[Barrett's esophagus. An update]

Gastrointestinal function testing model using a new laryngopharyngeal pH probe (Restech) in patients after Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy

BACKGROUND

There is no established correlation between 24-h esophageal pH-metry (Eso-pH) and the new laryngopharyngeal pH-monitoring system (Restech) as only small case series exist. Eso-pH was not designed to detect laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) and Restech may detect LPR better. We have previously published a dataset using the two techniques in a large patient collective with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Anatomically, patients after esophagectomy were reported to represent an ideal human reflux model as no reflux barrier exists.

AIM

To use a human reflux model to examine our previously published correlation in these patients.

METHODS

Patients after Ivor Lewis esophagectomy underwent our routine follow-up program with surveillance endoscopies, computed tomography scans and further exams following surgery. Only patients with a complete check-up program and reflux symptoms were offered inclusion into this prospective study and evaluated using Restech and simultaneous Eso-pH. Subsequently, the relationship between the two techniques was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 43 patients from May 2016 - November 2018 were included. All patients presented with mainly typical reflux symptoms such as heartburn (74%), regurgitation (84%), chest pain (58%), and dysphagia (47%). Extraesophageal symptoms such as cough, hoarseness, asthma symptoms, and globus sensation were also present. Esophageal 24-hour pH-metry was abnormal in 88% of patients with a mean DeMeester Score of 229.45 [range 26.4-319.5]. Restech evaluation was abnormal in 61% of cases in this highly selective patient cohort. All patients with abnormal supine LPR were also abnormal for supine esophageal reflux measured by conventional Eso-pH.

CONCLUSION

Patients following esophagectomy and reconstruction with gastric interposition can ideally serve as a human reflux model. Interestingly, laryngopharyngeal reflux phases occur mainly in the upright position. In this human volume-reflux model, results of simultaneous esophageal and laryngopharyngeal (Restech) pH-metry showed 100% correlation as being explicable by one of our reflux scenarios.

Endoscopic and histopathologic reflux-associated mucosal damage in the remnant esophagus following transthoracic esophagectomy for cancer-5-year long-term follow-up

Gastroesophageal reflux is a common problem following esophagectomy and reconstruction with gastric interposition. Despite a routine prescription of proton pump inhibitors, reflux-associated mucosal damage in the remnant esophagus is frequently observed. Purpose of this study is to evaluate mucosal damage in the esophageal remnant during long-term follow-up and to compare the prevalence of this damage between the subgroups of esophageal squamous cell and adenocarcinoma. All patients undergoing transthoracic Ivor-Lewis esophagectomy were prospectively entered in our IRB approved database. All patients underwent a routine check-up program with yearly surveillance endoscopies following esophagectomy. Only patients with a complete follow-up were included into this study. Endoscopic and histopathologic mucosal changes of the remnant esophagus were analyzed in close intervals. A total of 50 patients met the inclusion criteria, consisting of 31 adenocarcinomas (AC) and 19 squamous cell carcinomas (SCC). Mucosal damage was already seen 1 year after surgery in 20 patients macroscopically (43%) and in 21 patients microscopically (45%). At 5-year follow-up the prevalence for macroscopic and microscopic damage was 55% and 60%, respectively. The prevalence of mucosal damage was higher in AC patients than in SCC patients (1y-FU: 51% [AC] vs. 28% [SCC]; 5y-FU: 68% [AC] vs. 35% [SCC], P < 0.05). Newly acquired Barrett's esophagus was seen in 10 patients (20%) with two of those patients (20%) showing histopathologic proof of neoplasia. This study shows a high prevalence of reflux-associated mucosal damage in the remnant esophagus one year out of surgery and only a moderate increase in prevalence in the following years. Mucosal damage was more frequently seen in AC patients and the occurrence of de-novo Barrett's esophagus and de-novo neoplasia was high. Endoscopic surveillance with targeted biopsies seems to be an indispensable tool to follow patients after esophagectomy appropriately.

Acetic acid compared with i-scan imaging for detecting Barrett's esophagus: a randomized, comparative trial

BACKGROUND

Traditional surveillance in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) has relied on random biopsies. Targeted biopsies that use advanced imaging modalities may significantly improve detection of specialized columnar epithelium (SCE).

