application

In a prospective study, Hashimoto et al. [7] described the prophylactic use of triamcinolone acetonide (TA) injections (10 mg/mL) in an effort to prevent post-ESD ES. The author used a 25 G needle to inject steroids in aliquots of 0.2 mL, 1 cm apart in a semicircular fashion into the area of the mucosal defect. Similarly, Hanaoka et al. [8] used a 25 G needle to inject a lower concentration of TA (5 mg/mL) into the ulcer bed submucosa in 0.5 to 1.0 mL increments. This author used a different pattern, starting from the ulcer margin and then administering linear injections from the distal to the proximal side of the ulcer margin. Special precautions were taken to avoid intramuscular steroid injection. In a randomized trial, Mori et al. [9] compared steroid injection therapy to steroid gel application. In the steroid injection arm, the author administered 0.2 mL TA injections (10 mg/mL) into the ulcer floor at 8 mm intervals, followed by a 5 minutes session of EBD. In the other arm of the study, TA gel (10 mL mixed with 7.5 mL of endolubri jelly) was applied from the distal to the proximal end of the ulcer with a spraying tube via endoscope, which was followed by a 5 minutes session of EBD. In another study by Takahashi et al. [10], 0.5 mL aliquots of TA (10 mg/mL) were injected into the ulcer base using a 25 G needle. TA was administered, starting from the distal edge and repeating evenly at points 10 mm apart until the proximal edge was reached. In the case report by Lee et al. [18], which involved a near-circumferential mucosal defect, the author administered a higher concentration of TA (20 mg/mL) in aliquots of 0.5 mL, which were distributed evenly across the ulcer at eight sites.

Overall, all authors used TA as the preferred steroid agent both for the injection and gel application. Authors did use different concentrations of TA and had their own specific pattern of administering it into the ulcer base, essentially with the aim of achieving a uniform distribution across the mucosal defect. Some authors reported variations in the total steroid dose administered based on the ulcer bed size [7,9], whereas others reported using a fixed amount irrespective of the size [8]. Most authors also made an extra effort to avoid injury to the muscular layer at the time of administration, as that might hamper the healing process.

In two studies, oral steroids were compared to scheduled pre-emptive EBD intended to prevent ES post ESD [14,16]. In both studies, prednisolone was the drug of choice and was given to subjects on day 3 post-ESD. The regimen started with a dose of 30 mg daily and was tapered gradually every week for a total duration of 8 weeks. The subjects ended up getting approximately 1,000 mg of prednisolone over the 8-week period. Oral steroids have a potential role in ES prevention post ESD.

More information is needed to choose among the types, doses, routes, and duration of steroid administration as the preferred modality for ES prophylaxis.

Endoscopic balloon dilation

Endoscopic dilation with either a bougie or a dilator is the preferred treatment for ES. Few authors have extrapolated this concept to use scheduled EBD to prevent post-ESD ES [14-16]. In the three studies that tried this, EBD was performed using a controlled radial expansion balloon dilator, twice a week, for 4 [15] to 8 weeks [14,16], starting within a few days of ESD. Uno et al. [15] described using two to three progressively larger diameter dilators per session, with the aim of not going beyond a 3 mm dilation each time. Yamaguchi et al. [16] used a dilator, designed to deliver three different pressure-controlled diameters at three distinct points. Clinical clues such as mucosal tears or bleeding were also used to individualize the EBD treatment for each subject. All three studies compared the efficacy of a second agent to the group receiving EBD alone.

Transplantation of autologous cell sheets

Ohki et al. [11] reported their unique experience of using patients’ own cells to heal the mucosal defect post-ESD; thus, preventing ES. The author cultured epithelial cells from the patient’s own buccal mucosa. These autologous oral mucosal epithelial sheets grown on a support membrane were transferred to the esophageal mucosal defect using endoscopic forceps. Each sheet was 23.4 mm in diameter and the number of sheets used to cover the ulcer base varied from two to eight depending on the size of the mucosal defect.

Polyglycolic acid sheets

PGA is an absorbable suture stiffener. It has the potential to prevent scarring and contraction after surgical interventions. Covering a mucosal defect with fibrin glue and a PGA sheet is known as the mucosal defect covered with fibrin glue and PGA sheet (MCFP) technique, and it has been applied in many fields of surgery and appears to be safe [19-21]. Iizuka et al. [12] described their experience with PGA sheets in preventing ES after ESD. Essentially, the technique involves covering the ulcer base with PGA sheets with the assistance of a fibrinogen and thrombin spray solution [12]. Sakaguchi et al. [13] also used PGA sheets and fibrin glue in an effort to prevent post-ESD ES. This author used a modified version of the clip and pull method to deploy the PGA sheets. The size and number of PGA sheets used to cover the mucosal defect varied between the two studies.

Tranilast

Tranilast (N-[3,4-dimethoxycinnamoyl]-anthranilic acid) is an antiallergic reaction drug with antitumor activity and a newly evolving role in managing fibrotic pathologies [22]. Uno et al. [15] did a pilot study to determine the efficacy of tranilast in preventing post-ESD ES. Because of a lack of data on the effective dose and route of administration, the author used a empiric oral daily dose of 300 mg, divided in three doses to be taken with meals in addition to an EBD session.

Stents

Wen et al. [17] reported the first randomized trial comparing the efficacy of esophageal stents in preventing post-ESD ES. The author used a metal stent composed of highly elastic stainless steel covered with a high-density medical silicone membrane. The stent was placed via a guide wire and endoscope and was removed after 8 weeks. The length (25 to 180 mm) and diameter (15 to 18 mm) of the stent was selected based on the size of the mucosal defect. The technical details of all the above-described procedures have been summarized in Table 1.

Timing and frequency of intervention

There is no consensus on the timing or the duration of the prophylactic intervention. Speaking physiologically, the earlier the intervention, the more efficacious it should be in preventing ES by molding the healing esophageal ulcer at the appropriate time. The duration of intervention, on the other hand, should be guided by the time required for re-epithelialization of the ulcer bed.

The majority of the authors performed their intervention to prevent ES on the day of ESD [8,10-13,17,18]. Hashimoto et al. [7] administered the TA injection on post-ESD days 3, 7, and 10. In his randomized study, Mori et al. [9] compared TA injections to gel applications with interventions on day 5, 8, 12, and 15 post-ESD. Scheduled pre-emptive EBD sessions were planned to start on post-ESD day 3, and were continued twice a week for the next 8 weeks [14,16]. Oral steroids were also started on post-ESD day 3 and were continued for the next 8 weeks using a tapering regimen [14,16]. Tranilast was started within the first few days of ESD and was continued on a daily basis for the next 8 weeks [15]. More studies are required to form a consensus and help guide future interventions.

