1
|
Iyer PG, Slettedahl SW, Mahoney DW, Giakoumopoulos M, Olson MC, Krockenberger M, Taylor WR, Foote P, Berger C, Leggett C, Wu TT, Antpack E, Falk GW, Ginsberg GG, Abrams JA, Lightdale CJ, Ramirez F, Kahn A, Wolfsen H, Konda V, Trindade AJ, Kisiel JB. Algorithm Training and Testing for a Nonendoscopic Barrett's Esophagus Detection Test in Prospective Multicenter Cohorts. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024; 22:1596-1604.e4. [PMID: 38513982 PMCID: PMC11272429 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.03.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/18/2023] [Revised: 02/28/2024] [Accepted: 03/05/2024] [Indexed: 03/23/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS Endoscopic Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) detection is invasive and expensive. Nonendoscopic BE/EAC detection tools are guideline-endorsed alternatives. We previously described a 5-methylated DNA marker (MDM) panel assayed on encapsulated sponge cell collection device (CCD) specimens. We aimed to train a new algorithm using a 3-MDM panel and test its performance in an independent cohort. METHODS Algorithm training and test samples were from 2 prospective multicenter cohorts. All BE cases had esophageal intestinal metaplasia (with or without dysplasia/EAC); control subjects had no endoscopic evidence of BE. The CCD procedure was followed by endoscopy. From CCD cell lysates, DNA was extracted, bisulfite treated, and MDMs were blindly assayed. The algorithm was set and locked using cross-validated logistic regression (training set) and its performance was assessed in an independent test set. RESULTS Training (N = 352) and test (N = 125) set clinical characteristics were comparable. The final panel included 3 MDMs (NDRG4, VAV3, ZNF682). Overall sensitivity was 82% (95% CI, 68%-94%) at 90% (79%-98%) specificity and 88% (78%-94%) sensitivity at 84% (70%-93%) specificity in training and test sets, respectively. Sensitivity was 90% and 68% for all long- and short-segment BE, respectively. Sensitivity for BE with high-grade dysplasia and EAC was 100% in training and test sets. Overall sensitivity for nondysplastic BE was 82%. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for BE detection were 0.92 and 0.94 in the training and test sets, respectively. CONCLUSIONS A locked 3-MDM panel algorithm for BE/EAC detection using a nonendoscopic CCD demonstrated excellent sensitivity for high-risk BE cases in independent validation samples. (Clinical trials.gov: NCT02560623, NCT03060642.).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Prasad G Iyer
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| | - Seth W Slettedahl
- Division of Clinical Trials, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Douglas W Mahoney
- Division of Clinical Trials, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | | | | | - William R Taylor
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Patrick Foote
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Calise Berger
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Cadman Leggett
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Tsung-Teh Wu
- Department of Anatomic Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Eduardo Antpack
- Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic Health System, Austin, Minnesota
| | - Gary W Falk
- University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Gregory G Ginsberg
- University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Julian A Abrams
- Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Charles J Lightdale
- Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
| | - Francisco Ramirez
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Allon Kahn
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona
| | - Herbert Wolfsen
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida
| | - Vani Konda
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
| | - Arvind J Trindade
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, New York
| | - John B Kisiel
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kalra A, Meltzer SJ. The Role of DNA Methylation in Gastrointestinal Disease: An Expanded Review of Malignant and Nonmalignant Gastrointestinal Diseases. Gastroenterology 2024:S0016-5085(24)05185-0. [PMID: 38971197 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.07.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/10/2023] [Revised: 06/20/2024] [Accepted: 07/01/2024] [Indexed: 07/08/2024]
Abstract
