Quality of Barrett's surveillance in The Netherlands: a standardized review of endoscopy and pathology reports

Dedicated service for Barrett's oesophagus surveillance endoscopy yields higher dysplasia detection and guideline adherence in a non-tertiary setting in the UK: a 5-year comparative cohort study

Objective

Barrett's oesophagus (BO) endoscopic surveillance is performed to varying quality, dedicated services may offer improved outcomes. This study compares a dedicated BO service to standard care, specifically dysplasia detection rate (DDR), guideline adherence and use of advanced imaging modalities in a non-tertiary setting.

Design/method

5-year retrospective comparative cohort study comparing a dedicated BO endoscopy service with surveillance performed on non-dedicated slots at a non-tertiary centre in the UK. All adult patients undergoing BO surveillance between 1 March 2016 and 1 March 2021 were reviewed and those who underwent endoscopy on a dedicated BO service run by endoscopists with training in BO was compared with patients receiving their BO surveillance on any other endoscopy list. Endoscopy reports, histology results and clinic letters were reviewed for DDR and British society of gastroenterology guideline adherence.

Results

921 BO procedures were included (678 patients). 574 (62%) endoscopies were on a dedicated BO list vs 348 (38%) on non-dedicated.DDR was significantly higher in the dedicated cohort 6.3% (36/568) vs 2.7% (9/337) (p=0.014). Significance was sustained when cases with indefinite for dysplasia were excluded: 4.9% 27/533 vs 0.9% 3/329 (p=0.002). Guideline adherence was significantly better on the dedicated endoscopy lists.Factors associated with dysplasia detection in regression analysis included visible lesion documentation (p=0.036), use of targeted biopsies (p=<0.001), number of biopsies obtained (p≤0.001).

Conclusions

A dedicated Barrett's service showed higher DDR and guideline adherence than standard care and may be beneficial pending randomised trial data.

Magnetic sphincter augmentation: considerations for use in Barrett's esophagus

Barrett's esophagus (BE) occurs in 5-15% of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). While acid suppressive therapy is a critical component of BE management to minimize the risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma, surgical control of mechanical reflux is sometimes necessary. Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is an increasingly utilized anti-reflux surgical therapy for GERD. While the use of MSA is listed as a precaution by the United States Food and Drug Administration, there are limited data showing effective BE regression with MSA. MSA offers several advantages in BE including effective reflux control, anti-reflux barrier restoration and reduced hiatal hernia recurrence. However, careful patient selection for MSA is necessary.

Clinical consequences of nonadherence to Barrett's esophagus surveillance recommendations: a Multicenter prospective cohort study

Half of Barrett's esophagus (BE) surveillance endoscopies do not adhere to guideline recommendations. In this multicenter prospective cohort study, we assessed the clinical consequences of nonadherence to recommended surveillance intervals and biopsy protocol. Data from BE surveillance patients were collected from endoscopy and pathology reports; questionnaires were distributed among endoscopists. We estimated the association between (non)adherence and (i) endoscopic curability of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), (ii) mortality, and (iii) misclassification of histological diagnosis according to a multistate hidden Markov model. Potential explanatory parameters (patient, facility, endoscopist variables) for nonadherence, related to clinical impact, were analyzed. In 726 BE patients, 3802 endoscopies were performed by 167 endoscopists. Adherence to surveillance interval was 16% for non-dysplastic (ND)BE, 55% for low-grade dysplasia (LGD), and 54% of endoscopies followed the Seattle protocol. There was no evidence to support the following statements: longer surveillance intervals or fewer biopsies than recommended affect endoscopic curability of EAC or cause-specific mortality (P > 0.20); insufficient biopsies affect the probability of NDBE (OR 1.0) or LGD (OR 2.3) being misclassified as high-grade dysplasia/EAC (P > 0.05). Better adherence was associated with older patients (OR 1.1), BE segments ≤ 2 cm (OR 8.3), visible abnormalities (OR 1.8, all P ≤ 0.05), endoscopists with a subspecialty (OR 3.2), and endoscopists who deemed histological diagnosis an adequate marker (OR 2.0). Clinical consequences of nonadherence to guidelines appeared to be limited with respect to endoscopic curability of EAC and mortality. This indicates that BE surveillance recommendations should be optimized to minimize the burden of endoscopies.