Monitoring and follow-up

All patients were followed clinically postintervention to detect and evaluate any symptoms of dysphagia. All subjects were scheduled to undergo either an upper endoscopy for direct visualization of the esophageal mucosa or indirect tests such as a barium contrast esophagogram to evaluate the contour and anatomy of the esophagus. The timing of the follow-up or the diagnostic test was pre-decided as per the individual study design unless a patient started to show any clinical signs of dysphagia, which resulted in an earlier diagnostic intervention. In addition, different authors used different parameters to define an ES for their respective studies.

Table 3 provides a summary of follow-up intervals, diagnostic tests, and parameters used for defining ES for each study.

Table 3.

Follow-up Intervals, Diagnostic Tests, and Stricture Definition Used across Different Studies

Outcome

The ideal way to measure the efficacy of the above-mentioned interventions is to compare the incidence of ESs post-ESD. Another indirect measure is to compare the number of required sessions of EBD for each group of subjects.

Esophageal stricture

Hashimoto et al. [7] reported an ES rate of 19% (4/21) in the study arm receiving TA injections as compared to 75% (15/20) in the control group. A similar trend was shown by Hanaoka et al. [8] for the ES rate post-TA injection therapy (10%, 3/30) in the study arm versus 66% (19/29) in the control group. The two studies did differ in the timing and frequency of TA injection post-ESD as described above. Although both of these studies [7,8] showed a significant reduction in ES incidence post-TA injection, the control groups were historical population groups and therefore the inferences from these results cannot be generalized. The randomized controlled trial by Takahashi et al. [10] comparing TA injections with no therapy helps us to answer this question more accurately. The ES rate for the TA study arm was 62.5% (10/16), which is still pretty high but is lower than that of the control group (87.5%, 14/16) [10]. Therefore, we can safely conclude that TA injection therapy does prevent some strictures post-ESD. In a case report, Lee et al. [18] reported complete success in preventing ES post-ESD with prophylactic TA injection therapy. This case also had a near whole-circumferential esophageal mucosal defect, thus a higher potential for ES. The success with TA therapy in preventing ES in this case is strongly suggestive of its efficacy. The question that remains unanswered is why the results are not uniform. Possibilities include variations in technique and individual patient characteristics.

Mori et al. [9] conducted a randomized head-to-head comparison between steroid injection therapy plus EBD versus steroid gel application plus EBD. No significant difference was observed in the ES rate between the two groups. The author did report that the requirement for technical expertise and the total procedure time for the gel application study arm (6.87 minutes) was lower (although not statistically significant) than that of injection group (total procedure time 7.33 minutes). In addition, gel application provides an alternative method of stricture prevention for subjects on oral anticoagulation or antiplatelet medications, as it obviates the need for needle injection; thus, lowering the bleeding risk.

Two studies illustrated the efficacy of oral steroids in preventing post-ESD ES. In a small prospective study by Isomoto et al. [14], the study arm (four subjects) receiving oral prednisolone developed strictures in only 50% of the population as compared to 100% of the subjects (three) undergoing scheduled EBD post-ESD. A similar trend was shown in a larger prospective study by Yamaguchi et al. [16]. Out of 19 subjects who received oral prednisolone, only one developed ES (5.3%) post-ESD, as compared to 31.8% (7 out of 21) in the group that received pre-emptive EBD [16]. The study reported the same trend for patients with either semicircular (more than three quarters circumference) or circular (full circumference) mucosal defects post-ESD [16].

An oral steroid regimen is an interesting alternative to injection/gel administration. It does not require any invasive test; thus, decreasing the treatment cost, and provides a uniform distribution of steroid over larger esophageal mucosal defects. Oral steroids also obviate the concern for procedure-related complications seen with injection treatment, but do come with the concern for possible systemic side effects. However, none of the subjects in either of the studies [14,16] had any adverse effect attributable to the steroid therapy.

The study by Ohki et al. [11] demonstrated that autologous cell sheet transplantation was successful in preventing ES formation in eight out of nine subjects. The only failure (11.1%, 1/9) was the subject with a full circumferential mucosal defect. Although the study was small, the results are promising. There are no studies comparing autologous cell sheet transplantation with steroid therapy or EBD for preventing post-ESD ES.

Results from the study by Iizuka et al. [12] were suggestive of MCFP’s efficacy in preventing ES post-ESD. Six weeks after ESD, only one subject out of 13 (7.7%) developed ES. Two other subjects were reported to have dysphagia post-ESD but did not have ES on evaluation. Another study by Sakaguchi et al. [13] also used PGA and fibrin glue as a means of preventing ES but the results were not consistent with that of Iizuka et al. [12]. In their study, three out of eight subjects (37.5%) developed ES. The mean time to stricture occurrence was 28±7 days. More experience with PGA is necessary before reaching a conclusion about its role in post-ESD ES prevention.

In his pilot randomized study, Uno et al. [15] illustrated the efficacy of tranilast in preventing ES after ESD. Both study arms underwent scheduled EBD sessions. The addition of tranilast decreased the incidence of ES by almost half (33.8% as compared to 68.8% in the control arm) [15].

Wen et al. [17] conducted a randomized study comparing the role of metal stents in preventing ES post-ESD. The intervention arm had an ES rate of 18.2% (2/11) as compared to 72.7% (8/11) in the control arm. The results are strongly suggestive of the efficacy of metal stents in preventing ES after ESD.

Endoscopic balloon dilation

Steroids have an anti-inflammatory effect and modulate wound healing by decreasing collagen production [23]. Steroids are supposed to not only decrease the ES rate but may also modify the response to dilation therapy for strictures. The mean number of EBD sessions required among subjects who have received prophylactic TA injections post-ESD was 1.7 (range, 0 to 15), much lower when compared to the historical control group (mean, 6.6; range, 0 to 20) in the study by Hashimoto et al. [7]. A similar trend was seen in the TA injection study by Hanaoka et al. [8] (number of EBD sessions ranged from 0 to 2 vs. 0 to 15 in the historical control group). In the randomized study by Takahashi et al. [10] the mean number of EBD sessions (6.1±6.2) and the mean duration of dilation therapy (3.5±4.0 months) for the study arm (TA injection) were much lower than that of the control arm (mean number of EBD sessions 12.5±10.0, mean duration of dilation therapy 6.1±5.0 months). Isomoto et al. [14] and Yamaguchi et al. [16] showed a statistically significant (p<0.05 and p<0.0001, respectively) decrease in the mean number of EBD sessions required with oral prednisolone as compared to the EBD control group. The trend was consistent across all subjects irrespective of the size of the mucosal defect [16]. All of these results are consistent with the fact that steroids do modulate wound healing, and thus can alter the response of ES to EBD therapy.

In the head-to-head randomized trial of TA injection plus EBD vs. TA gel plus EBD treatment, the mean number of EBD sessions post day 20 was 4.27 for the injection group, which was significantly higher (p<0.05) than 1.6 for the gel group [3]. Clearly, the balance tilts in favor of steroid gel application despite the absence of a significant difference between the ES rate across the two study arms.

