Local triamcinolone injection and selective add-on oral steroids to prevent esophageal post-endoscopic submucosal dissection stricture: a retrospective analysis in a Western center

Abstract

Background Extensive esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissections (ESDs) without preventive measures carry a high risk of stricture. Oral steroids and local injection of triamcinolone acetonide have proven to be effective in Asia for the prevention of esophageal stricture. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of a systematic steroid administration protocol for stricture prevention in a Western center.

Methods A retrospective review was conducted of all esophageal ESDs performed at H.U.B. Erasme Hospital, Brussels between 2016 and 2022. Injection of triamcinolone was performed for mucosal defects between 50% and 89% of the circumference. We added oral corticosteroids for patients with resections of ≥90% of the circumference. The primary outcome was the incidence of symptomatic stenosis at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included the cumulative stricture rate assessed by endoscopy within 6 months of ESD. Potential risk factors of stricture were evaluated with univariate and multivariate analysis.

Results 111 patients underwent 130 esophageal ESDs, with 59 patients receiving triamcinolone acetonide local injection and eight receiving local and oral corticosteroids. The primary outcome demonstrated a stricture incidence of 8.4%. The cumulative stricture rate assessed by endoscopy within 6 months of ESD was 10.4%. A mucosal defect of ≥60 mm in length was associated with a 15-fold increased risk of stricture, with circumferential extent also identified as being an independent prognostic factor for stricture.

Conclusions Our protocol led to a low stricture rate, even after extensive resection. As a single session treatment without systemic side effects, triamcinolone injection could provide benefits as a preventive method after large esophageal resections.

Introduction

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become the standard endoscopic resection modality for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and selected cases of superficial neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus (BE) [11]. Although ESD allows en bloc resection of superficial lesions without size limit, the main concern with esophageal resection is the risk of secondary stricture and its clinical consequences.

Without preventive measures, extensive esophageal ESD is associated with high secondary stricture rates, particularly as circumferential resection extent is critical in terms of risk stratification. Previous studies have reported post-ESD esophageal stricture rates, without preventive measures, of up to 30%–50%, 50%–80%, and 90%–100% for resections involving more than 50%, 75%, and 90% of the esophageal circumference, respectively [22] [33] [44].

Steroid-based preventive therapy (either by local injection or oral regimen) has been demonstrated to reduce post-ESD stricture rates to 10%–20%, 30%–40%, and 60%–80% for circumferential resections of more than 50%, 75%, and 90%, respectively [55] [66] [77] [88]. Oral corticosteroids are often administered in Western countries, with tapering doses for 7–8 weeks. Systemic steroid treatment requires patient compliance and is associated with well-established systemic side effects in cases of prolonged use, and cases of fungal infection associated with death have been described in this specific indication [99] [1010]. Moreover, systemic steroid treatment can impair wound healing and therefore compromise surgical suture healing for possible future complementary surgery [1111].

In Eastern countries, a single round of local triamcinolone acetonide injections at the end of the procedure has been demonstrated to prevent post-ESD esophageal stricture [1111] [1212] [1313] [1414], except in cases of >90% circumferential resection [1515]. Oral corticosteroids are therefore used in addition to triamcinolone acetonide injection for circumferential resections of 90%–100% [1616]. The advantages of the local injection protocol include its quick administration, lack of reliance on patient compliance, and avoidance of systemic side effects. Clinical adoption of this local injection protocol in Western countries is limited by the availability of study data that demonstrate its effectiveness in Western patients.

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of a simple systematic corticosteroid stricture prevention protocol after esophageal ESD, with a stratified approach based on the extent of circumferential resection, with a combination of topical corticosteroid injections and oral administration for high risk patients.

Methods

Patients

Prospectively collected data from all consecutive patients who underwent esophageal ESD at H.U.B. Erasme Hospital (Brussels, Belgium) from January 2016 to October 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. From January 2016, a systematic stricture prevention protocol was applied at the end of esophageal ESD procedures. Follow-up data were collected from the patients’ medical files and by contacting the referring centers. Clinical data, plus the endoscopy report and pictures were reviewed to assess the stricture. Data from the end of clinical and endoscopic follow-up were collected in April 2023.

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of H.U.B. Erasme Hospital (P2022/153).

