Improving cost-effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance for Barrett's esophagus by reducing low-value care: a review of economic evaluations

Diagnosis and management of Barrett esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

MR1 : ESGE recommends the following standards for Barrett esophagus (BE) surveillance:- a minimum of 1-minute inspection time per cm of BE length during a surveillance endoscopy- photodocumentation of landmarks, the BE segment including one picture per cm of BE length, and the esophagogastric junction in retroflexed position, and any visible lesions- use of the Prague and (for visible lesions) Paris classification- collection of biopsies from all visible abnormalities (if present), followed by random four-quadrant biopsies for every 2-cm BE length.Strong recommendation, weak quality of evidence. MR2:  ESGE suggests varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance are advised.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR3:  ESGE suggests that, if a patient has reached 75 years of age at the time of the last surveillance endoscopy and/or the patient's life expectancy is less than 5 years, the discontinuation of further surveillance endoscopies can be considered. Weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence. MR4:  ESGE recommends offering endoscopic eradication therapy using ablation to patients with BE and low grade dysplasia (LGD) on at least two separate endoscopies, both confirmed by a second experienced pathologist.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR5:  ESGE recommends endoscopic ablation treatment for BE with confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD) without visible lesions, to prevent progression to invasive cancer.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR6:  ESGE recommends offering complete eradication of all remaining Barrett epithelium by ablation after endoscopic resection of visible abnormalities containing any degree of dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. MR7:  ESGE recommends endoscopic resection as curative treatment for T1a Barrett's cancer with well/moderate differentiation and no signs of lymphovascular invasion.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR8:  ESGE suggests that low risk submucosal (T1b) EAC (i. e. submucosal invasion depth ≤ 500 µm AND no [lympho]vascular invasion AND no poor tumor differentiation) can be treated by endoscopic resection, provided that adequate follow-up with gastroscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and computed tomography (CT)/positrion emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in expert centers.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR9:  ESGE suggests that submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (tumor invasion > 500 µm into the submucosa), and/or (lympho)vascular invasion, and/or a poor tumor differentiation should be considered high risk. Complete staging and consideration of additional treatments (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and/or surgery) or strict endoscopic follow-up should be undertaken on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR10 A: ESGE recommends that the first endoscopic follow-up after successful endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) of BE is performed in an expert center.Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence. B:  ESGE recommends careful inspection of the neo-squamocolumnar junction and neo-squamous epithelium with high definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy during post-EET surveillance, to detect recurrent dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. C:  ESGE recommends against routine four-quadrant biopsies of neo-squamous epithelium after successful EET of BE.Strong recommendation, low level of evidence. D:  ESGE suggests, after successful EET, obtaining four-quadrant random biopsies just distal to a normal-appearing neo-squamocolumnar junction to detect dysplasia in the absence of visible lesions.Weak recommendation, low level of evidence. E:  ESGE recommends targeted biopsies are obtained where there is a suspicion of recurrent BE in the tubular esophagus, or where there are visible lesions suspicious for dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. MR11:  After successful EET, ESGE recommends the following surveillance intervals:- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of HGD or EAC:at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of LGD:at 1, 3, and 5 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

Gastrointestinal Adenocarcinoma Incidence and Survival Trends in South Australia, 1990-2017

Simple Summary

This study from South Australia using the state’s Cancer Registry data provides compelling evidence for a significant increase in the incidence of young-onset (18–50 years) gastrointestinal (oesophageal, stomach, colon and rectum, and pancreas) adenocarcinomas over the last three decades. The trend observed in the young cohort was not mirrored in older individuals >50 years. This increased incidence, though noted in both sexes, was more pronounced in males compared to females. Survival in the young-onset adenocarcinoma cohort was only seen in patients with colorectal cancers, but not oesophagus, stomach and pancreas. This study calls for a concerted effort aimed at determining the sociodemographic factors underlying this disturbing trend with the aim of developing preventative strategies.

Abstract

Background & Aims: Globally, there has been a concerning rise in the incidence of young-onset cancers. The aim of this study was to provide trends in the incidence and survival of gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas (oesophagus, stomach, pancreas, and colorectal) in South Australia over a 27-year period. Methods: This is a cross-sectional analysis of a prospective longitudinal database including all cases of gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas prospectively reported to the South Australian (State) Cancer Registry from 1990 to 2017. Results: A total of 28,566 patients diagnosed with oesophageal, stomach, pancreatic, or colorectal adenocarcinoma between 1990 and 2017 were included in the study. While the overall incidence for gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas in individuals >50 years has decreased since 2000 (IRR of 0.97 (95% CI 0.94–1.00; p = 0.06)) compared to 1990–1999, the rate amongst individuals aged 18–50 has significantly increased (IRR 1.41 (95% CI 1.27–1.57; p < 0.001)) during the same reference time period. Although noted in both sexes, the rate of increase in incidence was significantly greater in males (11.5 to 19.7/100,000; p < 0.001). The overall survival from adenocarcinomas across all subsites improved in the >50-year cohort in the last decade (HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.86–0.93; p < 0.001)) compared to 1990–1999. In individuals aged 18–50 years, there has only been a significant improvement in survival for colorectal cancer (HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.68–0.99; p < 0.04)), but not the other subsites. A lower overall survival was noted for males in both age cohorts (18–50 years—HR 1.24 (95% CI 1.09–1.13; p < 0.01) and >50 years—HR 1.13 (95% CI 1.10–1.16; p < 0.001), respectively) compared to females. Conclusions: This study from South Australia demonstrates a significant increase in young-onset gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas over the last 28 years, with a greater increase in the male sex. The only significant improvement in survival in this cohort has been noted in colorectal cancer patients.