OBJECTIVE

We compared the efficacy of targeted biopsies that used i-scan or acetic acid to random biopsies in the detection of SCE.

DESIGN

Patients with visible columnar lined epithelium or known BE were randomized at a 1:1 ratio to undergo acetic acid application or i-scan with targeted biopsies.

SETTING

Targeted biopsies were performed based on surface architecture according to the Guelrud classification followed by 4-quadrant biopsies.

PATIENTS

A total of 95 patients were randomized.

INTERVENTION

A total of 46 patients underwent acetic acid staining, and 49 underwent i-scan imaging. Random biopsies were performed in 86 patients.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the yield of SCE as confirmed by histologic assessment.

RESULTS

The diagnostic yield for SCE was significantly higher with targeted biopsies than with random biopsies in both groups combined (63% vs 24%; P = .0001). The yield of targeted biopsies was significantly greater with both i-scan (66% vs 21%; P = .009) and acetic acid (57% vs 26%; P = .012) technologies and did not differ between these groups. The accuracy for predicting SCE was 96% (k = .92) for i-scan and 86% (k = .70) for acetic acid analysis.

LIMITATIONS

No dysplastic lesions were found.

CONCLUSION

The i-scan or acetic acid-guided biopsies have a significantly higher diagnostic yield for identifying SCE, with significantly fewer biopsies, as compared with a protocol of random biopsies. Acetic acid and i-scan showed comparable results diagnosing SCE in our study. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01442506.).

GERD-Barrett-Adenocarcinoma: Do We Have Suitable Prognostic and Predictive Molecular Markers?

Due to unfavorable lifestyle habits (unhealthy diet and tobacco abuse) the incidence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in western countries is increasing. The GERD-Barrett-Adenocarcinoma sequence currently lacks well-defined diagnostic, progressive, predictive, and prognostic biomarkers (i) providing an appropriate screening method identifying the presence of the disease, (ii) estimating the risk of evolving cancer, that is, the progression from Barrett's esophagus (BE) to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), (iii) predicting the response to therapy, and (iv) indicating an overall survival—prognosis for EAC patients. Based on histomorphological findings, detailed screening and therapeutic guidelines have been elaborated, although epidemiological studies could not support the postulated increasing progression rates of GERD to BE and EAC. Additionally, proposed predictive and prognostic markers are rather heterogeneous by nature, lack substantial proofs, and currently do not allow stratification of GERD patients for progression, outcome, and therapeutic effectiveness in clinical practice. The aim of this paper is to discuss the current knowledge regarding the GERD-BE-EAC sequence mainly focusing on the disputable and ambiguous status of proposed biomarkers to identify promising and reliable markers in order to provide more detailed insights into pathophysiological mechanisms and thus to improve prognostic and predictive therapeutic approaches.

Adenocarcinoma of the GEJ: gastric or oesophageal cancer?

According to WHO (2010) adenocarcinomas of the esophagogastric junction (GEJ) are defined as tumors that cross the most proximal extent of the gastric folds regardless of where the bulk of the tumor lies. In addition, these neoplasms are now classified as esophageal cancers by UICC (2010). Recent studies, however, revealed two types of carcinogenesis in the distal oesophagus and at the GEJ, one of intestinal type (about 80 %) and the other of gastric type (about 20 %). These are characterized by marked differences in morphology, tumor stage at diagnosis, and prognosis. Furthermore, both cancer types show different targetable biomarker expression profiles such as Her2 in the intestinal and EGFR in the non-intestinal pathway indicating new therapy options. Due to the fact that carcinomas of the intestinal pathway were typically associated with Barrett's mucosa which was not the case in the non-intestinal-type tumors, this challenges the paradigm "no goblets no Barrett's". Moreover, even the cancer risk of intestinal-type metaplasia has seriously been questioned by a Danish population-based study where Barrett's mucosa turned out to be only a weak indicator of esophageal and GEJ cancer (1 case in 860 patients years). Thus, two biologically different types of cancer arise at the GEJ-esophageal and gastric type that open distinctive targeted treatment options and also question our current concept about the diagnostics of potential precursor lesions as well as the associated screening and surveillance strategy.