ESD procedure

The ESD procedures were performed with the patients under general anesthesia and with endotracheal intubation. Each procedure was performed using a gastroscope (GIF-HQ190 or GIF-1500Z, Olympus, Japan) with a transparent cap (Olympus) attached to the endoscope tip. All procedures were performed under carbon dioxide insufflation. The neoplastic lesion was lifted using a 25G needle with a commercially available solution (glycerol 10%, fructose 5% in saline) mixed with drops of indigo blue dye. An electrosurgical ESD knife (1.5-mm tip; DualKnife or DualKnife J, Olympus, Japan in 97% of cases) was connected to an electrosurgical unit (VIO 300 D/VIO 3, ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH, Germany). Mucosal incision was performed using Dry Cut E2 30 W (VIO 300 D) or E3.5 mode (VIO 3) and submucosal dissection using Swift Coag E4 30 W (VIO 300 D) or E3.5 mode (VIO 3). Periprocedural bleeding was treated with the closed tip of the knife or with hemostatic forceps (Coagrasper, Olympus, using soft coagulation E5 50 W [VIO 300 D] or E5.5 [VIO 3]; or bipolar Hemostat WideCup, Pentax, Japan, using bipolar soft coagulation E2.6) when more severe. The plane of dissection was close to the muscle layer in all cases.

The percentage circumferential mucosal defect and the length of mucosal defect were evaluated by the endoscopist at the end of the resection based on a visual appreciation. The specimen size was measured after being pinned onto cork before histologic evaluation by expert pathologists.

Systematic protocol for stricture prevention

The extent of the mucosal defect was classified into three groups: C1, circumferential resection of <50%; C2, resection between 50% and 89%; C3, circumferential resection of ≥90%. Triamcinolone acetonide (Kenacort, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Japan) was systematically injected for mucosal defects ≥50% of the esophageal circumference. For mucosal defects of ≥90% of the circumference, triamcinolone acetonide was injected but this was also followed with an oral methylprednisolone regimen, with a tapering dose for 7 weeks.

The injection of triamcinolone acetonide (50 mg) was performed in a single session at the end of the procedure using a 25G needle with multiple injections into the mucosal edges and into approximately every square centimeter along the small residual submucosal layer of the entire resection bed, without any injection through the muscle layer ([Fig. 1Fig. 1]; [Video 1Video 1]). For defects involving ≥90% of the esophageal circumference, an oral methylprednisolone regimen (an oral prednisolone-equivalent treatment that is available in Belgium) was systematically prescribed as follows (according to the equivalent prednisolone doses): 24 mg for 15 days, 20 mg for 15 days, 16 mg for 7 days, 12 mg for 7 days, and 8 mg for 7 days.

Fig. 1 Fig. 1 Endoscopic images showing: a a mucosal defect after large esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD); b triamcinolone injection being performed after large esophageal ESD; c the resected sample; d mucosal healing post-ESD at follow-up endoscopy.

Local triamcinolone injection (along with oral steroids in cases with ≥90% circumferential defect) is given to prevent post-endoscopic submucosal dissection esophageal stricture.Video 1Video 1

Post-ESD management

All patients were kept fasted after the ESD procedure until clinical evaluation by the operator. A clear liquid diet was permitted from 6 hours after ESD in the absence of chest/abdominal pain, dysphagia, abdominal distension, fever, or any other concerning clinical symptoms or signs. Soft diet was introduced gradually from the following day. Proton pump inhibitors were administered intravenously (80 mg twice daily [bid]) for 24 hours following the ESD and orally (40 mg bid) at discharge for 1 month.

Patients underwent systematic follow-up with an initial appointment within 4–6 weeks after endoscopic resection to exclude the presence of symptoms of esophageal stricture. If the patient had symptomatic esophageal stricture, an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) was performed to prepare for an endoscopic balloon dilation (EBD) session. EBD was performed under fluoroscopic guidance using a CRE Balloon Dilation Catheter (10–18 mm, Boston Scientific Corp., USA), with a systematic 2-week interval before reaching 18 mm, and then adapted to clinical response. In asymptomatic patients, systematic endoscopic follow-up was scheduled according to the recommendations of the most recent guidelines, with an initial EGD at 3–6 months after the ESD [11].

Patients treated for Barrett’s neoplasia were scheduled for a restaging EGD at 3 months for ulcer healing assessment and new biopsy sampling before eventual further radiofrequency ablation (RFA) treatment.

