Pre-Surgical Endoscopic Biopsies Are Representative of Esophageal and Esophago-Gastric Junction Adenocarcinoma Histologic Classes and Survival Risk.

Abstract

Background and Objectives: The Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Study Group Europe (EACSGE) recently proposed a granular histologic classification of esophageal-esophago-gastric junctional adenocarcinomas (EA-EGJAs) based on the study of naïve surgically resected specimens that, when combined with the pTNM stage, is an efficient indicator of prognosis, molecular events, and response to treatment. In this study, we compared histologic classes of endoscopic biopsies taken before surgical resection with those of the surgical specimen, to evaluate the potential of the EACSGE classification at the initial diagnostic workup. Methods: A total of 106 EA-EGJA cases with available endoscopic biopsies and matched surgical resection specimens were retrieved from five Italian institutions. Histologic classification was performed on all specimens to identify well-differentiated glandular adenocarcinoma (WD-GAC), poorly differentiated glandular adenocarcinoma (PD-GAC), mucinous muconodular carcinoma (MMC), infiltrative mucinous carcinoma (IMC), diffuse desmoplastic carcinoma, diffuse anaplastic carcinoma (DAC), and mixed subtypes. Related risk subgroups (low-risk versus high-risk) were also assessed. The correlations of histologic classes and risk subgroups between diagnostic biopsies and surgical resection specimens were explored with Spearman's correlation test. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives were also calculated. Results: A strong positive correlation between biopsies and surgical specimens occurred for both histologic classes (coefficient: 0.75, p < 0.001) and risk subgroups (coefficient: 0.65, p < 0.001). The highest sensitivities and specificities were observed for MMC, IMC, and DAC (100% and 99% for all), followed by WD-GAC (sensitivity 91%, specificity 79%) and PD-GAC (sensitivity 722%, specificity 86%). The low-risk and high-risk groups presented a sensitivity and specificity of 89% and 76% (low-risk) and 76% and 89% (high-risk). Conclusions: The EACSGE histologic classification of EA-EGJAs and associated prognostic subgroups can be reliably assessed on pre-operative diagnostic biopsies. Further studies on larger and more representative cohorts of EA-EGJAs will allow us to validate our findings and confirm if the EA-EGJA biopsy histomorphology and clinical TNM staging will be as efficient as the surgical specimen histomorphology and pTNM in predicting patient prognoses and tailoring personalized therapeutic approaches.