In the study by Ohki et al. [11], only one subject developed ES post-autologous cell sheet transplantation. The subject had a full circumferential mucosal defect and required 21 EBD sessions to relieve the stenosis.

In the study by Iizuka et al. [12], only one patient developed ES post-MCFP and required five EBD sessions to relieve the stenosis. In another study involving the use of PGA to prevent ES postESD, the mean number of EBD sessions required was 0.8±1.2.

Uno et al.’s experience with tranilast showed promising results in a long follow-up study. The median number of additional EBD sessions required by the tranilast arm by the end of 48 weeks was zero as compared to four for the control arm (p<0.0138) [15].

In the randomized controlled study by Wen et al. [17] evaluating the efficacy of metallic esophageal stents in preventing ES after ESD, the mean number of bougie dilations required was 0.45 (range, 0 to 3) for the stent arm as compared to 3.9 (range, 0 to 17) for the arm without the stent.

Experience with autologous cell sheet transplants, PGA sheets, tranilast, and esophageal stents is still in its infancy and it is hard to draw any firm conclusions. The results have shown the promise of these modalities and more studies are necessary.

Adverse events

Any intervention comes with possible complications. Although most of the interventions discussed here are relatively benign, a few complications have been reported. Overall, bleeding and perforation were the two common complications reported by the authors.

Bleeding and perforation

In the study by Hanaoka et al. [8], among the patients who received TA injections, two (7%) developed complications. One patient presented with black tarry stools 8 days post-ESD, which was attributed to an esophageal source and required endoscopic hemostasis. Another patient developed a deep submucosal tear without perforation, noticed during a stricture evaluation 2 months post-ESD. The subject was successfully managed conservatively. In the study by Mori et al. [9], two patients (9.5%) in the study arm receiving TA injections reported esophageal bleeding within the first 2 weeks post-ESD, which required endoscopic hemostasis as compared to a 0% complication rate in the steroid gel intervention arm. Both of these subjects were on oral anticoagulation. Steroid gel application offers an alternative to injection therapy especially among patients at higher bleeding risk, such as those on oral anticoagulants and antiplatelets. Takahashi et al. [10] reported esophageal perforation occurred in one subject in each of the study arms. The perforation was attributed to the EBD session and not to the TA injection therapy. The intervention arm was reported to have one perforation for 97 EBD sessions in total, whereas the control arm had one perforation for 200 EBD sessions. Uno et al. [15] also reported one case of perforation secondary to additional EBD sessions (6.25%), successfully managed in a conservative manner. Another way to represent these results is that one out of 98 additional EBD sessions resulted in perforation (1.02%) [15]. In contrast to the above two studies [10,15], where the esophageal perforation was attributed to the additional therapeutic EBD sessions performed to treat already-formed ES, Yamaguchi et al. [16] reported one case of pneumomediastinum secondary to the scheduled pre-emptive EBD (1 out of 22 subjects, 4.5%). The subject improved with conservative management. In the study by Iizuka et al. [12], one subject (out of 15) developed esophageal bleeding post-ESD that was managed conservatively and no blood transfusion was required.

Miscellaneous

Ohki et al. [11] reported that four out of nine subjects developed a high-grade fever, but it resolved without any intervention. Wen et al. [17] reported that in the intervention arm (esophageal metal stent), one subject developed chest pain that resolved without any intervention and another subject developed transient bleeding at the time of stent removal that also resolved, requiring no intervention.

ESD and intervention type are not the only underlying factors predisposing to complications. Patient factors and EBD sessions also play an important role. Nonetheless, the frequency of reported complications in each of the respective studies is low and most of them were managed conservatively without any intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

ES is the most common complication post-ESD and is the most common cause of morbidity among patients with EC treated via ESD. There has been a paradigm shift in the management of ES in the last few years, with the focus shifting from treatment to prophylaxis. Both local and systemic prophylactic steroid use has shown the most consistent and promising results with minimal complications for prevention of ES post-ESD. Autologous cell sheet transplants, PGA sheets, tranilast, and esophageal metal stents show promise in preventing ES formation but are still relatively new. Further experience with current treatment options, development of novel strategies, and refinement of endoscopic technique in delivering the targeted intervention will help expand the field of preventive care in the future. The preliminary reports appear promising but larger multicentric prospective studies with longer follow-up and head-to-head comparison trials with current treatment options are needed to assist in developing consensus guidelines.

Notes

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

References

1. American Cancer Society. What are the key statistics about cancer of the esophagus? [Internet]. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; c2016. [updated 2016 Feb 4; cited 2016 Feb 22]. Available from: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/esophaguscancer/detailedguide/esophagus-cancer-key-statistics.

2. American Cancer Society. Survival rates for cancer of the esophagus by stage [Internet]. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; c2016. [updated 2016 Feb 4; cited 2016 Feb 22]. Available from: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/esophaguscancer/detailedguide/esophagus-cancer-survival-rates.

3. Lightdale CJ. Endoscopic treatments for early esophageal cancer. Gastroenterol Hepatol (NY) 2007;3:904–906.

4. Ishihara R, Iishi H, Uedo N, et al. Comparison of EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection for en bloc resection of early esophageal cancers in Japan. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:1066–1072.

5. Sun F, Yuan P, Chen T, Hu J. Efficacy and complication of endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Cardiothorac Surg 2014;9:78.

6. Ono S, Fujishiro M, Niimi K, et al. Predictors of postoperative stricture after esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial squamous cell neoplasms. Endoscopy 2009;41:661–665.

7. Hashimoto S, Kobayashi M, Takeuchi M, Sato Y, Narisawa R, Aoyagi Y. The efficacy of endoscopic triamcinolone injection for the prevention of esophageal stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:1389–1393.

8. Hanaoka N, Ishihara R, Takeuchi Y, et al. Intralesional steroid injection to prevent stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal cancer: a controlled prospective study. Endoscopy 2012;44:1007–1011.

9. Mori H, Rafiq K, Kobara H, et al. Steroid permeation into the artificial ulcer by combined steroid gel application and balloon dilatation: prevention of esophageal stricture. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;28:999–1003.

10. Takahashi H, Arimura Y, Okahara S, et al. A randomized controlled trial of endoscopic steroid injection for prophylaxis of esophageal stenoses after extensive endoscopic submucosal dissection. BMC Gastroenterol 2015;15:1.

11. Ohki T, Yamato M, Ota M, et al. Prevention of esophageal stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection using tissue-engineered cell sheets. Gastroenterology 2012;143:582–588.

12. Iizuka T, Kikuchi D, Yamada A, Hoteya S, Kajiyama Y, Kaise M. Polyglycolic acid sheet application to prevent esophageal stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Endoscopy 2015;47:341–344.

