# Comparative analyses of short‐ and long‐term outcomes between endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic laryngo‐pharyngeal surgery for superficial pharyngeal carcinomas

## TL;DR

This study compares two endoscopic treatments for early throat cancer, finding similar long-term outcomes but faster procedure times with one method.

## Contribution

The study provides a direct comparison of ESD and ELPS for superficial pharyngeal carcinomas, highlighting their relative advantages.

## Key findings

- ELPS had shorter procedure times and less laryngeal edema compared to ESD.
- Both techniques showed similar 3-year survival and relapse-free rates.
- Combining ESD with ELPS is recommended for treating narrow areas like the esophageal inlet patch.

## Abstract

Endoscopic treatment of superficial pharyngeal carcinomas includes endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD; usually performed by endoscopists), and endoscopic laryngo‐pharyngeal surgery (ELPS; primarily performed by otolaryngologists). Few studies have compared the efficacy of the two techniques in treating superficial pharyngeal carcinomas. In this study, we compared the outcomes of these two techniques to determine the advantages.

We retrospectively examined the short‐ and long‐term outcomes of 93 consecutive patients with superficial pharyngeal carcinoma who either underwent an ESD or ELPS between August 2008 and December 2021.

There were 35 lesions among 29 patients and 93 lesions among 71 patients in the ESD and ELPS groups, respectively. The ELPS group had a significantly shorter procedure time (121.2 ± 97.4 min vs. 54.7 ± 40.2 min, p<0.01), greater procedure speed (0.10 ± 0.06 min/min vs. 0.30 ± 0.23 min/min, p<0.01), and less laryngeal edema than that of the ESD group. There were no significant differences in the 3‐year overall, relapse‐free, or disease‐specific survival rates between the two groups. Intervention with ESD during ELPS was most commonly required when it was difficult to secure the visual field.

There were no differences in batch resection rates or long‐term prognoses between the two groups; nevertheless, the ELPS group had a shorter treatment time and less laryngeal edema than the ESD group. However, the treatment of narrow areas, such as the esophageal inlet patch, is a technical limitation of ELPS; thus, ELPS should be combined with ESD techniques.