A microRNA Signature Identifies Patients at Risk of Barrett Esophagus Progression to Dysplasia and Cancer

BACKGROUND

Progression of Barrett esophagus (BE) to esophageal adenocarcinoma occurs among a minority of BE patients. To date, BE behavior cannot be predicted on the basis of histologic features.

AIMS

We compared BE samples that did not develop dysplasia or carcinoma upon follow-up of ≥ 7 years (BE nonprogressed [BEN]) with BE samples that developed carcinoma upon follow-up of 3 to 4 years (BE progressed [BEP]).

METHODS

The NanoString nCounter miRNA assay was used to profile 24 biopsy samples of BE, including 13 BENs and 11 BEPs. Fifteen samples were randomly selected for miRNA prediction model training; nine were randomly selected for miRNA validation.

RESULTS

Unpaired t tests with Welch's correction were performed on 800 measured miRNAs to identify the most differentially expressed miRNAs for cases of BEN and BEP. The top 12 miRNAs (P < .003) were selected for principal component analyses: miR-1278, miR-1301, miR-1304-5p, miR-517b-3p, miR-584-5p, miR-599, miR-103a-3p, miR-1197, miR-1256, miR-509-3-5p, miR-544b, miR-802. The 12-miRNA signature was first self-validated on the training dataset, resulting in 7 out of the 7 BEP samples being classified as BEP (100% sensitivity) and 7 out of the 8 BEN samples being classified as BEN (87.5% specificity). Upon validation, 4 out of the 4 BEP samples were classified as BEP (100% sensitivity) and 4 out of the 5 BEN samples were classified as BEN (80% specificity). Twenty-four samples were evaluated, and 22 cases were correctly classified. Overall accuracy was 91.67%.

CONCLUSION

Using miRNA profiling, we have identified a 12-miRNA signature able to reliably differentiate cases of BEN from BEP.

Prevalence of Barrett's esophagus in a Southern European country: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Identification of Barrett's esophagus (BE) with the treatment of dysplasia is essential to prevent esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Moreover, determination of BE prevalence is important to define subsequent management strategies. However, precise estimates on BE prevalence from several European countries are lacking. We aimed to determine BE prevalence in a Southern European country.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, multicenter study from November 2019 to February 2020 was performed defining BE as a columnar extent in the distal esophagus greater than or equal to 1 cm with intestinal metaplasia.

RESULTS

A total of 1550 individuals, 51% male with a mean age of 62 (SD = 15) years undergoing upper endoscopy were included. The overall BE prevalence was 1.29% (95% confidence interval: 0.73-1.85); significantly higher in men [2.05% (1.06-3.04)] vs. women [0.53% (0.01-1.04)]. Of the 20 BE patients, eight were newly diagnosed and 12 were under surveillance. The median extent was C3 (min 0; max 16) M4.5 (min 2; max 16). One patient each had EAC (0.06%) and high-grade dysplasia (0.06%) at the time of endoscopy. There was no difference in prevalence between geographical regions, centers, use of sedation or experience of endoscopists. Considering all reports, 93% used standardized terminology, 23% accurate photodocumentation and 69% photodocumented the esophagogastric junction (EGJ). Furthermore, 80% used Prague classification, 55% Seattle protocol, 60% distance to the squamocolumnar junction, 75% to the EGJ and 40% to the hiatal pinch. When considering only reports with EGJ photodocumentation or Prague classification, the prevalence was 1.78% (0.91-2.64) or 1.03% (0.53-1.53).

CONCLUSION

We report for the first time BE prevalence in Southern Europe and report a low overall prevalence in an unselected population. Future studies need to determine progression rates and how to improve quality metrics.

Barrett's Esophagus and Intestinal Metaplasia

Intestinal metaplasia refers to the replacement of the differentiated and mature normal mucosal epithelium outside the intestinal tract by the intestinal epithelium. This paper briefly describes the etiology and clinical significance of intestinal metaplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. This article summarizes the impact of intestinal metaplasia on the diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of Barrett’s esophagus according to different guidelines. We also briefly explore the basis for the endoscopic diagnosis of intestinal metaplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. The identification techniques of goblet cells in Barrett’s esophagus are also elucidated by some scholars. Additionally, we further elaborate on the current treatment methods related to Barrett’s esophagus.

