Introduction

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an effective treatment for superficial esophageal cancer, but postoperative stenosis remains a significant concern. Particularly, probability of the stenosis is less investigated in cases with a 50%-75% circumferential mucosal defect.

Aims & Methods

This study aimed to identify influential factors for postoperative stenosis after the moderate circumferential resection in esophageal ESD. This multi-center retrospective observational study analyzed data from 513 patients across 19 institutions who underwent esophageal ESD from April 2018 to March 2022 and showed 50% to 75% of the circumferential mucosal defect. We firstly overviewed the current status on the postoperative stenosis, the steroid use, and postoperative adverse events in these patients. Subsequently, we identified influential factors for postoperative stenosis. Patients were categorized into stenosis and no stenosis groups, and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed for each parameter. We further investigated influential factors of stenosis in two cohorts: steroid and no steroid groups. Finally, the parameters were compared between the steroid and no steroid groups to assess the tendency of the steroid use in general practice.

Results

Postoperative stenosis was observed in 28 cases (5%). Univariate analysis comparing the stenosis group (n = 28) and no stenosis group (n = 485) revealed significant differences in the prior endoscopic treatment near the lesion (p = 0.02), cervical esophageal location (p = 0.04), defect circumference (p =0.01), and procedure duration (p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the steroid use between two groups. Multivariate analyses identified history of prior endoscopic treatment close to the lesion (p = 0.01, odds ratio [OR], 5.10), cervical esophageal lesions (p = 0.03, OR, 3.97), large circumferential defect (p <0.01, OR, 3.78), and longer procedure duration (p <0.01, OR, 3.83) as independent risk factors for stenosis formation. Among the steroid group, significant associations of the postoperative stenosis were revealed with the prior endoscopic treatment near the lesion (p = 0.02), cervical esophageal location (p = 0.04), and >5/8 of defect circumference (p = 0.02). In the no steroid group, only the procedure duration (p = 0.01) showed a significant difference between the stenosis and non-stenosis groups. Comparison between the steroid (n = 223) and no steroid groups (n = 290) revealed significant differences in the prior endoscopic treatment near the lesion (p <0.01), cervical esophageal lesions (p <0.01), and resected specimen dimensions (p <0.01). The stenosis rates were 7% in the steroid group and 4% in the no steroid group, without a significant difference. No significant difference in adverse events was observed between the two groups.

Conclusion

In esophageal ESD with a 50%-75% circumferential mucosal defect, the steroid was used in over 40% of patients, and postoperative stenosis still occurred in 5%. Because wider circumference, location of the cervical esophagus, prior endoscopic treatment close to the lesion, and prolonged operative time were identified as independent risk factors on the stenosis, steroid therapy should be preferred in these cases. Particularly, lesions with a history of endoscopic treatment, on cervical esophagus, and with >5/8 of defect circumference should require more aggressive countermeasures than currently applied.

Introduction

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have marked a breakthrough in the management of a wide range of cancer types, leading to increased overall survival. However, this treatment is frequently associated with the onset of various immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including ICI-related diarrhea and colitis.¹ Current recommendations for patients with diarrhea or colitis grade 2 or higher (graded via CTCAE)² include the discontinuation of ICI and administration of immune suppressants (e.g. steroids or biologics), which may lead to worse outcomes in these patients.³ Therefore, alternative therapeutic strategies to manage irAEs are needed. The gut microbiota plays a pivotal role in the onset of gastrointestinal irAEs, but the role of its therapeutic modulation on these disorders is mostly unknown. ^4,5

Aims & Methods

Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of therapeutic microbiome modulation for gastrointestinal irAEs in cancer patients. We enrolled cancer patients affected by ICI-related diarrhea/colitis referred to our Microbiome Clinic from January 2023 to March 2025. After clinical evaluation, patients were stratified according to severity of diarrhea (graded via CTCAE)² and then received a microbiome-modulating therapy. Patients were followed-up for at least 8 week after the initiation of therapy. We collected data about patient demographics (age and gender), patient’s overall health status as assessed by the the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)⁶, type of cancer, oncological therapy and its suspension, time in weeks from initiation of cancer therapy to onset of diarrhea, severity of diarrhea (graded via CTCAE)², time in weeks until resolution of diarrhea and resumption of oncological therapy

Results

We enrolled 42 patients in the study period (8 males, 34 females, mean age 58,3 years-old, mean CCI-index 5.8). All patients were treated with ICI (Pembrolizumab: n=25 , Dostarlimab: n=4, Nivolumab: n=4; Atezolizumab: n=3; Novulumab and Ipilumab: n=2, Cemiplimab: n=2; Mogamulizumab: n=1; Pertuzumab: n=1). Ten patients experienced G1 diarrhea (23,8%), 16 (38,1) G2, 15 (35,7%) G3 and one G4 (2,4%). As indicated by current European Guidelines³, 30 patients (71,4%) had to interrupt ICI due to diarrhea. Multi-strain probiotics were administered to 27 (64.3% ) patients, rifaximin to 22 (52,4%). Overall, 21 patients (50%) needed therapy with systemic steroids. Seven patients who experienced ICI-related colitis refractory to steroids and biologics were successfully treated with FMT. Twenty-eight patients (66.7% ) had a resolution of the diarrhea (G0) and 11 patients (26.2%) had diarrhea G1 at a mean time of 8 weeks. Upon resolution of diarrhea, nine of the 30 patients who had interrupted ICI (30%) were able to resume the treatment. None of the patients experienced any adverse event related to gut microbiota modulation as defined by CTCAE².

Conclusion

Therapeutic modulation of gut microbiota appears to be a promising safe and effective approach for treating ICI-related diarrhea and colitis. However, these preliminary findings need confirmation through more consolidated and well-designed studies.

References

1. Dougan M, Wang Y, Rubio-Tapia A, Lim JK. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Diagnosis and Management of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Colitis and Hepatitis: Expert Review. Gastroenterology. 2021;160(4):1384-1393. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2020.08.063
2. Freites-Martinez A, Santana N, Arias-Santiago S, Viera A. Using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE - Version 5.0) to Evaluate the Severity of Adverse Events of Anticancer Therapies. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2021;112(1):90-92. doi:10.1016/j.ad.2019.05.009
3. Haanen J, Obeid M, Spain L, et al. Management of toxicities from immunotherapy: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2022;33(12):1217-1238. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2022.10.001
4. Wang Y, Wiesnoski DH, Helmink BA, et al. Fecal microbiota transplantation for refractory immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated colitis. Nat Med. 2018;24(12):1804-1808. doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0238-9
5. Wang T, Zheng N, Luo Q, et al. Probiotics Lactobacillus reuteri Abrogates Immune Checkpoint Blockade-Associated Colitis by Inhibiting Group 3 Innate Lymphoid Cells. Front Immunol. 2019;10. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2019.01235
6. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-383. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8

Disclosure

G.I. has received personal fees for acting as speaker for Biocodex, Danone, Sofar, Malesci, Metagenics and Tillotts Pharma, and for acting as consultant and/or advisor for Ferring Therapeutics, Giuliani, Malesci and Tillotts Pharma. A.G. reports personal fees for consultancy from Eisai Srl, 3PSolutions, Real Time Meeting, Fondazione Istituto Danone, SinergieSrl, Board MRGE and Sanofi SpA personal fees for acting as a speaker for Takeda SpA, AbbVie and Sandoz SpA and personal fees for acting on advisory boards for VSL3 and Eisai. G.C. has received personal fees for acting as advisor for Ferring Therapeutics. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.