Outcomes and definitions

The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of symptomatic stricture at 3 months from the ESD. Stricture was defined as any narrowing of the esophageal lumen at the level of the ESD scar, in combination with any degree of patient dysphagia which therefore required EBD.

The secondary outcomes were the cumulative stricture rate assessed by endoscopy within 6 months of ESD, the mean number of EBD sessions, the rate of refractory stenosis, the safety of steroid administration, and the end of stricture follow-up rate.

The cumulative stricture rate assessed by endoscopy within 6 months of ESD was defined as any endoscopic feature of stricture that occurred in the patient between the time of the ESD procedure up until 6 months later at endoscopic follow-up. Given the lack of a universally used standard definition for “refractory esophageal stricture” in the literature, we proposed a simplified definition as follows: refractory stenosis was defined as the failure to achieve 18 mm in three EBD sessions [1717]. In these specific cases, patients were evaluated for steroid injection, stricturoplasty, and/or stenting. The end of stricture follow-up rate was defined as any symptomatic stricture treated with EBD between ESD and the end of the patient’s follow-up.

To avoid confusing factors in stricture rate assessment, patients were censored at the time of further RFA therapy for BE, further endoscopic resection, or further esophageal surgery.

Any adverse event (AE) after local injection of triamcinolone was noted, with specific attention paid to findings of healing delay, ulcer, mediastinal abscess, delayed perforation, fever, systemic complications, and worsening of diabetes.

Potential factors associated with stricture development were also evaluated with univariate and multivariate analysis.

Histologic definitions

R0 resection was defined as en bloc tumor resection with free vertical and horizontal margins, described as follows:

• free horizontal margin (HM0), the absence of high grade dysplasia (HGD)/carcinoma within the lateral margin

• free vertical margin (VM0), the absence of neoplasia within the deep margin.

The risk stratification for the resection was defined, according to the latest ESGE guidelines [11], as follows:

• very low risk resection: en bloc R0 resection, pT1a (no more than m2 for SCC), differentiated lesion, and no lymphovascular invasion

• low risk resection: en bloc R0 resection, no lymphovascular invasion, pT1a m3 or pT1b sm1 (invasion <200 µm from the muscularis mucosae) for SCCs or pT1b sm1 (<500 µm from the muscularis mucosae) for BE-associated lesions, well-differentiated lesions, and VM0

• local risk resection: piecemeal resection or tumor-positive horizontal margin of a lesion otherwise meeting very low risk criteria

• high risk resection: any lesion with positive vertical margin, lymphovascular invasion, deep submucosal invasion (>200 µm from the muscularis mucosae for SCCs or >500 µm from the muscularis mucosae for BE-associated lesions), or poorly differentiated lesions.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using R v1.4.1717.

Discrete variables are shown as counts (percentage) and continuous variables as mean (SD). Non-normally distributed variables are summarized by the median (interquartile range [IQR]).

A Cox regression model was used to determine the association between stricture and patient age and sex, circumferential extent of the mucosal defect, length of the mucosal defect, esophageal location of the lesion, type of histologic lesion, and history of chemoradiotherapy. Based on the results of univariate analysis, a Cox regression model was used to determine the association between circumferential extent of the mucosal defect, length of the mucosal defect, and post-ESD stricture. Harrell c-index analysis was used to determine the cutoff value for resection length that was most discriminating in terms of whether or not a stenosis occurred. The Variance Index Factor for a multivariate model was used to detect multicollinearity.

The symptomatic stricture rate incidence at 3 months and the cumulative stricture rate assessed by endoscopy within 6 months of ESD were depicted using the Kaplan–Meier approach.

Results

During the study period, a total of 111 patients (median age 69 years [range 36–98 years]; 70% men) were treated by a total of 130 esophageal ESD procedures. The indications comprised 41% SCC, 54% esophageal adenocarcinoma or Barrett’s dysplastic lesions, and 5% other types of lesions (e.g. submucosal tumor, neuroendocrine tumor).

The median size of the resected specimen was 40 mm (range 10–130 mm), with an en bloc resection rate of 98% and a complete endoscopic resection rate of 97% ([Table 1Table 1]). Specimen histologic analysis showed an R0 rate of 83%, an HM0 rate of 87%, and a VM0 rate of 96%. Oncologic risk stratification of the ESD specimen revealed a “very low risk resection” rate of 50%, a “low risk resection” rate of 10%, a “local risk resection” rate of 6%, and a “high risk resection” rate of 33% [11]. The median circumferential extent of the post-ESD mucosal defects was 50% (range 20%–100%). The extent of the mucosal defect was classified into three groups; C1, circumferential resection <50% (63 ESDs); C2, 50%–89% (59 ESDs); and C3, ≥90% (8 ESDs).