Best Practices in Surveillance for Barrett's Esophagus

Barrett's esophagus is the precursor lesion for esophageal adenocarcinoma. The goals of endoscopic surveillance are to detect dysplasia and early esophageal adenocarcinoma in order to improve patient outcomes. Despite the ongoing debate regarding the efficacy of surveillance, all current gastrointestinal societies recommend surveillance at this time. Optimal surveillance technique includes adequate inspection time, evaluation using high-definition white light and chromoendoscopy, appropriate documentation of the metaplastic segment using the Prague C & M criteria as well as the Paris classification should lesions be found, utilization of the Seattle biopsy protocol, and endoscopic resection of visible lesions.

The global prevalence of Barrett's esophagus: A systematic review of the published literature

BACKGROUND

Determining the prevalence of Barrett's esophagus is important for defining screening strategies. We aimed to synthesize the available data, determine Barrett's esophagus prevalence, and assess variability.

METHODS

Three databases were searched. Subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were conducted and pooled prevalence was computed.

RESULTS

Of 3510 studies, 103 were included. In the general population, we estimated a prevalence for endoscopic suspicion of Barrett's esophagus of (a) any length with histologic confirmation of intestinal metaplasia as 0.96% (95% confidence interval: 0.85-1.07), (b) ≥1 cm of length with histologic confirmation of intestinal metaplasia as 0.96% (95% confidence interval: 0.75-1.18) and (c) for any length with histologic confirmation of columnar metaplasia as 3.89% (95% confidence interval: 2.25-5.54) . By excluding studies with high-risk of bias, the prevalence decreased to: (a) 0.70% (95% confidence interval: 0.61-0.79) and (b) 0.82% (95% confidence interval: 0.63-1.01). In gastroesophageal reflux disease patients, we estimated the prevalence with afore-mentioned criteria to be: (a) 7.21% (95% confidence interval: 5.61-8.81) (b) 6.72% (95% confidence interval: 3.61-9.83) and (c) 7.80% (95% confidence interval: 4.26-11.34). The Barrett's esophagus prevalence was significantly influenced by time period, region, Barrett's esophagus definition, Seattle protocol, and study design. There was a significant gradient East-West and North-South. There were minimal to no data available for several countries. Moreover, there was significant heterogeneity between studies.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to reassess the true prevalence of Barrett's esophagus using the current guidelines in most regions. Having knowledge about the precise Barrett's esophagus prevalence, diverse attitudes from educational to screening programs could be taken.

Biomarkers of Barrett's Esophagus: From the Laboratory to Clinical Practice

The currently recommended approach to managing cancer risk for patients with Barrett's esophagus is endoscopic surveillance including a biopsy protocol to sample the esophageal tissue randomly to detect dysplasia. However, there are numerous limitations in this practice that rely on the histopathological grading of dysplasia alone to make clinical decisions. The availability of in silico models demonstrating the potential cost-effectiveness of biomarker-based stratification has increased interest in finding a clinically relevant "Barrett's biomarker." The success of endoscopic eradication therapy in preventing neoplastic progression of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus has promoted the desire to stratify non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus to those with "high risk" that may benefit from endotherapy. Furthermore, on the other end of the spectrum, there is interest in searching for a "low risk" marker that may identify those that would not likely benefit from endoscopy screening or surveillance. This review highlights recent data from the genomics (r)evolution revealing new genetic biomarkers of susceptibility to the development of Barrett's esophagus and novel pathways for its neoplastic progression, addresses the development of new modes of tissue sampling and imaging to detect early neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus, and discusses current progress in moving biomarkers from the laboratory into clinical practice in the era of precision medicine.

Quality of Endoscopy Reports for Esophageal Cancer Patients: Where Do We Stand?

BACKGROUNDS AND AIMS

As treatment for esophageal cancer often involves a multidisciplinary approach, the initial endoscopic report is essential for communication between providers. Several guidelines have been established to standardize endoscopic reporting. This study evaluates the compliance of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) reporting with the current national guidelines.

METHODS

Combining the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and Society of Thoracic Surgeons guidelines, 11 quality indicators (QIs) for EGD and 8 for EUS were identified. We evaluated initial EGD and EUS reports from our institution (Memorial Sloan Kettering [MSK]) and outside hospitals (OSHs) and calculated individual and overall quality measure scores. Scores between locations were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and McNemar's test for paired data.