13. Sakaguchi Y, Tsuji Y, Ono S, et al. Polyglycolic acid sheets with fibrin glue can prevent esophageal stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endoscopy 2015;47:336–340.

14. Isomoto H, Yamaguchi N, Nakayama T, et al. Management of esophageal stricture after complete circular endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. BMC Gastroenterol 2011;11:46.

15. Uno K, Iijima K, Koike T, et al. A pilot study of scheduled endoscopic balloon dilation with oral agent tranilast to improve the efficacy of stricture dilation after endoscopic submucosal dissection of the esophagus. J Clin Gastroenterol 2012;46:e76–e82.

16. Yamaguchi N, Isomoto H, Nakayama T, et al. Usefulness of oral prednisolone in the treatment of esophageal stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:1115–1121.

17. Wen J, Lu Z, Yang Y, et al. Preventing stricture formation by covered esophageal stent placement after endoscopic submucosal dissection for early esophageal cancer. Dig Dis Sci 2014;59:658–663.

18. Lee WJ, Jung HY, Kim do H, et al. Intralesional steroid injection to prevent stricture after near-circumferential endosopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal cancer. Clin Endosc 2013;46:643–646.

19. Yonezawa H, Yanamoto S, Kawasaki G, Umeda M. Polyglycolic acid sheets with fibrin glue (MCFP technique) for resection of oral mucosa. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;50:e43–e44.

20. Shinozaki T, Hayashi R, Ebihara M, Miyazaki M, Tomioka T. Mucosal defect repair with a polyglycolic acid sheet. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2013;43:33–36.

21. Yano T, Haro A, Shikada Y, Okamoto T, Maruyama R, Maehara Y. A unique method for repairing intraoperative pulmonary air leakage with both polyglycolic acid sheets and fibrin glue. World J Surg 2012;36:463–467.

22. Rogosnitzky M, Danks R, Kardash E. Therapeutic potential of tranilast, an anti-allergy drug, in proliferative disorders. Anticancer Res 2012;32:2471–2478.

23. Carrico TJ, Mehrhof AI Jr, Cohen IK. Biology of wound healing. Surg Clin North Am 1984;64:721–733.

Article information Continued

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Table 1.

Descriptive Summary of All the Studies: Intervention, Results, and Complications

Study	Country	Study type	Inclusion/exclusion criteria	Intervention to prevent esophaged stricture development	No. of subjects	Timing of intervention	Technique	Dose	Outcome	Complication secondary to intervention or dilation session
Hashimoto et al. (2011) [7]	Japan	Prospective study	Inclusion	Endoscopic triamcinolone injection, 10 mg/mL solution	21	Day 3,7 and 10 (post-ESD)	1. A 25 G, 4 mm needle tos used	Total dose per session (varied with ulcer size)： range, 18-62 mg	1. Stricture rate: 4/21 (19%)	None
			1. Superficial esophageal SCC treated by ESD				2.1 mL syringe was used to inject manually		2. No. of required EBD: mean (range), 1.7 (0-15)
			2. Mucosal defect involving three fourth of esophageal circumference				3. Steroid tos injected in aliquots of 0.2 mL, 1 cm apart in semicircumferential fashion
							4. No. of injections per session (varied with ulcer size)： range, 9-31
				Historical control group (no intervention)	20	NA	NA	NA	1. Stricture rate: 15/20 (75%)	NA
				Historical control group (no intervention)	20	NA	NA	NA	2. No. of required EBD: mean (range), 6.6 (0-20)	NA
Hanaoka et al. (2012) [8]	Japan	Prospective study	Inclusion	Endoscopic Intralesional steroid (TA) injection, diluted with saline to make 5 mg/mL solution	30	Day 0 (post-ESD)	1. A25G needle was used	100 mg (irrespective of ulcer bed size)	1. Stricture rate: 3/30 (10%)	Complication rate： 2/30 (7%)
			1. Esophageal SCC treated by ESD				2. Injected evenly into the residual submucosal tissue of ulcer bed in 0.5-1.0 ml increments (20-40 punctures)		2. No. of EBD session： median (range), 0 (0-2)	1. Deep submucosal tear without perforation (during stricture evaluation 2 months post-ESD)： 1/2 managed conservatively (fasting)
			2. Mucosal defect more than three quarter but less than whole circumference				3. The initial injections were given at the margins of the ulcer and these were followed by linear injections given from the distal side to proximal side of the ulcer margin
			3. No lymph node metastases on CT scanning				4. If muscle layer tos partially exposed post-ESD, steroid injection tos not performed in that area			2. Esophageal hemorrhage： 1/2 tarry stools (8 days post-ESD)-required endoscopic hemostasis
			4. No organ failure