Table 1 Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the 111 patients included in the study and the 130 ESD procedures they underwent.

Characteristic	n (%), unless otherwise specified
ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; SCC, squamous cells carcinoma.
Sex, male	78 (70)
Age, median (range), years	69 (36–98)
Histology
SCC	54 (41)
Adenocarcinoma or Barrett’s neoplasia	71 (55)
Other	5 (4)
Resection specimen size, median (range), mm	40 (10–130)
En bloc resection rate	127 (98)
Complete endoscopic resection rate	126 (97)
Histologic R0 rate	108 (83)
Circumferential extent of mucosal defect, median (range), %	50 (20–100)
Length of mucosal defect, median (range), mm	40 (15–130)
Extent of mucosal defect
<50%	63 (49)
50%–89%	59 (45)
≥90%	8 (6)
Clinical follow up, median (range), days	337 (31–1912)
Endoscopic follow up, median (range), days	184 (0–1707)

Triamcinolone acetonide local injection alone was performed for 59 ESDs and combination therapy of triamcinolone acetonide local injection and oral corticosteroids was used for eight ESD procedures ([Fig. 2Fig. 2]).

Fig. 2 Fig. 2 Protocol flowchart.
ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; TA, triamcinolone acetonide.

Among the study population, 11 patients subsequently underwent esophagectomy and were censored from esophageal stenosis assessment (three patients in group C1, and eight patients in group C2): none of them underwent extensive ESD before the additional surgery and none developed stricture symptoms between the ESD procedure and the additional surgery. A further three patients underwent BE RFA and were also censored from esophageal stenosis assessment at 3 months.

From ESD to the first endoscopic assessment at 3–6 months, four more patients were censored from stricture assessment owing to esophageal surgery, seven more for further RFA ablation treatment, and two more for complementary endoscopic resection. From the first endoscopic assessment to the end of follow-up outcome assessment, 16 patients were censored from stricture assessment because of esophageal surgery, RFA ablation treatment, or complementary endoscopic resection (Fig. 1s, see online-only Supplementary material)

Clinical end-of-study follow-up was available in 110 patients after a median of 337 days (range 31–1912 days). Endoscopic follow-up at 3–6 months was available for 58% of patients (75/130).

Primary outcome

The symptomatic stricture rate at 3 months was 8.4% (95%CI 3.2%–13.2%) ([Fig. 3Fig. 3]). In total, by 3 months from ESD, we had observed post-ESD esophageal strictures in 12/116 ESDs (10.3%): 0/57 in group C1; 7/51 (13.7%) in group C2; and 5/8 (62.5%) in group C3 ([Table 2Table 2]). Altogether, the stricture rate for >75% circumference resections was 25.8% (8/31).

Fig. 3 Fig. 3 Kaplan–Meier curve of the symptomatic clinical stricture rate at the 3-month assessment.

Table 2 Table 2 Stricture and refractory stricture rates at 3 months after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).¹

	Circumferential extent
	<50%	50%–89%	≥90%
1 11 patients underwent esophagectomy and three underwent Barrett’s esophagus RFA and were therefore censored from esophageal stenosis assessment at 3 months.
Number of procedures	57	51	8
Post-ESD esophageal strictures, n (%)	0 (0)	7 (13.7)	5 (62.5)
Refractory strictures, n (%)	0 (0)	0 (0)	3 (37.5)

Secondary outcomes

Symptomatic esophageal strictures were treated by EBD. The median time before the first dilation session was 43.5 days (range 29–98 days). The mean number of EBD sessions was 7 (range 2–17), with a mean dilation caliber of 18 mm.

Three patients failed to achieve 18 mm in three EBD sessions and were considered to have refractory stenosis. They were managed by esophageal stent placement ([Table 2Table 2]). One patient needed two successive esophageal stents to be placed and also then a gastrostomy for recurrent stenosis. For the second patient, three stents were placed and then removed, with recurrence of dysphagia. He unfortunately died of acute respiratory failure a few months later. The third patient underwent placement of a stent for 3 months, with resolution of dysphagia after its removal.