RESULTS

In total, 115 initial EGD reports and 105 EUS reports were reviewed for patients who underwent surgery for esophageal cancer between 2014 and 2016. The median number of QIs reported for the initial EGD was 4 (IQR, 3-6)-only 34% of reports qualified as "good quality" (those with ≥ 6 QIs). None of the reports included all QIs. For patients who underwent EGD at both MSK and an OSH, 32% of reports from OSHs were good quality, compared with 68% from MSK (p < 0.001). Compliance with QIs was better for EUS reports: 71% of OSH reports and 72% of MSK reports were good quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Detailed information on the initial endoscopic assessment is essential in today's age of multidisciplinary care. Identification and adoption of QIs for endoscopic reporting is warranted to ensure the provision of appropriate treatment.

Validation of a biomarker panel in Barrett's esophagus to predict progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma

In a prior study, baseline mutational load (ML) predicted progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in Barrett's esophagus (BE) with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.95. We aimed to validate the test characteristics of this predictive biomarker panel using crude DNA lysates in a larger well-characterized cohort. We performed a nested case-control study of BE patients from three tertiary referral centers in the Netherlands. Cases had baseline nondysplastic BE (NDBE) and developed HGD/EAC ≥ 2 years later. Controls were matched 2:1, had baseline NDBE, and no progression. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based mutational analysis was performed on crude lysates from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. ML was calculated from loss of heterozygosity (LOH) and microsatellite instability (MSI) at 10 genomic loci. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were created to assess the diagnostic utility of various cutoffs of ML for progression. Of 159 subjects, 58 were progressors and 101 were nonprogressors, there was no difference in mean ML in preprogression tissue in progressors and nonprogressors (ML = 0.73 ± 0.69 vs. ML = 0.74 ± 0.61, P = 0.93). ROC curves showed poor discrimination of ML in predicting progression with AUC of 0.50 at ML ≥ 1. AUC did not vary with different ML cut-points. The utility of the ML to stratify BE patients for risk of progression was not confirmed in this study. The etiology for discrepancies between this and prior studies showing high predictiveness is likely due to the use of crude lysates in this study, but requires further investigation.

Adherence to quality indicators and surveillance guidelines in the management of Barrett's esophagus: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

 Adherence to quality indicators and surveillance guidelines in the management of Barrett's esophagus (BE) promotes high-quality, cost-effective care. The aims of this study were (1) to evaluate adherence to standardized classification (Prague Criteria) and systematic (four-quadrant) biopsy protocol, (2) to identify predictors of practice patterns, and (3) to assess adherence to surveillance guidelines for non-dysplastic BE (NDBE).

METHODS

 This was a single-center retrospective study of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) performed for BE (June 2008 to December 2015). Patient demographics, procedure characteristics, and histology results were obtained from the procedure report-generating database and chart review. Adherence to Prague Criteria and systematic biopsies was based on operative report documentation. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of practice patterns. Guideline adherent surveillance EGD was defined as those performed within 6 months of the recommended 3- to 5-year interval.

RESULTS

 In total, 397 patients (66.5 % male; mean age 60.1 ± 12.5 years) had an index EGD during the study period. Adherence to Prague Criteria and systematic biopsies was 27.4 % and 24.1 %, respectively. Endoscopists who performed therapeutic interventions for BE were more likely to use the Prague Criteria (OR: 3.16; 95 %CI: 1.47 - 6.82; P  < 0.01) than those who did not. Longer time in practice was positively associated with adherence to Prague Criteria (OR 1.07; 95 %CI: 1.02 - 1.12; P  < 0.01) but with a lower likelihood of performing systematic biopsies (OR 0.91; 95 %CI: 0.85 - 0.97; P  < 0.01). More than half (55.6 %) of patients with NDBE underwent surveillance EGD sooner (range 1 - 29 months) than the recommended interval.

CONCLUSION

 Adherence to quality indicators and surveillance guidelines in BE is low. Operator characteristics, including experience with endoscopic therapy for BE and time in practice predicted practice pattern. Future efforts are needed to reduce variability in practice and promote high-value care.

Quality of endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate adherence to Barrett's esophagus (BE) surveillance guidelines in Denmark.