Esophageal, colorectal, pancreatic, hepatocellular, and gastric cancer together impact millions of patients worldwide each year, with high overall mortality rates, and are increasing in incidence. Additionally, premalignant gastrointestinal diseases, such as Barrett's esophagus and inflammatory bowel disease, are also increasing in incidence. However, involvement of aberrant DNA methylation in these diseases is incompletely understood, especially given recent research advancements in this field. Here, we review knowledge of this epigenetic mechanism in gastrointestinal preneoplasia and neoplasia, considering mechanisms of action, genetic and environmental factors, and 5'-C-phosphate-G-3' island methylator phenotype. We also highlight developments in translational research, focusing on genomic-wide database data, methylation-based biomarkers and diagnostic tests, machine learning, and therapeutic epigenetic strategies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Kalra
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Stephen J Meltzer
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Saha B, Vantanasiri K, Mohan BP, Goyal R, Garg N, Gerberi D, Kisiel JB, Singh S, Iyer PG. Prevalence of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma With and Without Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024; 22:1381-1394.e7. [PMID: 37879525 PMCID: PMC11039569 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2023.10.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/12/2023] [Revised: 09/27/2023] [Accepted: 10/02/2023] [Indexed: 10/27/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Although gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms are an essential criterion for Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening in most gastroenterology society guidelines, a significant proportion of BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) cases do not endorse them. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to study the prevalence of BE/EAC in those with and without GERD. METHODS A systematic search was conducted through 5 major databases for studies reporting prevalence of BE/EAC in patients with and without GERD. Pooled proportions and odds ratios (ORs) of BE, long-segment BE, short-segment BE, dysplasia, and EAC in patients with and without GERD were synthesized. RESULTS Forty-three articles (12,883 patients with GERD; 51,350 patients without GERD) were included in the final analysis. BE prevalence was 7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.8%-8.5%) and 2.2% (95% CI, 1.6%-3%) among individuals with and without GERD, respectively. EAC prevalence was 0.6% (95% CI, 0.4%-1%) and 0.1% (95% CI, 0%-0.2%) in those with and without GERD, respectively. The overall risks for BE (OR, 2.91; 95% CI, 2.06-4.11) and long-segment BE (OR,4.17; 95% CI, 1.78-9.77) were higher in patients with GERD, but the risk for short-segment BE (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.89-3.52) did not differ between the two groups. In 9 population-based high-quality studies (2244 patients with GERD; 3724 patients without GERD), BE prevalence in patients without GERD was 4.9% (95% CI, 2.6%-9%). BE prevalence was highest in North American studies (10.6% [GERD] and 4.8% [non-GERD]). CONCLUSIONS BE prevalence in those without GERD is substantial, particularly in large high-quality population-based studies. These data are important to factor in future BE/EAC early detection guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bibek Saha
- Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Kornpong Vantanasiri
- Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Babu P Mohan
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Rohit Goyal
- Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Nikita Garg
- Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | | | - John B Kisiel
- Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Siddharth Singh
- Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, UC San Diego, La Jolla, California
| | - Prasad G Iyer
- Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Yoo JW, Laszkowska M, Mendelsohn RB. The Role of Screening and Early Detection in Upper Gastrointestinal Cancers. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 2024; 38:693-710. [PMID: 38431494 DOI: 10.1016/j.hoc.2024.01.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/05/2024]
Abstract
Upper gastrointestinal cancers are among the leading causes of cancer deaths worldwide with exceptionally poor prognosis, which is largely attributable to frequently delayed diagnosis. Although effective screening is critical for early detection, the highly variable incidence of upper gastrointestinal cancers presents challenges, rendering universal screening programs suboptimal in most populations globally. Optimal strategies in regions of modest incidence, such as the United States, require a targeted approach, focused on high-risk individuals based on demographic, familial, and clinicopathologic risk factors. Assessment of underlying precancerous lesions has key implications for risk stratification and informing clinical decisions to improve patient outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jin Woo Yoo
- Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA.