We performed univariate and multivariate regression analysis using a Cox regression model to better determine factors associated with stricture development in the setting of our systematic prophylactic protocol, including all potential prognostic factors: patient age, sex, extent of circumferential mucosal defect, length of mucosal defect, esophageal location of the lesion, histologic type of lesion, and history of chemoradiotherapy. Circumferential extent and length of the mucosal defect remained independent prognostic factors: 1.05 (95%CI 1.01–1.08; P = 0.02) and 1.02 (95%CI 1.00–1.05; P = 0.04), respectively ([Table 3Table 3]). A cutoff of 60 mm for mucosal defect length was associated with a more than 15-fold risk of developing a stricture, according to the Harrel c-index analysis, which measures the discriminatory capacity of a logistic regression model. The Variance Index Factor for the multivariate model was 1.47, excluding any multicollinearity between these variables.

Table 3 Table 3 Factors associated with stricture development according to a Cox regression model.

Variable	Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis
	HR (95%CI)	P value	HR (95%CI)	P value
HR, hazard ratio.
Age	0.99 (0.95–1.05)	0.91
Sex	1.98 (0.63–6.25)	0.24
Circumferential extent of mucosal defect, continuous	1.06 (1.03–1.09)	<0.001	1.05 (1.01–1.08)	0.02
Length of mucosal defect, continuous	1.04 (1.03–1.06)	<0.001	1.02 (1.00–1.05)	0.04
Length of mucosal defect ≥60 mm	5.41 (1.19–24.73)	0.03

We did not find any risk factors for esophageal stricture associated with the type of lesion. The distribution of cases within the different esophageal locations (upper, middle, or lower esophagus) did not allow for useful analysis. Among patients presenting with a post-ESD stricture, there was one case in the “lower esophagus” category compared with 11 in the other two categories, which jeopardized adequate statistical analysis. In terms of history of chemoradiotherapy, none of our patients had received prior or adjuvant therapy.

The cumulative stricture rate assessed by endoscopy within 6 months of ESD was 10.4% (95%CI 4.6%–15.9%) ([Fig. 4Fig. 4]).

Fig. 4 Fig. 4 Kaplan–Meier curve of the cumulative stricture rate assessed by endoscopy within 6 months of the endoscopic submucosal dissection.

No AEs were observed in patients receiving an injection of triamcinolone. Neither were any AEs noted during follow-up of the patients who received both triamcinolone injection and oral corticosteroids.

Discussion

This study demonstrates the efficacy of a systematic prospective protocol to prevent post-ESD esophageal strictures in a Western tertiary center. Without preventive measures, stricture rates can reach 70%–100% [1515], especially when the extent of the resection is >75% of the esophageal circumference [33] [44] [1818]. Among the currently used preventive methods, local steroid injection and oral steroids are standard treatments, as they have demonstrated efficacy for the prevention of strictures and the requirement for EBD [44] [1212] [1313] [1919] [2020]. More recently, the triamcinolone acetonide filling method has been developed and has been demonstrated to be effective in prospective series [2121] [2222]. Steroids have an inhibitory effect on inflammation and fibrosis, with suppression of proliferation of the subepithelial layer fibrous tissue being the hypothesized mechanism [2323]. Long-term administration of systemic steroids is however associated with AEs, such as infection, worsening of diabetes mellitus, secondary adrenocortical hypoplasia, and osteoporosis. Furthermore, systemic oral steroid therapy may compromise proper wound and anastomosis healing in patients who may in future need an esophagectomy after ESD [2424].

To our knowledge, this is one of the first Western studies to propose a systematic protocol for the prevention of post-ESD esophageal stricture according to the extent of the submucosal resection. However, the originality of the present study is in proving that the systematic implementation of a steroid-based local injection protocol is effective in Western countries, even though multiple factors (genetics, type of resected cancer [squamous vs. adenocarcinoma], ESD technique, and triamcinolone acetonide injection) may differ between Eastern and Western countries.

In this study, we found that a single session of local injection of 50 mg triamcinolone acetonide into the residual submucosal layer and the mucosal edges of the resection bed directly after an ESD that has created a defect of between 50% and 89% of the circumference led to a stricture rate of 13.7% (Fig. 2s). More specifically, for resections creating a circumferential defect of >75%, the stricture rate was 25.8%, a rate that is similar to those reported in other retrospective studies [1313] [1515] [2525] [2626]. Comparison with these other studies remains a challenge because of differences in the study protocols (triamcinolone dose, number of injections, timing of injection, combination or not with oral steroids).