METHODS

The Danish Pathology Registry was used to identify 3692 patients. A total of 300 patients were included by drawing a simple random sample. Description of the BE segment, biopsy protocol, communication with the pathologist and planned follow-up endoscopy, was evaluated.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients were excluded due to missing reports and 83 patients (28%) due to no endoscopic evidence of BE. Endoscopists suspected BE in 186 patients (62%) and these patients were included. Prague C&M classification was used in 34% of the endoscopy reports. The median number of biopsies was 4 (interquartile range (IQR), 3-6). The BE segment was stratified by lengths of 1-5, 6-10 and 11-15 cm and endoscopists obtained a sufficient number of biopsies in 12, 8 and 0% of cases, respectively. 28% of endoscopists described the exact location of the biopsy site in the pathology requisition. Patients with nondysplastic BE had endoscopic surveillance performed after a median of 24 months (IQR, 6-24).

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to the Danish guidelines was poor. This may be associated with insufficient quality of BE surveillance. Lack of endoscopic evidence of BE in the Danish Pathology Registry may have underestimated the incidence of adenocarcinoma in BE patients in previous studies.

Application of a multi-gene next-generation sequencing panel to a non-invasive oesophageal cell-sampling device to diagnose dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus

The early detection and endoscopic treatment of patients with the dysplastic stage of Barrett's oesophagus is a key to preventing progression to oesophageal adenocarcinoma. However, endoscopic surveillance protocols are hampered by the invasiveness of repeat endoscopy, sampling bias, and a subjective histopathological diagnosis of dysplasia. In this case-control study, we investigated the use of a non-invasive, pan-oesophageal cell-sampling device, the Cytosponge™, coupled with a cancer hot-spot panel to identify patients with dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) Cytosponge™ samples from 31 patients with non-dysplastic and 28 with dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus with good available clinical annotation were selected for inclusion. Samples were microdissected and amplicon sequencing performed using a panel covering >2800 COSMIC hot-spot mutations in 50 oncogenes and tumour suppressor genes. Strict mutation criteria were determined and duplicates were run to confirm any mutations with an allele frequency <12%. When compared with endoscopy and biopsy as the gold standard the panel achieved a 71.4% sensitivity (95% CI 51.3-86.8) and 90.3% (95% CI 74.3-98.0) specificity for diagnosing dysplasia. TP53 had the highest rate of mutation in 14/28 dysplastic samples (50%). CDKN2A was mutated in 6/28 (21.4%), ERBB2 in 3/28 (10.7%), and 5 other genes at lower frequency. The only gene from this panel found to be mutated in the non-dysplastic cases was CDKN2A in 3/31 cases (9.7%) in keeping with its known loss early in the natural history of the disease. Hence, it is possible to apply a multi-gene cancer hot-spot panel and next-generation sequencing to microdissected, FFPE samples collected by the Cytosponge™, in order to distinguish non-dysplastic from dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus. Further work is required to maximize the panel sensitivity.

Past, present and future of Barrett's oesophagus

Barrett's oesophagus is a condition which predisposes towards development of oesophageal adenocarcinoma, a highly lethal tumour which has been increasing in incidence in the Western world over the past three decades. There have been tremendous advances in the field of Barrett's oesophagus, not only in diagnostic modalities, but also in therapeutic strategies available to treat this premalignant disease. In this review, we discuss the past, present and future of Barrett's oesophagus. We describe the historical and new evolving diagnostic criteria of Barrett's oesophagus, while also comparing and contrasting the British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines, American College of Gastroenterology guidelines and International Benign Barrett's and CAncer Taskforce (BOBCAT) for Barrett's oesophagus. Advances in endoscopic modalities such as confocal and volumetric laser endomicroscopy, and a non-endoscopic sampling device, the Cytosponge, are described which could aid in identification of Barrett's oesophagus. With regards to therapy we review the evidence for the utility of endoscopic mucosal resection and radiofrequency ablation when coupled with better characterization of dysplasia. These endoscopic advances have transformed the management of Barrett's oesophagus from a primarily surgical disease into an endoscopically managed condition.

Beyond Dysplasia Grade: The Role of Biomarkers in Stratifying Risk

Gastroenterology society guidelines recommend endoscopic surveillance as a means to detect early stage cancer in Barrett's esophagus. However, the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in Western countries continues to increase, suggesting that this strategy may be inadequate. Current surveillance methods rely on the endoscopist's ability to identify suspicious areas of Barrett's esophagus to biopsy, random biopsies, and on the histopathologic diagnosis of dysplasia. This review highlights the challenges of using dysplasia to stratify cancer risk and addresses the development and use of molecular biomarkers and in vivo molecular imaging to detect early neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus.

