Endoscopic Eradication Therapy in Barrett's Esophagus-Related Neoplasia: Setting the Bar Right to Optimize Patient Outcomes

Recurrence Is Rare Following Complete Eradication of Intestinal Metaplasia in Patients With Barrett's Esophagus and Peaks at 18 Months

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There have been few studies describing the long-term durability of complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE)-related neoplasia who received endoscopic eradication therapy (EET). Data are needed to guide surveillance interval protocols and identify patients at risk for recurrence. We assessed the rate of recurrence of intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia, histologic features, and outcomes after recurrence of CE-IM, and identified factors associated with recurrence.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study of 807 patients with BE who underwent EET, which produced CE-IM, at 4 tertiary-care referral centers, from January 2013 to October 2018. Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative incidence rates (IR) of recurrence were calculated for up to 5 years following CE-IM and were stratified by baseline level of histology. Density estimates of recurrence were used to determine the change in the rate of recurrence over time. We conducted logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with recurrence.

RESULTS

Intestinal metaplasia recurred in 121 patients (15%; IR, 5.2/100 person-years), and dysplasia recurred in 41 patients (5.1%; IR, 1.8/100 person-years), after a median follow-up time of 2317 person-years. The rate of recurrence was not constant and the time to any recurrence converged to a normal distribution; recurrences peaked at 1.6 y after patients had CE-IM. Baseline high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal cancer (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.19), presence of reflux symptoms (aOR, 12.1) or hiatal hernia (aOR, 13.8), and number of sessions required to achieve CE-IM (aOR, 1.8) were associated with recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

In a prospective study of a large cohort of patients with BE undergoing EET, we found a low rate of recurrence after CE-IM. The rate of recurrence peaked at 1-2 y after CE-IM. These findings indicate that aggressive surveillance might not be necessary more than 1 y after CE-IM and should be considered in surveillance guidelines. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT02634645.

Controversies in Endoscopic Eradication Therapy for Barrett's Esophagus

Advances in endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett's Esophagus-associated neoplasia have resulted in a significant paradigm shift in the diagnosis and management of this complex disease. A robust body of literature critically evaluating outcomes of resection and ablative strategies has allowed gastroenterologists to make quality, evidence-based decisions for their patients. Despite this progress, there are still many unanswered questions and challenges that remain. Ultimately, identification of a cost-effective screening modality, biomarkers for risk stratification, and strides to eliminate post surveillance endoscopy after endoscopic eradication therapy are essential to reach our long-term goal for eradication of esophageal adenocarcinoma.

The Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in the Management of Patients with Barrett's Esophagus and Superficial Neoplasia

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a minimally invasive advanced imaging procedure using high-frequency sound waves to produce detailed images of the esophageal wall with fine-needle aspiration to biopsy adjacent lymph nodes. The role of EUS is well established in patients with locally advanced Barrett esophagus neoplasia. The utility of EUS in the evaluation of Barrett esophagus patients is controversial. This is a review of the evidence using EUS in BE patients. The assessment is that EUS may be a powerful tool in managing patients with BE neoplasia.

Recurrence of intestinal metaplasia and early neoplasia after endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

 Conflicting data exist with regard to recurrence rates of intestinal metaplasia (IM) and dysplasia after achieving complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) in Barrett's esophagus (BE) patients.

AIM

 (i) To determine the incidence of recurrent IM and dysplasia achieving CE-IM and (ii) to compare recurrence rates between treatment modalities [radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with or without endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) vs stepwise complete EMR (SRER)].

METHODS

 A systematic search was performed for studies reporting on outcomes and estimates of recurrence rates after achieving CE-IM. Pooled incidence [per 100-patient-years (PY)] and risk ratios with 95 %CI were obtained. Heterogeneity was measured using the I² statistic. Subgroup analyses, decided a priori, were performed to explore heterogeneity in results.

RESULTS

 A total of 39 studies were identified (25-RFA, 13-SRER, and 2 combined). The pooled incidence of any recurrence was 7.5 (95 %CI 6.1 - 9.0)/100 PY with a pooled incidence of IM recurrence rate of 4.8 (95 %CI 3.8 - 5.9)/100 PY, and dysplasia recurrence rate of 2.0 (95 %CI 1.5 - 2.5)/100 PY. Compared to the SRER group, the RFA group had significantly higher overall [8.6 (6.7 - 10.5)/100 PY vs. 5.1 (3.1 - 7)/100 PY, P  = 0.01] and IM recurrence rates [5.8 (4.3 - 7.3)/100 PY vs. 3.1 (1.7 - 4)/100 PY, P  < 0.01] with no difference in recurrence rates of dysplasia. Significant heterogeneity between studies was identified. The majority of recurrences were amenable to repeat endoscopic eradication therapy (EET).