Our protocol was easy to implement in routine practice considering the typically short in-hospital stay after ESD in Western countries, and without systemic steroid administration. Furthermore, this protocol has a simple design based on the extent of the resection field at the end of the ESD procedure ([Fig. 2Fig. 2]). Another advantage of this local triamcinolone acetonide injection protocol is that, for a majority of our cohort, it avoids any misunderstandings with the patient when prescribing a cumbersome 7 week course of tapered oral steroids. This oral steroid regimen can sometimes be confusing, mainly when referred patients are managed by multiple physicians (i.e. referring physician, oncologists, and surgeons), as can be the case with multidisciplinary management of some complex cases. Moreover, this strategy relies on a quick technique, which is easy to learn and implement. Further studies with systematic measurement of the injection time are needed to confirm the additional procedure time.

A major challenge is the substantial risk of stricture after subcircumferential and circumferential resection, even after a combination of preventive measures [1515]. In a retrospective study in 2016, Kadota et al. reported a 71% stricture rate for extensive resection (14 ESD cases) [2727]. In 2018, Iizuka et al. reported a lower stricture rate of 36.5% for such case (11 ESD cases) [2828], while the findings of our study fall between these two studies with a stricture rate of 62.5% (5/8 ESD cases). We know from previous studies that local triamcinolone acetonide injection is insufficient for extensive resections and this is the reason why we added the tapering dose of oral steroids in this specific setting [2929].

Other methods for post-ESD esophageal stricture prevention have been described, such as mechanical methods (metal stent, biodegradable stent), antiproliferative methods (botulinum toxin injection, oral tranilast, mitomycin C injection), regenerative methods with autologous cell sheet transplantation, and protective methods (carboxymethyl cellulose sheet, polyglycolic acid sheet alone or in association with triamcinolone) [1515]. However, some of these methods are more technically demanding and should be assessed in randomized controlled studies before general implementation into routine practice.

EBD is the first-line treatment for post-ESD esophageal stricture. There is no recommended balloon size or number of dilation sessions for post-ESD stricture [1515]. Early preventive balloon dilation is described in several Japanese studies, but this approach has proven to be inferior to oral steroids for preventing stricture after esophageal ESD [2020]. As previously mentioned, early endoscopy for balloon dilation was not systematically performed in our study and was reserved only for patients with symptomatic esophageal stricture. In our study, the mean number of EBD sessions was 6 (range 2–17), with a mean dilation caliber of 18 mm. We did not observe any complications after EBD sessions. In subgroup analysis, three patients developed refractory strictures that were treated with esophageal self-expandable metal stent placement.

We acknowledge several limitations in this study. First, this was a non-comparative retrospective study in a single center, which therefore limits the level of evidence. Second, all patients were treated with the same single dose of 50 mg triamcinolone, regardless of the resection size and length, with the aim of simplifying the protocol in routine practice; however, there are currently no recommendations for the dose or number of local injection sessions. This requires further investigation with large-scale randomized controlled trials.

In conclusion, we validated our systematic stricture prevention protocol using a single session of triamcinolone acetonide local injections for all >50% circumferential esophageal ESDs, with added oral steroids for cases with ≥90% circumferential defects, demonstrating a global low stricture rate, especially for circumferential resection extents <90%. As a single session treatment without long-term potential systemic side effects, the triamcinolone injection method appears to be beneficial for patients and could be considered as a new preventative practice for use in Western countries.

Conflict of Interest

A. Lemmers: speaker's fees to Institution from Erbe, consultancy fees to Institution for Boston Scientific, research grant to Institution from Medtronic.