Organization of surveillance in GI practice

BACKGROUND

Several reports documented an inefficient utilisation of available resources, as well as a suboptimal compliance with surveillance recommendations. Although, evidence suggests that organisational issues can influence the quality of care delivered, surveillance protocols are usually based on non-organized approaches.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search (publication date: 01/2000-06/2016) on PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for guidelines, or consensus statements, for surveys of practice, reporting information about patients, or providers attitudes and behaviours, for intervention studies to enhance compliance with guidelines. Related articles were also scrutinised. Based on the clinical relevance and burden on endoscopy services this review was focused on surveillance for Barrett's oesophagus, IBD and post-polypectomy surveillance of colonic adenomas.

RESULTS

Existing guidelines are generally recognising structure and process requirements influencing delivery of surveillance interventions, while less attention had been devoted to transitions and interfaces in the care process. Available evidence from practice surveys is suggesting the need to design organizational strategies aimed to enable patients to attend and providers to deliver timely and appropriate care. Well designed studies assessing the effectiveness of specific interventions in this setting are however lacking. Indirect evidence from screening settings would suggest that the implementation of automated standardized recall systems, utilisation of clinical registries, removing financial barriers, could improve appropriateness of use and compliance with recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of sound evidence regarding utility and methodology of surveillance can contribute to explain the observed variability in providers and patients attitudes and in compliance with the recommended surveillance.

Progression of Barrett's esophagus toward esophageal adenocarcinoma: an overview

In Barrett's esophagus, normal squamous epithelium is replaced by a metaplastic columnar epithelium as a consequence of chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease. There is a strong association with esophageal adenocarcinoma. In view of the increasing incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in the western world, it is important that more attention be paid to the progression of Barrett's esophagus toward esophageal adenocarcinoma. Recently, several molecular factors have been identified that contribute to the sequence towards adenocarcinoma. This might help identify patients at risk and detect new targets for the prevention and treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma in the future.

Barrett's oesophagus and associated dysplasia are not equally distributed within the esophageal circumference

BACKGROUND

A careful endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's oesophagus is warranted to prevent esophageal cancer.

AIM

To identify the preferred location of non-circumferential Barrett's oesophagus and associated dysplasia within the esophageal circumference.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a prospectively maintained database of patients with non-circumferential lesions. The location of metaplastic lesions and dysplastic lesions within the esophageal circumference was identified as on a clock face, and their distribution in the 4 quadrants was compared.

RESULTS

Of overall 443 patients with Barrett's oesophagus, 192 (43%) were eligible for our study. Multiple lesions were diagnosed in 110 (57%) of them, for a total amount of 352 metaplastic areas. Barrett's oesophagus lesions were located significantly more in the posterior wall of the oesophagus (38.4%), rather than in the right wall (28.8%), the anterior wall (22.6%), or the left wall (10.2%) (P<0.0001). Among all metaplastic lesions, 28 were associated with dysplasia (7.9%), and one with adenocarcinoma (0.3%). Dysplastic lesions were significantly more common in the posterior wall (39.3%) than, respectively, in the anterior wall (35.8%), the right wall (21.4%) or the left wall (3.5%) (P=0.03).

CONCLUSION

Our results show that the posterior wall of the oesophagus is the preferential location of both Barrett's oesophagus and associated dysplasia.

Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus: A Retrospective Study Comparing the Endoscopic Assessment of Early Esophageal Lesions in the Community versus a Specialized Center

Specialized endoscopic evaluation for patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) is well supported; however, no studies have shown that centers with expertise provide better quality care for BE with high-grade dysplasia or early adenocarcinoma. In this study, the investigators aimed to evaluate the management and clinical course for patients treated in a community practice versus a specialized BE center. Methods. A retrospective analysis of referrals from the community to our specialized center for evaluation of BE at St Paul's Hospital Division of Gastroenterology between January 2007 and February 2014 was performed. Subjects were patients who were referred for BE and dysplasia and subsequently reevaluated by endoscopy. The pathology and endoscopy reports from the community and our center were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were as follows: being ≥ 19 years old and pathologic diagnosis of BE or dysplasia in the community. Exclusion criteria were as follows: incomplete pathology data or incomplete endoscopy reports from the community physicians. Results. A total of 77 patients were reviewed. The staging of 28.9% of patients referred from the community was changed from the initial pathological diagnosis. 18.4% of these patients were upstaged. Using Fischer's exact test, we showed that, in our specialized center, endoscopic impressions correlated significantly with pathology results (p < 0.0001).