CONCLUSION

 The results of this study demonstrate that the incidence rates of overall, IM, and dysplasia recurrence rates post-EET are not inconsiderable and reinforce the importance of close surveillance after achieving CE-IM.

Current Endoscopic Approaches for the Treatment of Barrett Esophagus

Barrett esophagus (BE) is the only identifiable premalignant condition for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), a cancer associated with a poor 5-year survival rate. The stepwise pathologic progression of BE to invasive cancer provides an opportunity to halt progression and potentially decrease incidence and ultimately the morbidity and mortality related to this lethal cancer. Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) in patients at increased risk of progression to invasive EAC (intramucosal EAC, high-grade dysplasia, and low-grade dysplasia) is a practice that is endorsed by multiple societies and has replaced esophagectomy as the standard of care for these patients. Although the effectiveness, safety, and durability of EET have been demonstrated in several studies, this review addresses the several challenges with EET that need to be considered to optimize patient outcomes. Finally, the critical role of training, competence, and quality indicators in EET are emphasized in this era of value-based health care practice.

Diagnosis and Management of Low-Grade Dysplasia in Barrett's Esophagus: Expert Review From the Clinical Practice Updates Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association

The purpose of this clinical practice update expert review is to define the key principles in the diagnosis and management of low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett's esophagus patients. The best practices outlined in this review are based on relevant publications, including systematic reviews and expert opinion (when applicable). Practice Advice 1: The extent of Barrett's esophagus should be defined 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 visible lesions (nodularity, ulceration) when present. Practice Advice 2: Given the significant interobserver variability among pathologists, the diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus with LGD should be confirmed by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist (defined as a pathologist with a special interest in Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia who is recognized as an expert in this field by his/her peers). Practice Advice 3: Expert pathologists should report audits of their diagnosed cases of LGD, such as the frequency of LGD diagnosed among surveillance patients and/or the difference in incidence of neoplastic progression among patients diagnosed with LGD vs nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus. Practice Advice 4: Patients in whom the diagnosis of LGD is downgraded to nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus should be managed as nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus. Practice Advice 5: In Barrett's esophagus patients with confirmed LGD (based on expert gastrointestinal pathology review), repeat upper endoscopy using high-definition/high-resolution white-light endoscopy should be performed under maximal acid suppression (twice daily dosing of proton pump inhibitor therapy) in 8-12 weeks. Practice Advice 6: Under ideal circumstances, surveillance biopsies should not be performed in the presence of active inflammation (erosive esophagitis, Los Angeles grade C and D). Pathologists should be informed if biopsies are obtained in the setting of erosive esophagitis and if pathology findings suggest LGD, or if no biopsies are obtained, surveillance biopsies should be repeated after the anti-reflux regimen has been further intensified. Practice Advice 7: Surveillance biopsies should be performed in a four-quadrant fashion every 1-2 cm with target biopsies obtained from visible lesions taken first. Practice Advice 8: Patients with a confirmed histologic diagnosis of LGD should be referred to an endoscopist with expertise in managing Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia practicing at centers equipped with high-definition endoscopy and capable of performing endoscopic resection and ablation. Practice Advice 9: Endoscopic resection should be performed in Barrett's esophagus patients with LGD with endoscopically visible abnormalities (no matter how subtle) in order to accurately assess the grade of dysplasia. Practice Advice 10: In patients with confirmed Barrett's esophagus with LGD by expert GI pathology review that persists on a second endoscopy, despite intensification of acid-suppressive therapy, risks and benefits of management options of endoscopic eradication therapy (specifically adverse events associated with endoscopic resection and ablation), and ongoing surveillance should be discussed and documented. Practice Advice 11: Endoscopic eradication therapy should be considered in patients with confirmed and persistent LGD with the goal of achieving complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia. Practice Advice 12: Patients with LGD undergoing surveillance rather than endoscopic eradication therapy should undergo surveillance every 6 months times 2, then annually unless there is reversion to nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus. Biopsies should be obtained in 4-quadrants every 1-2 cm and of any visible lesions. Practice Advice 13: In patients with Barrett's esophagus-related LGD undergoing ablative therapy, radiofrequency ablation should be used. Practice Advice 14: Patients completing endoscopic eradication therapy should be enrolled in an endoscopic surveillance program. Patients who have achieved complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia should undergo surveillance every year for 2 years and then every 3 years thereafter to detect recurrent intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia. Patients who have not achieved complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia should undergo surveillance every 6 months for 1 year after the last endoscopy, then annually for 2 years, then every 3 years thereafter. Practice Advice 15: Following endoscopic eradication therapy, the biopsy protocol of obtaining biopsies in 4 quadrants every 2 cm throughout the length of the original Barrett's esophagus segment and any visible columnar mucosa is suggested. Practice Advice 16: Endoscopists performing endoscopic eradication therapy should report audits of their rates of complete eradication of dysplasia and intestinal metaplasia and adverse events in clinical practice.