| | - Monika Laszkowska
- Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA
| | - Robin B Mendelsohn
- Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition Service, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10065, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Xu Y, Wang Z, Pei B, Wang J, Xue Y, Zhao G. DNA methylation markers in esophageal cancer. Front Genet 2024; 15:1354195. [PMID: 38774285 PMCID: PMC11106492 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2024.1354195] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/12/2023] [Accepted: 04/19/2024] [Indexed: 05/24/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Esophageal cancer (EC) is a prevalent malignancy characterized by a low 5-year survival rate, primarily attributed to delayed diagnosis and limited therapeutic options. Currently, early detection of EC heavily relies on endoscopy and pathological examination, which pose challenges due to their invasiveness and high costs, leading to low patient compliance. The detection of DNA methylation offers a non-endoscopic, cost-effective, and secure approach that holds promising prospects for early EC detection. Methods To identify improved methylation markers for early EC detection, we conducted a comprehensive review of relevant literature, summarized the performance of DNA methylation markers based on different input samples and analytical methods in EC early detection and screening. Findings This review reveals that blood cell free DNA methylation-based method is an effective non-invasive method for early detection of EC, although there is still a need to improve its sensitivity and specificity. Another highly sensitive and specific non-endoscopic approach for early detection of EC is the esophageal exfoliated cells based-DNA methylation analysis. However, while there are substantial studies in esophageal adenocarcinoma, further more validation is required in esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Conclusion In conclusion, DNA methylation detection holds significant potential as an early detection and screening technology for EC.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yongle Xu
- Suzhou Municipal Hospital, Gusu School, The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing Medical University, Suzhou, China
| | - Zhenzhen Wang
- Department of Laboratory Medicine, Affiliated Xuzhou Maternity and Child Healthcare Hospital of Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou, China
| | - Bing Pei
- Department of Clinical Laboratory, The Affiliated Suqian First People’s Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Suqian, China
| | - Jie Wang
- Department of Spleen and Stomach Diseases, Kunshan Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Kunshan, China
| | - Ying Xue
- Suzhou Municipal Hospital, Gusu School, The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing Medical University, Suzhou, China
| | - Guodong Zhao
- Department of Spleen and Stomach Diseases, Kunshan Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Kunshan, China
- Zhejiang University of Technology, Hangzhou, China
- ZJUT Yinhu Research Institute of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Hangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Vantanasiri K, Kamboj AK, Kisiel JB, Iyer PG. Advances in Screening for Barrett Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma. Mayo Clin Proc 2024; 99:459-473. [PMID: 38276943 PMCID: PMC10922282 DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2023.07.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2023] [Revised: 07/11/2023] [Accepted: 07/18/2023] [Indexed: 01/27/2024]
Abstract
Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), the primary form of esophageal cancer in the United States, is a lethal cancer with exponentially increasing incidence. Screening for Barrett esophagus (BE), the only known precursor to EAC, followed by endoscopic surveillance to detect dysplasia and early-stage EAC and subsequent endoscopic treatment (to prevent progression of dysplasia to EAC and to treat early-stage EAC effectively) is recommended by several society guidelines. Sedated endoscopy (the primary current tool for BE screening) is both invasive and expensive, limiting its widespread use. In this review, we aim to provide a comprehensive review of recent innovations in the nonendoscopic detection of BE and EAC. These include swallowable cell sampling devices combined with protein and epigenetic biomarkers (which are now guideline endorsed as alternatives to sedated endoscopy), tethered capsule endomicroscopy, emerging peripheral blood-sampled molecular biomarkers, and exhaled volatile organic compounds. We also summarize progress and challenges in assessing BE and EAC risk, which is an important complementary component of the process for the clinical implementation of these innovative nonendoscopic tools, and propose a new paradigm for the strategy to reduce EAC incidence and mortality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kornpong Vantanasiri
- Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Amrit K Kamboj
- Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - John B Kisiel
- Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
| | - Prasad G Iyer
- Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Agarwal S, Bell MG, Dhaliwal L, Codipilly DC, Dierkhising RA, Lansing R, Gibbons EE, Leggett CL, Kisiel JB, Iyer PG. Population Based Time Trends in the Epidemiology and Mortality of Gastroesophageal Junction and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma. Dig Dis Sci 2024; 69:246-253. [PMID: 37914889 PMCID: PMC10926253 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-023-08126-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2023] [Accepted: 07/02/2023] [Indexed: 11/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Limited data are available on the epidemiology of gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEJAC), particularly in comparison to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). With the advent of molecular non-endoscopic Barrett's esophagus (BE) detection tests which sample the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction, early detection of EAC and GEJAC has become a possibility and their epidemiology has gained importance. AIMS We sought to evaluate time trends in the epidemiology and survival of patients with EAC and GEJAC in a population-based cohort. METHODS EAC and GEJAC patients from 1976 to 2019 were identified using ICD 9 and 10 diagnostic codes from the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP). Clinical data and survival status were abstracted. Poisson regression was used to calculate incidence rate ratios (IRR). Survival analysis and Cox proportional models were used to assess predictors of survival. RESULTS We included 443 patients (287 EAC,156 GEJAC). The incidence of EAC and GEJAC during 1976-2019 was 1.40 (CI 1.1-1.74) and 0.83 (CI 0.61-1.11) per 100,000 people, respectively. There was an increase in the incidence of EAC (IRR = 2.45, p = 0.011) and GEJAC (IRR = 3.17, p = 0.08) from 2000 to 2004 compared to 1995-1999, plateauing in later time periods. Most patients had associated BE and presented at advanced stages, leading to high 5-year mortality rates (66% in EAC and 59% in GEJAC). Age and stage at diagnosis were predictors of mortality. CONCLUSION The rising incidence of EAC/GEJAC appears to have plateaued somewhat in the last decade. However, both cancers present at advanced stages with persistently poor survival, underscoring the need for early detection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Siddharth Agarwal
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Matthew G Bell
- Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Lovekirat Dhaliwal
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - D Chamil Codipilly
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Ross A Dierkhising
- Division of Clinical Trials and Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Ramona Lansing
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Erin E Gibbons
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Cadman L Leggett
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - John B Kisiel
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
| | - Prasad G Iyer
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Weusten BLAM, Bisschops R, Dinis-Ribeiro M, di Pietro M, Pech O, Spaander MCW, Baldaque-Silva F, Barret M, Coron E, Fernández-Esparrach G, Fitzgerald RC, Jansen M, Jovani M, Marques-de-Sa I, Rattan A, Tan WK, Verheij EPD, Zellenrath PA, Triantafyllou K, Pouw RE. Diagnosis and management of Barrett esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2023; 55:1124-1146. [PMID: 37813356 DOI: 10.1055/a-2176-2440] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/11/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bas L A M Weusten
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
| | - Raf Bisschops
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospitals Leuven, TARGID, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Mario Dinis-Ribeiro
- Department of Gastroenterology, Porto Comprehensive Cancer Center, and RISE@CI-IPOP (Health Research Network), Porto Portugal
| | - Massimiliano di Pietro
- Early Cancer Institute, University of Cambridge and Department of Gastroenterology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Oliver Pech
- Department of Gastroenterology and Interventional Endoscopy, St. John of God Hospital, Regensburg, Germany
| | - Manon C W Spaander
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Francisco Baldaque-Silva
- Advanced Endoscopy Center Carlos Moreira da Silva, Department of Gastroenterology, Pedro Hispano Hospital, Matosinhos, Portugal
- Division of Medicine, Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Maximilien Barret
- Department of Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, Cochin Hospital and University of Paris, Paris, France
| | - Emmanuel Coron
- Institut des Maladies de l'Appareil Digestif, IMAD, Centre hospitalier universitaire Hôtel-Dieu, Nantes, Nantes, France
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital of Geneva (HUG), Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Glòria Fernández-Esparrach
- Endoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Biomedical Research Network on Hepatic and Digestive Diseases (CIBEREHD), Barcelona, Spain
| | - Rebecca C Fitzgerald
- Early Cancer Institute, University of Cambridge and Department of Gastroenterology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Marnix Jansen
- Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK
| | - Manol Jovani
- Division of Gastroenterology, Maimonides Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
| | - Ines Marques-de-Sa
- Department of Gastroenterology, Porto Comprehensive Cancer Center, and RISE@CI-IPOP (Health Research Network), Porto Portugal
| | - Arti Rattan
- Department of Gastroenterology, Wollongong Hospital, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
| | - W Keith Tan
- Early Cancer Institute, University of Cambridge and Department of Gastroenterology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK
| | - Eva P D Verheij
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Gastroenterology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Pauline A Zellenrath
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Konstantinos Triantafyllou
- Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Propaedeutic Internal Medicine, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon University General Hospital, Athens, Greece
| | - Roos E Pouw