			Exclusion
			1. Active synchronous cancer
			2. Prior radiation therapy for esophageal cancer
			3. Multiple esophageal cancers
			4. Liver cirrhosis
			5. Poorly controlled DM
			6. Mucosal defect involving whole esophageal circumference
			Inclusion	Historical control group (no intervention)	29	NA	NA	NA	1. Stricture rate: 19/29(66%)	NA
			1. Superficial esophageal SCC treated byESD						2. No. of EBD session： median (range), 2 (0-15)
			2. Mucosal defect more than three quarter but less than whole circumference
			Exclusion
			1. Active synchronous cancer
			2. Prior radiation therapy for esophageal cancer
			3. Multiple esophageal cancers
			4. Liver cirrhosis
			5. Poorly controlled DM
Mori et al. (2013) [9]	Japan	Prospective, randomized study	Inclusion	Local steroid injection and balloon dilation	23 (2 subjects were excluded because of bleeding, see complication section)	Day 5,8,12, and 15	TA injection (each of 0.2 mL/2 mg) into ulcer floor at 8 mm intervals with extra care to avoid injection into muscularis propria, followed by 5 minutes session of EBD	Range, 62–88 mg of TA	1. No. of EBD sessions after day 20： mean (range), 4.27 (0-12)	1. No. of subjects with oaring bleeding before day 15： mean (range), 0.46 (0-2); both of these subjects were on oral anticoagulants and required endoscopic hemostasis
			1. Early esophageal cancer						2. Procedure time (min)： mean (range), 7.33 (5-11)
			2. Mucosal defect involving two third to entire circumference						3. Stricture rate (%): mean±SD
									1) Day 5: 78±22
									2) Day 8: 81±21
									3) Day 12: 76±24
									4) Day 15: 82±19
									5) Day 20: 83±19
									6) Day 30: 83±16
									7) Day 60: 81±22
				Steroid gel application and balloon dilation	20	Day 5,8,12, and 15	10 mL of TA gel mixed with 7.5 mL of endolubri jelly, applied from distal to proximal end of ulcer with spraying tube via endoscope; followed by 5 minutes session of EBD	100 mg of TA	1. No. of EBD sessions after day 20： mean (range), 1.6 (0-5)	None
									2. Procedure time (min)： mean (range), 6.87 (6-8)
									3. Stricture rate (%): mean±SD
									1) Day 5: 80±17
									2) Day 8: 79±18
									3) Day 12: 82±15
									4) Day 15: 83±15
									5) Day 20: 83±13
									6) Day 30: 85±14
									7) Day 60: 81±21
Takahashi et al. (2015) [10]	Japan	Prospective randomized controlled, open label, single center study	Inclusion	Endoscopic steroid injection therapy	16	Day 0 (post-ESD)	1. TA diluted with 0.9% NaCl to final concentration of 10 mg/mL	NA	1. Stricture rate: 10/16 (62.5%)	Perforation: 1/97 (1.0%)
			1. Early esophageal SCC				2. 0.5 mL aliquots injected at ulcer base using 25 G, 3 mm needle		2. No. of required dilation sessions: mean±SD (range), 6.1±6.2 (0–17)
			2. Expected mucosal defect more than three quarter of esophageal circumference				3. Starting at distal edge, repeated evenly at points 10 mm apart, upto proximal edge		3. Duration of dilation therapy (mo)： mean±SD (range), 3.5±4.0 (0-13)
							4. Special precautions to avoid injecting into muscularis propria		4. Minimum diameter of strictured region (mm): mean±SD (range), 11.0±4.6 (5.4–21.8)
			Exclusion
			1. Subjects who received additional adjuvant treatment- surgery or chemoradiation
			2. Subjects who were not regularly or adequately followed up
				None	16	NA	NA	NA	1. Stricture rate: 14/16 (87.5%)	Perforation: 1/200 (0.5%)
									2. No. of required dilation sessions: mean±SD (range), 12.5±10.1 (0–140)
									3. Duration of dilation therapy (mo): mean±SD (range), 6.1±5.0 (0–20)
									4. Minimum diameter of stricture (mm): mean±SD (range), 7.1±2.9 (5.1–12.8)
Ohki et al. (2012) [11]	Japan	Prospective open label, single arm, single center study	Inclusion	Transplantation of autologous cell sheets to ulcer surfaces via an endoscope	9	Day 0 (post-ESD)	The polyvinylidene difluoride support membrane with an attached autologous oral mucosal epithelial cell sheet, grasped by endoscopic forceps and placed over the ulcer site via EMR tube	No. of transplanted cell sheets： range, 2-8; each sheet being 23.4 mm in diameter	Stricture rate: 1/9 (11.1%; the subject had full circumferential mucosal defect extending upto gastroesophageal junction and required EBD 21 times)	High grade fever： 4/9 subjects, no intervention required
			1. Esophageal cancer
			2. Expected mucosal defect post-ESD at least two thirds of esophageal circumference

			Exclusion
			1. DM (HbA1c ≥10)
			2. Corticosteroid use
			3. Undergoing treatment for oral cancer
			4. Receiving radiotherapy for esophageal cancer
Iizuka et al. (2015) [12]	Japan	Prospective, single center study	Inclusion	MCFP technique	15 (2 subjects underwent surgical resection at day 20 and 30 post-ESD due to extent of disease)	Day 0 (post-ESD)	1. Spraying fibrinogen solution at mucosal defect	Mean no. of PGA sheets used: 10 (each sheet was 15×7 mm)	1. Stricture rate at 6 weeks post-ESD: 1/13 (7.7%)	Bleeding: 1/15- post-ESD, conservatively managed
			1. Superficial esophageal SCC treated by ESD				2. PGA sheet patches were placed without overlapping		2. No. of required EBD: 5 times for one patient
			2. Mucosal defect involving more than half but less than whole esophageal circumference				3. Fibrinogen and thrombin solutions were sprayed over the sheets		3. Dysphagia: 3/13, one had stricture, two had no stricture

			Exclusion
			1. History of esophagectomy
			2. History of radiation therapy
			3. A lesion near a scar left after previous endoscopic resection
			4. A lesion suspected preoperatively to be m3 or sml stage
			5. Uncontrolled DM
			6. Current steroid hormone use
Sakaguchi et al. (2015) [13]	Japan	Prospective pilot study, single arm, single center	Inclusion	PGA sheet deployment with fibrin glue	8	Day 0 (post-ESD)	1. The PGA sheet was deployed using modified version of clip and pull method	Each PGA sheet was 100×50×0.15 mm	1. Stricture rate: 3/8 (37.5%)	None
			1. Superficial esophageal cancer				2. The sheet was grasped with endoscopic forceps, wrapped around endoscope and anchored to anal end of mucosal defect and then deployed to cover entire esophageal circumference		2. Time to stricture occurrence (day): mean±SD, 28±7
			2. Expected mucosal defect post-ESD at least two thirds of esophageal circumference						3. No. of required EBD sessions: mean±SD, 0.8±1.2
							3. The same was repeated at oral end of mucosal defect
			Exclusion				3. The same was repeated at oral end of mucosal defect
			1. Systemic complications				4. Fibrin glue was sprayed over the entire length of PGA sheet
			2. Anaphylaxis to components of fibrin glue or drugs made of bovine lung
			3. Treatment with procoagulants, antifibrinolytic agents or aprotinin				5. Application time of PGA sheet (min): mean±SD, 12.8±5.5
			4. Steroid use				5. Application time of PGA sheet (min): mean±SD, 12.8±5.5
Isomoto et al. (2011) [14]	Japan	Prospective study	Inclusion	EBD	3	Day 3 (post-ESD), followed by twice weekly sessions for 8 weeks	EBD using a CRE balloon	No. of EBD session	1. Stricture rate: 3/3 (100%)	None
			1. Superficial esophageal SCC treated by ESD					1. First subject, 30	2. No. of EBD sessions： mean (range), 32.7 (20-48)
			2. Mucosal defect involving full esophageal circumference					2. Second subject, 20
			2. Mucosal defect involving full esophageal circumference					3. Third subject, 48
				Oral steroids (prednisolone)	4	Day 3 (post-ESD), tapered gradually over next 8 weeks	Prednisolone started at 30 mg/day (orally administered) on day 3 (post-ESD), and then tapered gradually (daily 30, 30, 25, 25, 20, 15, 10, 5 mg for 7 days each) and then discontinued 8 weeks later	Total dose: 1,120 mg, distributed over 8 weeks in a tapered fashion	1. Stricture rate: 2/4 (50%)	None
				Oral steroids (prednisolone)	4	Day 3 (post-ESD), tapered gradually over next 8 weeks			2. No. of EBD sessions： mean (range), 3.25 (0-11)	None
Uno et al. (2012) [15]	Japan	Prospective study	Inclusion	EBD	16	Few days post-ESD (first session), followed by twice a week for 4 weeks	1. EBD using a CRE balloon dilator	Total of 8 scheduled EBD sessions over 4 weeks post-ESD	1. Stricture rate: 11/16 (68.8%)	Perforation: secondary to additional EBD session, 1/16 (6.25%), 1/98 additional EBD session (1.02%), asymptomatic patient successfully managed conservatively
			1. Superficial esophageal SCC treated by ESD				2. Each treatment session consisted of 2 or 3 progressively larger diameters, with the dilation diameters increasing incrementally by not >3 mm		2. No. of additional EBD sessions： median (IQR)
			2. Mucosal defect involving more than three quarters of esophageal circumference						1) At 8 weeks: 3 (0–3)
									2) At 48 weeks: 4 (0–6.5)
			Exclusion						3. Duration of EBD sessions required to resolve stricture (day)： median (range), 58 (28-238)
			1. History of GI surgery or EMR/ESD for upper GI malignancy
			2. History of chemoradiation therapy or other treatment for esophageal cancer						4. Duration of ulcer healing (day)： median (range), 52 (38-59)
			3. Serious systemic disease						5. Dysphagia score： median (range)
			4. Subject with circumferential lesion whose longitudinal lengths were more than 50 mm						1) At 16 weeks: 5 (1.5–6.0)
			5. Use of medications known to influence esophageal motor function						2) At 24 weeks: 3 (0–3.5)
			6. Current steroid hormone or anti-coagulant use						3) At 48 weeks: 0 (0–1.5)
				EBD+Tranilast	15	1. Few days post-ESD (first session), followed by twice a week for 4 weeks	1. EBD using a CRE balloon dilator	1. Total of 8 scheduled EBD sessions over 4 weeks post-ESD	1. Stricture rate: 5/15 (33.3%)	None
							2. Each treatment session consisted of 2 or 3 progressively larger diameters, with the dilation diameters increasing incrementally by not >3 mm	2. Total of 16,800 mg of tranilast over 8 weeks	2. No. of additional EBD sessions： median (IQR)
						2. Tranilast few days post-ESD (first dose), continued for 8 weeks			1) At 8 weeks: 0 (0–1.75)
							3. Tranilast was administered orally, 300 mg per day in 3 divided doses with meals		2) At 48 weeks: 0 (0–1.75)
									3. Duration of EBD sessions required to resolve stricture (day): median (range), 28 (28–38.3)

