Comparison of endoscopic treatment modalities for Barrett's neoplasia

Efficacy and safety outcomes of multimodal endoscopic eradication therapy in Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia: a systematic review and pooled analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Focal EMR followed by radiofrequency ablation (f-EMR + RFA) and stepwise or complete EMR (s-EMR) are established strategies for eradication of Barrett's esophagus (BE)-related high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and/or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC)/intramucosal carcinoma (IMC). The objective of this study was to derive pooled rates of efficacy and safety of individual methods in a large cohort of patients with BE and to indirectly compare the 2 methods.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and major conference proceedings were searched. A systematic review and pooled analysis were carried out to determine the following outcomes in patients with BE undergoing either f-EMR + RFA or s-EMR: (1) complete eradication rates of neoplasia (CE-N) and intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM); (2) recurrence rates of cancer (EAC), dysplasia, and IM; (3) incidence rates of adverse events. Mixed logistic regression was performed as an exploratory analysis to examine differences in outcomes between the 2 methods.

RESULTS

Nine studies (774 patients) of f-EMR + RFA and 11 studies (751 patients) of s-EMR were included. Patients undergoing f-EMR + RFA had high BE eradication rates (CE-N, 93.4%; CE-IM, 73.1%), whereas strictures occurred in 10.2%, bleeding in 1.1%, and perforations in 0.2% of patients. Recurrence of EAC, dysplasia, and IM was 1.4%, 2.6%, and 16.1%, respectively, in this group. Patients undergoing s-EMR also showed high BE eradication rates (CE-N, 94.9%; CE-IM, 79.6%) but a higher rate of adverse events (strictures in 33.5%, bleeding in 7.5%, and perforation in 1.3%). Recurrence of EAC, dysplasia, and IM was 0.7%, 3.3%, and 12.1%, respectively, in the s-EMR group. Mixed logistic regression showed that patients undergoing s-EMR might be more likely to develop esophageal strictures (odds ratio [OR], 4.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.61-13.85; P = .005), perforation (OR, 7.00; 95% CI, 1.56-31.33; P = .01), and bleeding (OR, 6.88; 95% CI, 2.19-21.62; P = 0.001) compared with f-EMR + RFA.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HGD/EAC, f-EMR followed by RFA seems to be equally effective as and safer than s-EMR.

Barrett's esophagus: best practices for treatment and post-treatment surveillance

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a premalignant condition that increases the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Significantly more common in the Western world, risk factors include increased age, male sex, white race, gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD), central obesity, and cigarette smoking. The rates of progression to cancer depend on the grade of Barrett's dysplasia. Screening for BE is recommended in patients with GERD and additional risk factors. Endoscopic surveillance of patients with BE likely improves overall outcomes. Advanced endoscopic imaging can help increase the efficiency of current endoscopic surveillance. Endoscopic therapy is safe and effective for the treatment of dysplastic BE and intramucosal EAC, but ongoing surveillance following treatment is necessary. This review will cover screening, surveillance, advanced imaging, chemoprevention, endoscopic treatment, and post-treatment surveillance of BE.

Oncologic Photodynamic Therapy: Basic Principles, Current Clinical Status and Future Directions

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a clinically approved cancer therapy, based on a photochemical reaction between a light activatable molecule or photosensitizer, light, and molecular oxygen. When these three harmless components are present together, reactive oxygen species are formed. These can directly damage cells and/or vasculature, and induce inflammatory and immune responses. PDT is a two-stage procedure, which starts with photosensitizer administration followed by a locally directed light exposure, with the aim of confined tumor destruction. Since its regulatory approval, over 30 years ago, PDT has been the subject of numerous studies and has proven to be an effective form of cancer therapy. This review provides an overview of the clinical trials conducted over the last 10 years, illustrating how PDT is applied in the clinic today. Furthermore, examples from ongoing clinical trials and the most recent preclinical studies are presented, to show the directions, in which PDT is headed, in the near and distant future. Despite the clinical success reported, PDT is still currently underutilized in the clinic. We also discuss the factors that hamper the exploration of this effective therapy and what should be changed to render it a more effective and more widely available option for patients.

Complications of therapeutic gastroscopy/colonoscopy other than resection

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is profoundly utilized for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. The therapeutic potential of GI endoscopy has amplified many folds with the evolution of novel techniques as well as equipments. However, with the augmentation of therapeutic endoscopy, the extent, likelihood and severity of adverse events have increased as well. The attendant risks and adverse events with therapeutic endoscopy are many folds that of diagnostic endoscopy. Besides endoscopic resection, therapeutic endoscopy is widely utilized for hemostasis in GI bleeds, dilatation of stenosis, enteral stenting, foreign body removal, ablation of Barrett's esophagus etc. Major adverse events associated with interventional endoscopic procedures include bleeding and perforation. Adverse events of endoscopic interventions are diverse and related to the underlying disease, therapeutic modality used and operator's experience. Many of these adverse events can be prevented. Early recognition of an unavoidable adverse event is important to minimize the associated morbidity and mortality.

Adverse Events After Radiofrequency Ablation in Patients With Barrett's Esophagus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with or without endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is routinely used for treatment of Barrett's esophagus with dysplasia. Despite the relative safety of this method, there have been imprecise estimates of the rate of adverse events. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the rate of adverse events associated with RFA with and without EMR.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central through October 22, 2014. The primary outcome of interest was the overall rate of adverse events after RFA with or without EMR. We used forest plots to contrast effect sizes among studies.

RESULTS

Of 1521 articles assessed, 37 met our inclusion criteria (comprising 9200 patients). The pooled rate of all adverse events from RFA with or without EMR was 8.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.5%-11.9%); 5.6% of patients developed strictures (95% CI, 4.2%-7.4%), 1% had bleeding (95% CI, 0.8%-1.3%), and 0.6% developed a perforation (95% CI, 0.4%-0.9%). In studies that compared RFA with vs without EMR, the relative risk for adverse events was significantly higher for RFA with EMR (4.4) (P = .015). There was a trend toward higher proportions of adverse events in prospective studies compared with retrospective studies (11.3% vs 7.8%, P = .20). Other factors associated with adverse events included Barrett's esophagus and length and baseline histology.

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found the relative risk for adverse events from RFA to be about 4-fold higher with EMR than without; we identified factors associated with these events. Endoscopists should discuss these risks with patients before endoscopic eradication therapy.