Yield of Repeat Endoscopy in Barrett's Esophagus with No Dysplasia and Low-Grade Dysplasia: A Population-Based Study

BACKGROUND

The yield of early repeat endoscopy in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) is not well established.

AIMS

To determine how often early repeat endoscopy detected missed dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in a population-based cohort of patients with BE. Secondary aims were to identify risk factors for missed dysplasia/EAC and compare detection of prevalent versus incident HGD/EAC.

METHODS

A population-based cohort of BE subjects in Olmsted County, MN, was studied. Patients with initial non-dysplastic BE or low-grade dysplasia (LGD) who underwent repeat endoscopy within 24 months were included. Those with a worse histologic diagnosis on repeat endoscopy were considered to have missed dysplasia/EAC. Baseline characteristics among patients with and without missed dysplasia/EAC were compared. The absolute numbers of asymptomatic prevalent or missed, and incident HGD/EAC in the entire cohort were ascertained.

RESULTS

Of 488 BE cases, 210 were included for the primary aim of this study. Repeat endoscopy revealed four HGD/EAC (1.9 %) and 16 LGD (8.8 %) for a combined miss rate of 9.5 %. Long-segment BE (LSBE) and lack of PPI use were predictors of missed dysplasia/EAC (P = 0.008), but adherence to biopsy protocol was not. Increased prevalent HGD/EAC (n = 30) rather than incident HGD/EAC (n = 22) was identified during a median 4.8 years of follow-up in this cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Dysplasia/EAC is commonly missed at initial BE diagnosis, particularly in patients with LSBE and no PPI use. Efforts should be made to enhance the sensitivity of detecting dysplasia/neoplasia around the time of initial BE diagnosis.

Advances in the management of Barrett's esophagus and early esophageal adenocarcinoma

The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has markedly increased in the United States over the last few decades. Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is the most significant known risk factor for this malignancy. Theoretically, screening and treating early BE should help prevent EAC but the exact incidence of BE and its progression to EAC is not entirely known and cost-effectiveness studies for Barrett’s screening are lacking. Over the last few years, there have been major advances in our understanding of the epidemiology, pathogenesis and endoscopic management of BE. These developments focus on early recognition of advanced histology and endoscopic treatment of high-grade dysplasia. Advanced resection techniques now enable us to endoscopically treat early esophageal cancer. In this review, we will discuss these recent advances in diagnosis and treatment of Barrett’s esophagus and early esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Red flag imaging in Barrett's esophagus: does it help to find the needle in the haystack?

Esophageal Adenocarcinoma (EAC) has suffered a sharp increase on its incidence for the last decades, and it is associated with a poor prognosis. Barrett's Esophagus (BE) is the most important identifiable risk factor for the progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma. The key to prevent and provide a curative treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma is the detection and eradication of early neoplasia in patients with esophagus. Endoscopic surveillance is evolving from a blind or random four quadrant biopsies protocol (Seattle protocol) to a more targeted approach. A detailed white light examination with high-resolution endoscopy is the cornerstone for recognition of early neoplastic lesions in BE. Additional imaging modalities may enhance targeting of lesions or provide more information at a focused level. There are emerging data that some of these new modalities can increase the yield of detecting dysplasia, although its routine use has yet to be validated.

Surveillance in Barrett's Esophagus: Utility and Current Recommendations

Surveillance of Barrett's esophagus for preventing death from esophageal adenocarcinoma is attractive and widely practiced. However, empirical evidence supporting its effectiveness is weak. Longer intervals between surveillance examinations are being recommended, supported by computer simulation analyses. If surveillance is performed, an adequate number of biopsies should be performed or the effect of surveillance would be squandered.

BOB CAT: A Large-Scale Review and Delphi Consensus for Management of Barrett's Esophagus With No Dysplasia, Indefinite for, or Low-Grade Dysplasia

OBJECTIVES

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a common premalignant lesion for which surveillance is recommended. This strategy is limited by considerable variations in clinical practice. We conducted an international, multidisciplinary, systematic search and evidence-based review of BE and provided consensus recommendations for clinical use in patients with nondysplastic, indefinite, and low-grade dysplasia (LGD).