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Gastroenterology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Strauss AL, Falk GW. New Techniques to Screen for Barrett Esophagus. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) 2023; 19:383-390. [PMID: 37771620 PMCID: PMC10524417] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/30/2023]
Abstract
Barrett esophagus (BE) is the only known precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), a cancer that continues to have a poor 5-year survival rate of 20%. Current BE screening strategies aim to detect BE and EAC at early, curable stages, but the majority of patients with EAC are diagnosed outside of BE screening and surveillance programs. Guidelines around the world suggest screening for BE in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and additional demographic and clinical risk factors using high-definition white-light endoscopy (HDWLE). However, current strategies relying on HDWLE are problematic with high direct and indirect costs, procedural risks, and limitations in patient selection owing to the low sensitivity of GERD as a risk factor for detection of BE. In an effort to address these shortcomings, a variety of other screening strategies are under investigation, including risk prediction algorithms, noninvasive cell collection devices, and other new technologies to make screening more efficient and cost-effective. At this time, only cell collection devices have been integrated into professional guidelines, and clinical implementation of alternatives to endoscopy has lagged. In the future, screening may be personalized using a combination of different screening modalities. This article discusses the current state of BE screening and new approaches that may alter the future of screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexandra L. Strauss
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine and Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Gary W. Falk
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine and Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Trindade AJ, Shaheen NJ. Screening for Barrett oesophagus - a call for collaboration between gastroenterology and primary care. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 20:342-343. [PMID: 37041321 DOI: 10.1038/s41575-023-00773-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/13/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Arvind J Trindade
- Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New Hyde Park, NY, USA.
- Institute of Health Innovations and Outcomes Research, Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research, Northwell Health, Manhasset, NY, USA.
| | - Nicholas J Shaheen
- Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Muthusamy VR, Wani S, Gyawali CP, Komanduri S. AGA Clinical Practice Update on New Technology and Innovation for Surveillance and Screening in Barrett's Esophagus: Expert Review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 20:2696-2706.e1. [PMID: 35788412 PMCID: PMC10203866 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2022.06.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 17.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/28/2022] [Revised: 05/14/2022] [Accepted: 06/10/2022] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
DESCRIPTION The purpose of this best practice advice (BPA) article from the Clinical Practice Update Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association is to provide an update on advances and innovation regarding the screening and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus. METHODS The BPA statements presented here were developed from expert review of existing literature combined with discussion and expert opinion to provide practical advice. Formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of BPAs was not the intent of this clinical practice update. This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Screening with standard upper endoscopy may be considered in individuals with at least 3 established risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma, including individuals who are male, non-Hispanic white, age >50 years, have a history of smoking, chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease, obesity, or a family history of BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Nonendoscopic cell-collection devices may be considered as an option to screen for BE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Screening and surveillance endoscopic examination should be performed using high-definition white light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy, with endoscopists spending adequate time inspecting the Barrett's segment. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Screening and surveillance exams should define the extent of BE using a standardized grading system documenting the circumferential and maximal extent of the columnar lined esophagus (Prague classification) with a clear description of landmarks and the location and characteristics of visible lesions (nodularity, ulceration), when present. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Advanced imaging technologies such as endomicroscopy may be used as adjunctive techniques to identify dysplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Sampling during screening and surveillance exams should be performed using the Seattle biopsy protocol (4-quadrant biopsies every 1-2 cm and target biopsies from any visible lesion). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Wide-area transepithelial sampling may be used as an adjunctive technique to sample the suspected or established Barrett's segment (in addition to the Seattle biopsy protocol). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Patients with erosive esophagitis should be biopsied when concern of dysplasia or malignancy exists. A repeat endoscopy should be performed after 8 weeks of twice a day proton pump inhibitor therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Tissue systems pathology-based prediction assay may be utilized for risk stratification of patients with nondysplastic BE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Risk stratification models may be utilized to selectively identify individuals at risk for Barrett's associated neoplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Given the significant interobserver variability among pathologists, the diagnosis of BE-related neoplasia should be confirmed by an expert pathology review. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Patients with BE-related neoplasia should be referred to endoscopists with expertise in advanced imaging, resection, and ablation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: All patients with BE should be placed on at least daily proton pump inhibitor therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Patients with nondysplastic BE should undergo surveillance endoscopy in 3 to 5 years. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: In patients undergoing surveillance after endoscopic eradication therapy, random biopsies should be taken of the esophagogastric junction, gastric cardia, and the distal 2 cm of the neosquamous epithelium as well as from all visible lesions, independent of the length of the original BE segment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- V Raman Muthusamy
- Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California
| | - Sachin Wani
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, Colorado
| | - C Prakash Gyawali
- Division of Gastroenterology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri
| | - Srinadh Komanduri
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Utilization trends for endoscopic ablation therapy and esophagectomy in Barrett's esophagus from 2005 to 2019. Sci Rep 2022; 12:17619. [PMID: 36271289 PMCID: PMC9587253 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-21838-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/28/2022] [Accepted: 10/04/2022] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Guidelines have shifted to now recommend endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett's esophagus (BE) with low and high-grade dysplasia. Previously, esophagectomy was the standard therapy for high-grade dysplasia. However, it is unclear to what degree ablation therapy has affected utilization of esophagectomy. In this retrospective observational cohort study of BE patients without cancer from the Premier Healthcare Database, the prevalence of utilization of endoscopic ablation therapy and of esophagectomy in BE were calculated and temporal trends were evaluated. A total of 938, 333 BE cases were included in the study. There was a significantly increasing trend of ablation over the period 2006 to 2010 (Annual Percentage Change (APC); 95% CI 0.56% [0.51%, 0.61%]), a significantly decreasing trend for the period 2011 to 2015 (APC; 95% CI - 0.15% [- 0.20%, - 0.11%]), and a shallow increasing trend for the period 2016 to 2019 (APC; 95% CI 0.09% [0.06%, 0.11%]). For esophagectomy, there was a significantly decreasing trend for the period 2006 to 2009 (APC; 95% CI - 0.03% [- 0.04%, - 0.02%]; P < 0.001) that corresponded to the uptrend in utilization of endoscopic ablation. There was a stable trend of esophagectomy over the period 2010 to 2019 (APC; 95% CI - 0.0006% [- 0.0002%, 0.0005%]; P = 0.1947). Adoption and increased utilization of endoscopic ablation therapy for BE has coincided with a decrease in esophagectomy, and is the predominate method of therapy for BE with dysplasia.
Collapse
|
13
|
Ma K, Kalra A, Tsai HL, Okello S, Cheng Y, Meltzer SJ. Accurate Nonendoscopic Detection of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Using Methylated DNA Biomarkers. Gastroenterology 2022; 163:507-509.e2. [PMID: 35483446 PMCID: PMC9555873 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2022.04.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2022] [Revised: 04/18/2022] [Accepted: 04/20/2022] [Indexed: 12/02/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Ke Ma
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Andrew Kalra
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Hua-Ling Tsai
- Division of Biostatistics, Department of Oncology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Samson Okello
- Department of Internal Medicine, Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Mbarara, Uganda
| | - Yulan Cheng
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
| | - Stephen J Meltzer
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine and, Department of Oncology, Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
de-Madaria E, Mira JJ, Carrillo I, Afif W, Ang D, Antelo M, Bollipo S, Castells A, Chahal P, Heinrich H, Law JK, van Leerdam ME, Lens S, Pannala R, Park SH, Rabiee A, Savarino EV, Singh VK, Vargo J, Charabaty A, Drenth JPH. The present and future of gastroenterology and hepatology: an international SWOT analysis (the GASTROSWOT project). Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 7:485-494. [PMID: 35247318 DOI: 10.1016/s2468-1253(21)00442-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2021] [Revised: 11/18/2021] [Accepted: 11/19/2021] [Indexed: 06/14/2023]
Abstract
