Detection of palisade vessels as a landmark for Barrett's esophagus in a Western population

Global variations in diagnostic guidelines for Barrett's esophagus

Endoscopic diagnosis of gastroesophageal junction and Barrett's esophagus is essential for surveillance and early detection of esophageal adenocarcinoma and esophagogastric junction cancer. Despite its small size, the gastroesophageal junction has many inherent problems, including marked differences in diagnostic methods for Barrett's esophagus in international guidelines. To define Barrett's esophagus, gastroesophageal junction location should be clarified. Although gastric folds and palisade vessels are landmarks for identifying this junction, they are sometimes difficult to observe due to air entry or reflux esophagitis. The possibility of diagnosing a malignancy associated with Barrett's esophagus <1 cm, identified using palisade vessels, should be re-examined. Nontargeted biopsies of Barrett's esophagus are commonly used to detect intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, and cancer as described in the Seattle protocol. Barrett's esophagus with intestinal metaplasia has a high risk of becoming cancerous. Furthermore, the frequency of cancer in patients with Barrett's esophagus without intestinal metaplasia is high, and the guidelines differ on whether to include the presence of intestinal metaplasia in the diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus. Use of advanced imaging technologies, including narrow-band imaging with magnifying endoscopy and linked color imaging, is reportedly valid for diagnosing Barrett's esophagus. Furthermore, artificial intelligence has facilitated the diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus through its deep learning and image recognition capabilities. However, it is necessary to first use the endoscopic definition of the gastroesophageal junction, which is common in all countries, and then elucidate the characteristics of Barrett's esophagus in each region, for example, length differences in the risk of carcinogenesis with and without intestinal metaplasia.

Kyoto international consensus report on anatomy, pathophysiology and clinical significance of the gastro-oesophageal junction

OBJECTIVE

An international meeting was organised to develop consensus on (1) the landmarks to define the gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ), (2) the occurrence and pathophysiological significance of the cardiac gland, (3) the definition of the gastro-oesophageal junctional zone (GOJZ) and (4) the causes of inflammation, metaplasia and neoplasia occurring in the GOJZ.

DESIGN

Clinical questions relevant to the afore-mentioned major issues were drafted for which expert panels formulated relevant statements and textural explanations.A Delphi method using an anonymous system was employed to develop the consensus, the level of which was predefined as ≥80% of agreement. Two rounds of voting and amendments were completed before the meeting at which clinical questions and consensus were finalised.

RESULTS

Twenty eight clinical questions and statements were finalised after extensive amendments. Critical consensus was achieved: (1) definition for the GOJ, (2) definition of the GOJZ spanning 1 cm proximal and distal to the GOJ as defined by the end of palisade vessels was accepted based on the anatomical distribution of cardiac type gland, (3) chemical and bacterial (Helicobacter pylori) factors as the primary causes of inflammation, metaplasia and neoplasia occurring in the GOJZ, (4) a new definition of Barrett's oesophagus (BO).

CONCLUSIONS

This international consensus on the new definitions of BO, GOJ and the GOJZ will be instrumental in future studies aiming to resolve many issues on this important anatomic area and hopefully will lead to better classification and management of the diseases surrounding the GOJ.

Rio de Janeiro Global Consensus on Landmarks, Definitions, and Classifications in Barrett's Esophagus: World Endoscopy Organization Delphi Study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Despite the significant advances made in the diagnosis and treatment of Barrett's esophagus (BE), there is still a need for standardized definitions, appropriate recognition of endoscopic landmarks, and consistent use of classification systems. Current controversies in basic definitions of BE and the relative lack of anatomic knowledge are significant barriers to uniform documentation. We aimed to provide consensus-driven recommendations for uniform reporting and global application.

METHODS

The World Endoscopy Organization Barrett's Esophagus Committee appointed leaders to develop an evidence-based Delphi study. A working group of 6 members identified and formulated 23 statements, and 30 internationally recognized experts from 18 countries participated in 3 rounds of voting. We defined consensus as agreement by ≥80% of experts for each statement and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool to assess the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations.

RESULTS

After 3 rounds of voting, experts achieved consensus on 6 endoscopic landmarks (palisade vessels, gastroesophageal junction, squamocolumnar junction, lesion location, extraluminal compressions, and quadrant orientation), 13 definitions (BE, hiatus hernia, squamous islands, columnar islands, Barrett's endoscopic therapy, endoscopic resection, endoscopic ablation, systematic inspection, complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia, complete eradication of dysplasia, residual disease, recurrent disease, and failure of endoscopic therapy), and 4 classification systems (Prague, Los Angeles, Paris, and Barrett's International NBI Group). In round 1, 18 statements (78%) reached consensus, with 12 (67%) receiving strong agreement from more than half of the experts. In round 2, 4 of the remaining statements (80%) reached consensus, with 1 statement receiving strong agreement from 50% of the experts. In the third round, a consensus was reached on the remaining statement.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed evidence-based, consensus-driven statements on endoscopic landmarks, definitions, and classifications of BE. These recommendations may facilitate global uniform reporting in BE.

