Endoscopic mucosal resection for high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal carcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus: An Italian experience

Table 3 Selected studies on EMR in Barrett’s esophagus

Author	Number of pts	Size of lesionscm (mean)	Technique	Histologypre-EMR	Histologypost-EMR	Change in diagnosis (%)	Complications	Follow-upMonths(mean)	Recurrence
Buttar et al 2001 USA[34]	17	8	EUS VLD-PDT	IMC: 7 AC: 10	IMC: 7 AC: 10	47%	Bl: 6% Stricture: 30%	13	HGD (1)1 AC (1)
			Injection
Nijhawan et al 2000 USA[35]	25	7	EUS Lift-and-cut VLD	2 BE 8 LGD 5 HGD	2 BE 3 LGD 5 HGD	48%	0	14.6	0
			Injection	9 AC	13 AC
				1 other	2 other
Ell et al 2000	35	0.9	EUS	HGD: 3	HGD: 3	0	Bl: 20%	12	11%
Germany[36]			EMR±	EC: 32	EC: 32
			injection

Pts: patients; EMR: endoscopic mucosal resection; EUS: endoscopic ultrasonography; HGD: high-grade dysplasia; IMC: intramucosal carcinoma; BE: Barrett's esophagus; LGD: low-grade dysplasia; AC: invasive adenocarcinoma; Bl: bleeding; EMR-C: EMR with cap; PDT: photodynamic therapy; Nos: not otherwise specified; VLD: variceal ligator device; EC: early cancer;

¹persistence of HGD.