GASTROSWOT is a strategic analysis of the current and projected states of the different subspecialties in gastroenterology that aims to provide guidance for research, clinical, and financial planning in gastroenterology. We executed a consensus-based international strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis. Four general coordinators, six field coordinators, and 12 experts participated in the study. SWOTs were provided for the following fields: neurogastroenterology, functional gastrointestinal disorders, and upper gastrointestinal diseases; inflammatory bowel disease; pancreatology and biliary diseases; endoscopy; gastrointestinal oncology; and hepatology. The GASTROSWOT analysis highlights the following in the current state of the field of gastroenterology: the incidence and complexity of several gastrointestinal diseases, including malignancies, are increasing; the COVID-19 pandemic has affected patient care on several levels; and with the advent of technical innovations in gastroenterology, a well trained workforce and strategic planning are required to optimise health-care utilisation. The analysis calls attention to the following in the future of gastroenterology: artificial intelligence and the use of big data will speed up discovery and smarter health-care provision in the field; the growth and diversification of gastroenterological specialties will improve specialised care for patients, but could promote fragmentation of care and health system inefficiencies; and furthermore, thoughtful planning is needed to reach an effective balance between the need for subspecialists and the value of general gastroenterology services.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Enrique de-Madaria
- Gastroenterology Department, Alicante University General Hospital, Alicante Institute for Health and Biomedical Research, Alicante, Spain
| | - José J Mira
- Atenena Research Group, Foundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research of Valencia Region, FISABAO, Sant Joan d'Alacant, Spain; Department of Health Psychology, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Elche, Spain
| | - Irene Carrillo
- Atenena Research Group, Foundation for the Promotion of Health and Biomedical Research of Valencia Region, FISABAO, Sant Joan d'Alacant, Spain; Department of Health Psychology, Miguel Hernández University of Elche, Elche, Spain
| | - Waqqas Afif
- Division of Gastroenterology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Daphne Ang
- Department of Gastroenterology, Changi General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Marina Antelo
- Oncology Section, Dr C Bonorino Udaondo Gastroenterology Hospital, Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Steven Bollipo
- Department of Gastroenterology, John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle, NSW, Australia; School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia
| | - Antoni Castells
- Gastroenterology Department, IDIBAPS, CIBERehd, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, IDIBAPS, CIBERehd, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Prabhleen Chahal
- Digestive Disease and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Henriette Heinrich
- Stadtspital Waid und Triemli Abteilung für Gastroenterologie, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland
| | | | - Monique E van Leerdam
- Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands
| | - Sabela Lens
- Liver Unit, IDIBAPS, CIBERehd, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Rahul Pannala
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, AZ, USA
| | - San Hyoung Park
- Department of Gastroenterology, and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea
| | - Atoosa Rabiee
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Washington DC Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Edoardo V Savarino
- Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| | - Vikesh K Singh
- Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - John Vargo
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Digestive Diseases and Surgery Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA
| | - Aline Charabaty
- Division of Gastroenterology, Sibley Memorial Hospital, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Joost P H Drenth
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus: An Updated ACG Guideline. Am J Gastroenterol 2022; 117:559-587. [PMID: 35354777 DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001680] [Citation(s) in RCA: 142] [Impact Index Per Article: 71.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2021] [Accepted: 02/04/2022] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a common condition associated with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease. BE is the only known precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma, a highly lethal cancer with an increasing incidence over the last 5 decades. These revised guidelines implement Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to propose recommendations for the definition and diagnosis of BE, screening for BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma, surveillance of patients with known BE, and the medical and endoscopic treatment of BE and its associated early neoplasia. Important changes since the previous iteration of this guideline include a broadening of acceptable screening modalities for BE to include nonendoscopic methods, liberalized intervals for surveillance of short-segment BE, and volume criteria for endoscopic therapy centers for BE. We recommend endoscopic eradication therapy for patients with BE and high-grade dysplasia and those with BE and low-grade dysplasia. We propose structured surveillance intervals for patients with dysplastic BE after successful ablation based on the baseline degree of dysplasia. We could not make recommendations regarding chemoprevention or use of biomarkers in routine practice due to insufficient data.
Collapse
|
16
|
Frei NF, Bergman JJGHM, Pouw RE. Screening for Barrett's esophagus: Ready for prime time or still hard to swallow? Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 94:506-508. [PMID: 34275609 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.06.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2021] [Accepted: 06/05/2021] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola F Frei
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, St Gallen, Switzerland
| | - Jacques J G H M Bergman
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Roos E Pouw
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|