									4. Duration of ulcer healing (day)： median (range), 48 (42-55)
									5. Dysphagia score: median (range)
									1) At 16 weeks: 0 (0–3.0)
									2) At 24 weeks: 0 (0–0)
									3) At 48 weeks: 0 (0–0)
Yamaguchi et al. (2011) [16]	Japan	Retrospective study	Inclusion	EBD	1. Total: 22	Day 3 (post-ESD), followed by twice weekly sessions for 8 weeks	EBD using a CRE balloon dilator, designed to deliver 3 distinct pressure controlled diameters (15, 16.5, 18 mm) at 3 separate pressures	Total of 16 scheduled EBD sessions over 8 weeks post-ESD	1. Stricture rate at 3 months	Pneumomediastinum: 1/22 (4.5%), successfully managed conservatively
			1. Superficial esophageal SCC treated by ESD		2. Subjects with semicircular ESD: 19				1) Composite: 7/21 (31.8%)
			2. Mucosal defect involving more than three quarters of esophageal circumference (semicircular) or full esophageal circumference (circular)		3. Subjects with circular ESD: 3				2) Semicircular ESD group: 4/19 (21.1%)
									3) Circular ESD group: 3/3 (100%)
			Exclusion						3) Circular ESD group: 3/3 (100%)
			1. Patients with lesions suspected to involve muscularis mucosa or deeper tissue
									2. No. of total (planned+additional) EBD sessions: mean (range)
									1) Composite: 15.6 (0–48)
									2) Semicircular ESD group:12.9 (0–34)
									3) Circular ESD group: 32.7 (20–48)
									3. No. of additional EBD sessions: mean (range)
									1) Composite: 6.8 (0–32)
									2) Semicircular ESD group: 3.1 (0–18)
									3) Circular ESD group: 16.7 (4–32)
				Oral steroids (prednisolone)	1. Total: 19	Day 3 (post-ESD), tapered gradually over next 8 weeks, except for one subject (12 weeks)	Prednisolone started at 30 mg/day (orally administered) on day 3 (post-ESD), and then tapered gradually (daily 30, 30, 25, 25, 20, 15, 10, 5 mg for 7 days each) and then discontinued 8 weeks later, except for one (12 weeks)	Total dose: 1,120 mg, distributed over 8 weeks in a tapered fashion for all subjects except one	1. Stricture rate at 3 months	None
					2. Subjects with semicircular ESD: 16				1) Composite: 1/19 (5.3%)
					3. Subjects with circular ESD: 3				2) Semicircular ESD group: 1/16 (6.3%)
									3) Circular ESD group: 0/3 (0%)
									2. No. of EBD sessions: mean (range)
									1) Composite: 1.7 (0–7)
									2) Semicircular ESD group: 2.1 (0–7)
									3) Circular ESD group: 0.7 (0–2)
Wen et al. (2014) [17]	China	Prospective, randomized controlled study	Inclusion	Covered esophageal metal stent placement (composed of high elastic stainless steel and is covered with high intensity medical silicone membrane)	11	Day 0 (post-ESD)	1. Stent length (25 to 180 mm) and diameter (15 to 18 mm) was selected based on size of mucosal defect	One stent per subject	1. Stricture rate: 2/11 (18.2%)	1. Chest pain: self resolved, no medication or intervention required
			1. Superficial esophageal SCC treated ESD				2. Stent was placed via guidewire and endoscope		2. No. of required bougie dilation: mean (range), 0.45 (0–3)	2. GI bleed at stent removal: self resolved, no intervention required
			2. Mucosal defect more than three quarter of circumference				3. Second endoscopy was done to ensure stent opening is >2 cm from the upper and lower peel surface		3. At 12 weeks post-ESD: complete epithelialization of the mucosal defect was noted for all subjects
			3. No lymph node metastases on CT scanning				3. Stent was removed 8 weeks post-ESD
			4. No organ failure

			Exclusion
			1. Presence of GI tumor
			2. Esophageal cancer after radiotherapy
			3. Multiple esophageal cancers
			4. Diabetes
			5. Associated severe condition: renal/cardiac or respiratory failure
			6. Brain dysfunction
				No stent placed	11	NA	NA	NA	1. Stricture rate: 8/11 (72.7%)	NA
				No stent placed	11	NA	NA	NA	2. No. of required bougie dilation: mean (range), 3.9 (0–17)	NA
Lee et al. (2013) [18]	Korea	Case report	Inclusion	Endoscopic Intralesional steroid (triamcinolone acetonide) injection, diluted with saline to make 20 mg/mL solution	1	Day 0 (post-ESD)	1. 0.5 mL dose injected at eight sites across ulcer base	Total dose: 80 mg	Post-ESD scar noted, no stricture, no dysphagia, no EBD requirement	None
			1. Superficial esophageal SCC treated by ESD				2. Injected into deep submucosa and the superficial proper muscle layer of ulcer base
			2. Mucosal defect involving near full esophageal circumference

SCC, squamous cell cancer; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; EBD, endoscopic balloon dilation; NA, not available; TA, triamcinolone acetonide; CT, computed tomography; HbA1c, glycated hemoglobin; DM, diabetes mellitus; MCFP, mucosal defect covered with fibrin glue and polyglycolic acid; PGA, polyglycolic acid; CRE, controlled radial expansion; GI, gastrointestinal; EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; IQR, interquartile range.