Endoscopic diagnosis and screening of Barrett's esophagus: Inconsistency of diagnostic criteria between Japan and Western countries

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is an endoscopically identifiable premalignant condition for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). To diagnose BE precisely, careful inspection of the anatomic landmarks, including the esophagogastric junction and the squamocolumnar junction is important. The distal end of the palisade vessels and the proximal end of the gastric folds are used as the landmark of the esophagogastric junction in endoscopic diagnosis, with the latter solely used internationally, except in some Asian countries, including Japan. In addition, the diagnostic criteria adopted internationally for BE are inconsistent, particularly between Japan and Western countries. Recently updated guidelines in Western countries have included length criteria, with a 1‐cm threshold of columnar epithelium by endoscopic observation and/or histologic confirmation of the presence of specialized intestinal metaplasia. Since BE is endoscopically diagnosed at any length without histologic assessment in Japan, the reported prevalence of short‐segment BE is very high in Japan compared with that in Western countries. Although guidelines on screening exist for BE, the current strategies based on the presence of chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease with multiple risk factors may miss the opportunity for early detection of EAC. Indeed, up to 40% of patients with EAC have no history of chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease. To discuss BE on the same footing worldwide, standardization of diagnostic criteria, screening indication, and establishment of effective techniques for detecting dysplastic lesions are eagerly awaited. Japanese guidelines for BE should be revised regarding the length criteria, including the minimum length and long‐segment BE, in line with the recently updated Western guidelines.

Attending Training Courses on Barrett's Esophagus Improves Adherence to Guidelines: A Survey from the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Little is known on practice patterns of endoscopists for the management of Barrett's esophagus (BE) over the last decade.

AIMS

Our aim was to assess practice patterns of endoscopists for the diagnosis, surveillance and treatment of BE.

METHODS

All members of the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) were invited to participate to a questionnaire-based survey. The questionnaire included questions on demographic and professional characteristics, and on diagnosis and management strategies for BE.

RESULTS

Of the 883 SIED members, 259 (31.1%) completed the questionnaire. Of these, 73% were males, 42.9% had > 50 years of age and 68.7% practiced in community hospitals. The majority (82.9%) of participants stated to use the Prague classification; however 34.5% did not use the top of gastric folds to identify the gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ); only 51.4% used advanced endoscopy imaging routinely. Almost all respondents practiced endoscopic surveillance for non-dysplastic BE, but 43.7% performed eradication in selected cases and 30% practiced surveillance every 1-2 years. The majority of endoscopists managed low-grade dysplasia with surveillance (79.1%) and high-grade dysplasia with ablation (77.1%). Attending a training course on BE in the previous 5 years was significantly associated with the use of the Prague classification (OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.9-12.1), the top of gastric folds as landmark for the GEJ (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.27-4.74) and advanced imaging endoscopic techniques (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.53-7.29).

CONCLUSIONS

Practice patterns for management of BE among endoscopists are variable. Attending training courses on BE improves adherence to guidelines.

Accuracy of Preoperative Endoscopy in Determining Tumor Location Required for Surgical Planning for Esophagogastric Junction Cancer

PURPOSE

The surgical strategy for esophagogastric junction (EGJ) cancer depends on the tumor location as measured relative to the EGJ line. The purpose of this study was to clarify the accuracy of diagnostic endoscopy in different clinicopathological backgrounds.

METHODS

Subjects were 74 consecutive patients with abdominal esophagus to upper gastric cancer who underwent surgical resection. Image-enhanced endoscopy with narrow-band imaging (NBI) was used to determine the EGJ line, prioritizing the presence of palisade vessels, followed by the upper end of gastric folds, as a landmark. The relative positional relationship between the tumor epicenter and the EGJ line was classified into six categories, and the agreement between endoscopic and pathologic diagnoses was examined to evaluate prediction accuracy.

RESULTS

The concordance rate of 69 eligible cases was 87% with a kappa coefficient (K) of 0.81. The palisade vessels were observed in 62/69 patients (89.9%). Of the 37 pathological EGJ cancers centered within 2 cm above and below the EGJ line, Barrett's esophagus was found to be a significant risk factor for discordance (risk ratio, 4.40; p = 0.042); the concordance rate of 60% (K = 0.50) in the Barrett's esophagus group was lower than the rate of 91% (K = 0.84) in the non-Barrett's esophagus group. In five of six discordant cases, the EGJ line was estimated to be proximal to the actual line.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic endoscopy is beneficial for estimating the location of EGJ cancer, with a risk of underestimating esophageal invasion length in patients with Barrett's esophagus.

Inter-institutional variations regarding Barrett's esophagus diagnosis

BACKGROUND

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a known precursor for development of esophageal adenocarcinoma and surveillance of affected patients is necessary when cancer progression risk is considered to be high. However, the accuracy of BE diagnosis may not be homogenous among institutions with endoscopy units. We investigated inter-institutional variability by examining the accuracy of endoscopic diagnosis of BE at 4 different hospitals.

METHODS

The accuracy of BE diagnosis at the 4 hospitals was retrospectively reviewed by 6 expert endoscopists, who independently reviewed endoscopic images of approximately 500 consecutive patients examined at each hospital without information regarding the diagnosis by the on-site endoscopists. When the expert reviewers made different diagnosis, a final diagnosis was made by consensus. That was then compared with the diagnosis of the attending endoscopists at each hospital and their concordance was calculated separately for each endoscopy unit. In addition, the relationship between diagnostic accuracy and endoscopic experience was assessed.

RESULTS

The prevalence of BE diagnosis by the on-site endoscopists was not homogenous and varied widely (17.2-96.8%). In 1 hospital, over-diagnosis was the cause of dissimilarity, while under-diagnosis was the cause in two hospitals. Diagnostic accuracy by the attending endoscopists in all 4 hospitals ranged from 44.6 to 83.1% (P < 0.05). There was no significant association between diagnostic accuracy and endoscopic experience or board licensing status of the on-site endoscopists.

CONCLUSION

Diagnostic accuracy for BE was not homogenous among 4 hospitals, and problems related to over- and under-diagnosis should be considered.