• References

• 1 Pimentel-Nunes P, Libânio D, Bastiaansen BAJ. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2022. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 591-622
• 2 Katada C, Muto M, Manabe T. et al. Esophageal stenosis after endoscopic mucosal resection of superficial esophageal lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 165-169
• 3 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
• 4 Wang W, Ma Z. Steroid administration is effective to prevent strictures after endoscopic esophageal submucosal dissection: a network meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015; 94: e1664
• 5 Yang J, Wang X, Li Y. et al. Efficacy and safety of steroid in the prevention of esophageal stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection: A network meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 34: 985-995
• 6 Nagami Y, Shiba M, Tominaga K. et al. Locoregional steroid injection prevents stricture formation after endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis. Surg Endosc 2016; 30: 1441-1449
• 7 Wakahara C, Morita Y, Tanaka S. et al. Optimization of steroid injection intervals for prevention of stricture after esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection: A randomized controlled trial. Acta Gastroenterol Belg 2016; 79: 315-320
• 8 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 Gastroenterology 2015; 15: 1
• 9 Kulkarni S, Durham H, Glover L. et al. Metabolic adverse events associated with systemic corticosteroid therapy—a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2022; 12: e061476
• 10 Rodríguez de Santiago E, van Tilburg L, Deprez PH. et al. Western outcomes of circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection for early esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc 2024; 99: 511-524.e6
• 11 Chu Y, Chen T, Li H. et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of intralesional steroid injection plus oral steroid administration in preventing stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal epithelial neoplasms. Surg Endosc 2019; 33: 1244-1251
• 12 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
• 13 Hashimoto S, Kobayashi M, Takeuchi M. et al. The efficacy of endoscopic triamcinolone injection for the prevention of esophageal stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 1389-1393
• 14 Kobayashi S, Kanai N, Ohki T. et al. Prevention of esophageal strictures after endoscopic submucosal dissection. World J Gastroenterol 2014; 20: 15098-15109
• 15 Yamamoto Y, Uedo N. Management of adverse events related to endoscopic resection of esophageal and gastric neoplasms: Report of consensus meeting. Dig Endosc 2019; 31 (Suppl. 01) 2-3
• 16 Sato H, Inoue H, Kobayashi Y. et al. Control of severe strictures after circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal carcinoma: oral steroid therapy with balloon dilation or balloon dilation alone. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 250-257
• 17 Siersema PD, de Wijkerslooth LRH. Dilation of refractory benign esophageal strictures. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 1000-1012
• 18 Lin N, Lin J, Gong J. Risk factors of postoperative stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal neoplasms: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2021; 100: e28396
• 19 Hikichi T, Nakamura J, Takasumi M. et al. Prevention of stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal cancer: a review of the literature. J Clin Med 2020; 10: 20
• 20 Miyake M, Ishihara R, Matsuura N. et al. Predictors of stricture after non-circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection of the esophagus and single-dose triamcinolone injection immediately after the procedure. Gastrointest Endosc 2023; 98: 170-177
• 21 Jia Y, Guo B, Zhang W. et al. Efficacy and safety of triamcinolone acetonide in the prevention of esophageal stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection: a meta-analysis. Dis Esophagus 2022; 35: doac039
• 22 Shibagaki K, Yuki T, Taniguchi H. et al. Prospective multicenter study of the esophageal triamcinolone acetonide-filling method in patients with subcircumferential esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Dig Endosc 2020; 32: 355-363
• 23 Kawamura Y, Kawada K, Ito T. et al. Histologic changes in the human esophagus following triamcinolone injection to prevent esophageal stricture after endoscopic submucosal dissection. Esophagus 2021; 18: 594-603
• 24 Kassis ES, Kosinski AS, Ross P. et al. Predictors of anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: an analysis of the society of thoracic surgeons general thoracic database. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 96: 1919-1926
• 25 Nagami Y, Shiba M, Ominami M. et al. Single locoregional triamcinolone injection immediately after esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection prevents stricture formation. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2017; 8: e75
• 26 Tang J, Kong F, Li J. et al. Independent risk factors for esophageal refractory stricture after extensive endoscopic submucosal dissection. Surg Endosc 2021; 35: 3618-3627
• 27 Kadota T, Yano T, Kato T. et al. Prophylactic steroid administration for strictures after endoscopic resection of large superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Endosc Int Open 2016; 4: E1267-E1274
• 28 Iizuka T, Kikuchi D, Hoteya S. et al. Effectiveness of modified oral steroid administration for preventing esophageal stricture after entire circumferential endoscopic submucosal dissection. Dis Esophagus 2018; 31: dox140
• 29 Kadota T, Yoda Y, Hori K. et al. Prophylactic steroid administration against strictures is not enough for mucosal defects involving the entire circumference of the esophageal lumen after esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Esophagus 2020; 17: 440-447

Publication History

Received: 09 July 2023

Accepted after revision: 16 May 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
16 May 2024

Article published online:
29 July 2024