Table 2.

Procedure Details of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection and Resultant Mucosal Defect Size across Subjects for Each Study

Study	Country	Study type	Intervention to prevent esophageal stricture development	ESD	Size of mucosal defect
Hashimoto et al. (2011) [7]	Japan	Prospective study	ETI, 10 mg/mL solution	1. Resection size (mm): mean (range), 54.9 (28-67)	More than three quarter but less than whole circumference
			ETI, 10 mg/mL solution	2. ESD procedure time (min): mean (range), 150.5 (90-290)
			Historical control group (no intervention)	1. Resection size (mm): mean (range), 62.4 (40-100)
			Historical control group (no intervention)	2. ESD procedure time (min): mean (range), 186.2 (78-240)
Hanaoka et al. (2012) [8]	Japan	Prospective study	Endoscopic intralesional steroid (triamcinolone acetonide) injection, diluted with saline to make 5 mg/mL solution	1. Mucosal incision and submucosal dissection were performed with a flush knife/hook knife/mucosectomy and 0.4% hyaluronic acid solution used for submucosa injection	Length of mucosal defect (mm): mean±SD, 58±11
				2. Minor bleeding was stopped using endoscopy knives in a forced coagulation mode
				3. Major bleeding was coagulated with hemostatic forceps, using the soft coagulation mode at 80 W
			Historical control group (no intervention)	NA	Length of mucosal defect (mm): mean±SD, 52±18
Mori et al. (2013) [9]	Japan	Prospective, randomized study	Local steroid injection and balloon dilation	1. Resection size (mm): mean (range), 54.2 (28-80)	Circumference ratio of lesion (%): mean±SD, 84±15
			Local steroid injection and balloon dilation	2. ESD procedure time (min): mean (range), 195.7 (65-300)	Circumference ratio of lesion (%): mean±SD, 84±15
			Steroid gel application and balloon dilation	1. Resection size (mm): mean (range), 57.1 (40-80)	Circumference ratio of lesion (%): mean±SD, 82±14
			Steroid gel application and balloon dilation	2. ESD procedure time (min): mean (range), 179.2 (90-300)	Circumference ratio of lesion (%): mean±SD, 82±14
Takahashi et al. (2015) [10]	Japan	Prospective randomized controlled, open label, single center study	Endoscopic steroid injection therapy	1. Size of resected specimen (mm): mean±SD (range), 68±14 (43-97)	Circumferential extent
					1. >2/3 to <3/4: 4 subjects
				2. Operation time (min): mean±SD (range), 89.6±37.5 (36-176)	2. >3/4 to <1: 7 subjects
					3. =1: 5 subjects
			None	1. Size of resected specimen (mm): mean±SD (range), 62±17 (39-101)	Circumferential extent
					1. >2/3 to <3/4: 6 subjects
				2. Operation time (min): mean±SD (range), 88.3±44.5 (44-235)	2. >3/4 to <1: 5 subjects
					3. =1: 5 subjects
Ohki et al. (2012) [11]	Japan	Prospective open label, single arm, single center study	Transplantation of autologous cell sheets to ulcer surfaces via an endoscope	1. ESD using a hook knife	Circumference
				2. Iodine staining to identify the site	1. Half: 1 subject
				3. Glycerol and carmine solution was injected to separate the mucosal layer	2. Two third: 4 subjects
					3. Three fourth: 3 subjects
					4. Almost whole: 1 subject
Iizuka et al. (2015) [12]	Japan	Prospective, single center study	MCFP technique	1. An EG450-RD5 endoscope and a dual knife for ESD	The whole esophageal circumference was divided into 12 equal subparts to measure the size of defect
				2. Glycerol with small amounts of indigo carmine and epinephrine for injection	1. 7/12: 4 subjects
					2. 8/12: 5 subjects
				3. ICC200 high frequency generator for radiofrequency ablation	3. 9/12: 4 subjects
					4. 10/12: 1 subjects
					5. 11/12: 1 subjects
Sakaguchi et al. (2015) [13]	Japan	Prospective pilot study, single arm, single center	PGA sheet deployment with fibrin glue	1. ESD using dual knife	More than three quarter of esophageal circumference
				2. Chromoendoscopy using iodine staining to identify the site
				3. Hyaluronic acid solution was injected submucosally
				4. Size of resected specimen (mm): mean±SD, 53.8±8.8
				5. Total dissection time (min): mean±SD, 120±28.8
Isomoto et al. (2011) [14]	Japan	Prospective study	EBD	1. Resection size (mm): mean (range), 69 (43–94)	Full esophageal circumference
			EBD	2. Mucosal incision with flush knife under the Endo cut 1 mode, submucosal dissection with flush knife under the forced coagulation mode. Hemostatic forceps un soft coagulation mode used to stop achieve hemostasis.
			Oral steroids (prednisolone)	1. Resection size (mm): mean (range), 76.5 (70–81)
			Oral steroids (prednisolone)	2. Mucosal incision with flush knife under the Endo cut 1 mode, submucosal dissection with flush knife under the forced coagulation mode. Hemostatic forceps in soft coagulation mode was used to achieve hemostasis.
Uno et al. (2012) [15]	Japan	Prospective study	EBD	Procedure time (min): mean±SD, 131.6±44.4	Circumferential extent
					1. ≥3/4: 14 subjects
					2. =1: 2 subjects
			EBD+Tranilast	Procedure time (min): mean±SD, 122.5±37.7	Circumferential extent
					1. ≥3/4: 12 subjects
					2. =1: 3 subjects
Yamaguchi et al. (2011) [16]	Japan	Retrospective study	EBD	1. Tumor size (mm): mean (range), 30.4 (9–67)	Circumferential extent
				2. Operation time (min): mean (range), 95.5 (47–168)	1. ≥3/4: 19 subjects
				2. Operation time (min): mean (range), 95.5 (47–168)	2. =1: 3 subjects
			Oral steroids (prednisolone)	1. Tumor size (mm): mean (range), 33.4 (11–84)	Circumferential extent
				2. Operation time (min): mean (range), 93.9 (40–260)	1. ≥3/4: 16 subjects
				2. Operation time (min): mean (range), 93.9 (40–260)	2. =1: 3 subjects
Wen et al. (2014) [17]	China	Prospective, randomized controlled study	Covered esophageal metal stent placement (composed of high elastic stainless steel and is covered with high intensity medical silicone membrane)	ESD procedure time (min): mean (range), 310.2±106.7	Circumferential extent
					1. ≥3/4: 5 subjects
					2. ≥4/5: 2 subjects
					3. =1: 4 subjects
			No stent placed	ESD procedure time (min): mean (range), 265.1±106.0	Circumferential extent
					1. ≥3/4: 6 subjects
					2. ≥4/5: 3 subjects
					3. =1: 2 subjects
Lee et al. (2013) [18]	Korea	Case report	Endoscopic Intralesional steroid (triamcinolone acetonide) injection, diluted with saline to make 20 mg/mL solution	1. Mucosal incision and dissection were performed with a hook knife and an IT knife	Near full esophageal circumference
				2. 80 mL of normal saline mixed with epinephrine was injected to lift the mucosa including the tumor
				3. Bleeding controlled with hemostatic forceps
				4. Total time: 55 minutes

ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; ETI, endoscopic triamcinolone injection; MCFP, mucosal defect covered with fibrin glue and polyglycolic acid; PGA, polyglycolic acid; EBD, endoscopic balloon dilation; NA, not available.

Table 3.

Follow-up Intervals, Diagnostic Tests, and Stricture Definition Used across Different Studies

Study	Country	Study type	Intervention to prevent esophageal stricture development	Monitoring and F/U	Stricture criteria
Hashimoto et al. (2011) [7]	Japan	Prospective study	ETI, 10 mg/mL solution	Esophagoscopy routinely at 1 week, 1, 6 months, and 1 year post-ETI, clinical F/U for dysphagia	Standard endoscope GIF-Q240 cannot pass through the ESD scar
Hashimoto et al. (2011) [7]	Japan	Prospective study	Historical control group (no intervention)	NA
Hanaoka et al. (2012) [8]	Japan	Prospective study	Endoscopic Intralesional steroid (triamcinolone acetonide) injection, diluted with saline to make 5 mg/mL solution	Endoscopy (EGD) routinely at 2 months post-ESD or earlier if dysphagia was reported	Dysphagia to solids (dysphagia score 2) or an inability to pass a >9.2 mm diameter endoscope
Hanaoka et al. (2012) [8]	Japan	Prospective study	Historical control group (no intervention)	NA
Mori et al. (2013) [9]	Japan	Prospective, randomized study	Local steroid injection and balloon dilation	Gastrograffin esophagograms on day 5, 8, 12, 15, 20, 30, 60 and clinical F/U for dysphagia	Inability to pass a 10 mm diameter endoscope through ESD scar in a patient complaining of dysphagia and requiring EBD
Mori et al. (2013) [9]	Japan	Prospective, randomized study	Steroid gel application and balloon dilation
Takahashi et al. (2015) [10]	Japan	Prospective randomized controlled, open label, single center study	Endoscopic steroid injection therapy	1. EGD, 6 days post-injection therapy	Esophageal diameter <11 mm or inability to achieve or maintain a diameter of 14 mm despite dilatation every 2–4 weeks
			Endoscopic steroid injection therapy	2. Barium contrast esophagography in patients complaining of dysphagia or 4 weeks after the last EGD if patients were asymptomatic
			None	Barium contrast esophagogra-phy in patients complaining of dysphagia or 4 weeks after the last EGD if patients were asymptomatic
Ohki et al. (2012) [11]	Japan	Prospective open label, single arm, single center study	Transplantation of autologous cell sheets to ulcer surfaces via an endoscope	Weekly endoscopy until epithelialization was complete	NA
Iizuka et al. (2015) [12]	Japan	Prospective, single center study	MCFP technique	EGD at 1,2,4, and 6 weeks after ESD F/U (day): median (range), 352 (60-535)	Inability to pass H260 endoscope through the ESD scar
Sakaguchi et al. (2015) [13]	Japan	Prospective pilot study, single arm, single center	PGA sheet deployment with fibrin glue	Scheduled endoscopy on day 7 and 28 or if clinically indicated based on symptom	Inability to pass 9.8 mm diameter endoscope (GIF Q240 or GIF H260) through the ESD scar
Isomoto et al. (2011) [14]	Japan	Prospective study	EBD	1. F/U endoscopy with iodine staining and biopsy if abnormal mucosa noted at 3, 6, and 12 months post-ESD	NA
				2. CT scan of cervix, thorax and abdomen at 3, 6 and 12 months post-ESD
				3. Clinical F/U for dysphagia
			Oral steroids (prednisolone)
Uno et al. (2012) [15]	Japan	Prospective study	EBD	1. Scheduled consultations and F/U examinations by EGD (earlier if clinically warranted) for 48 weeks	Inability to pass 10.8 mm standard endoscope through the suspected esophageal region
			EBD	3. F/U period: mean±SD, 28.4±11.9 months
			EBD+Tranilast	1. Scheduled consultations and F/U examinations by EGD (earlier if clinically warranted) for 48 weeks
				2. For tranilast- physical examination and blood work up including complete blood count, hepatic and kidney function tests weekly for first 4 weeks, and thereafter at 8, 16,24, and 48 weeks post-ESD
				3. F/U period: mean±SD, 24.3±7.4 months
Yamaguchi et al. (2011) [16]	Japan	Retrospective study	EBD	1. F/U endoscopy with iodine staining and biopsy if abnormal mucosa noted at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months post-ESD	NA
				2. CT scan of neck, chest and abdomen annually, post-ESD
				3. Clinical F/U for dysphagia
			Oral steroids (prednisolone)
Wen et al. (2014) [17]	China	Prospective, randomized controlled study	Covered esophageal metal stent placement (composed of high elastic stainless steel and is covered with high intensity medical silicone membrane)	1. Routine F/U gastroscopy was done, 4 weeks post-ESD	<9.8 mm opening that did not permit the passage of GIF H260 endoscope through it
				2. Routine F/U endoscopy was done at 12 weeks post-ESD or when patient exhibited dysphagia symptoms to solid food
			No stent placed	Routine F/U endoscopy was done at 12 weeks post-ESD or when patient exhibited dysphagia symptoms to solid food
Lee et al. (2013) [18]	Korea	Case report	Endoscopic intralesional steroid (triamcinolone acetonide) injection, diluted with saline to make 20 mg/mL solution	Esophagography at 2 and 4 weeks, EGD at 4 months post-ESD, clinical F/U for dysphagia	NA

ETI, endoscopic triamcinolone injection; F/U, follow-up; EGD, esophagogastroduodenoscopy; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; EBD, endoscopic balloon dilation; NA, not available. MCFP, mucosal defect covered with fibrin glue and polyglycolic acid; PGA, polyglycolic acid; CT, computed tomography.