Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate thoraco-laparoscopic McKeown esophagectomy (TLME) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for clinical-T1N0 esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) depending on invasion depth. BACKGROUND: Early-stage ESCC has been widely treated by endoscopic resection. While ESD is safer than esophagectomy perioperatively, its survival benefits for clinical-T1N0M0 ESCC, especially high-risk T1b tumors, are unclear. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on clinical-T1N0 ESCC patients at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University comparing TLME (cT1a, n = 352; cT1b, n = 205) with ESD (cT1a, n = 499; cT1b, n = 62). Overall survival (OS), disease-specific survival (DSS), relapse-free survival (RFS), and metastasis-free survival (MFS) were analyzed depending on invasion depth after propensity score matching to account for selection bias. RESULTS: ESD group had better OS (hazard ratio: 0.54, p = 0.029) but worse RFS (hazard ratio: 6.83, p < 0.001) than TLME group in general terms. T1a cancers showed no difference in DSS and MFS between groups. T1b subgroup with ESD had lower DSS (hazard ratio: 5.65, p = 0.036) and MFS (hazard ratio: 3.54, p = 0.069). R1-resection in ESD group linked to poorer OS (hazard ratio: 5.89, p = 0.006) and DSS (hazard ratio: 3.67, p = 0.006). CONCLUSION: ESD can be safe in the treatment of clinical-T1aN0 ESCC. However, concerning oncologic curability, TLME should be recommended for patients with clinical-T1bN0 ESCC in terms of favorable DSS, RFS, and MFS.