METHODS

We defined the scope, proposed statements, and searched electronic databases, yielding 20,558 publications that were screened, selected online, and formed the evidence base. We used a Delphi consensus process, with an 80% agreement threshold, using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to categorize the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

RESULTS

In total, 80% of respondents agreed with 55 of 127 statements in the final voting rounds. Population endoscopic screening is not recommended and screening should target only very high-risk cases of males aged over 60 years with chronic uncontrolled reflux. A new international definition of BE was agreed upon. For any degree of dysplasia, at least two specialist gastrointestinal (GI) pathologists are required. Risk factors for cancer include male gender, length of BE, and central obesity. Endoscopic resection should be used for visible, nodular areas. Surveillance is not recommended for <5 years of life expectancy. Management strategies for indefinite dysplasia (IND) and LGD were identified, including a de-escalation strategy for lower-risk patients and escalation to intervention with follow-up for higher-risk patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In this uniquely large consensus process in gastroenterology, we made key clinical recommendations for the escalation/de-escalation of BE in clinical practice. We made strong recommendations for the prioritization of future research.

Screening for Barrett's Esophagus

The large increase in the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in the West during the past 30 years has stimulated interest in screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE), a precursor to esophageal cancer. Effective endoscopic treatments for dysplasia and intramucosal cancer, coupled with screening programs to detect BE, could help reverse the increase in the incidence of esophageal cancer. However, there are no accurate, cost-effective, minimally invasive techniques available to screen for BE, reducing the enthusiasm of gastroenterologists. Over the past 5 years, there has been significant progress in the development of screening technologies. We review existing and developing technologies, new minimally invasive imaging techniques, nonendoscopic devices for cell collection, and biomarkers that can be measured in blood or stool samples. We discuss the status of these approaches, data from clinical studies of their effects, and their anticipated strengths and weaknesses in screening. The area is rapidly evolving, and new tools will soon be ready for prime time.

Detection and staging of esophageal cancers within Barrett's esophagus is improved by assessment in specialized Barrett's units

BACKGROUND

Identification and resection of mucosal abnormalities are critical in managing dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE) because these areas may harbor esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).

OBJECTIVES

To compare mucosal lesion and EAC detection rates in dysplastic BE in the community versus a BE unit and assess the impact of EMR on disease staging and management.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Patients with dysplastic BE.

INTERVENTIONS

Reassessment with high-definition white-light endoscopy (HD-WLE), narrow-band imaging (NBI), and Seattle protocol biopsies. EMR performed in lesions thought to harbor neoplasia. Review of referral histology and endoscopies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Mucosal lesion and EAC detection rates in a BE unit versus the community. Impact of EMR on management.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients were referred (88% male; median age, 69 years). At referral, HD-WLE/NBI use was 57%/14%, and Seattle protocol adherence was 20%. Eighteen patients had intramucosal cancer. Lesions were detected in 65 patients in the BE unit versus 29 patients at referral (P < .001). EMR was performed in 47 patients. BE unit assessment confirmed EAC in all 18 patients and identified 10 additional patients (56% increased cancer detection, P = .036); all 10 had lesions identified in the BE unit (vs 3 identified at referral). EMR in these patients found submucosal cancer (n = 4) and intramucosal cancer (n = 6), resulting in esophagectomy (n = 4) and chemoradiotherapy (n = 1).

LIMITATION

Academic center.

CONCLUSION

BE assessment at a BE unit resulted in increased lesion and EAC detection. EMR of early cancers was critical in optimizing patient management. These data suggest that BE unit referral be considered in patients with dysplastic BE.

Adherence to the 2011 American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement for the diagnosis and management of Barrett's esophagus

Considerable variability exists in adherence to practice guidelines for Barrett's esophagus (BE). Rapid advances in management approaches to BE led to a new American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) medical position statement in 2011. Our aim was to assess how well members of the AGA Clinical Practice section adhered to these guidelines. A self-administered survey incorporating questions on diagnostic criteria, cancer risk estimates, screening, surveillance, and therapeutics for BE was distributed electronically to 5850 North American members of the AGA Clinical Practice section. The response rate was 470 of 2040 opened e-mails (23%). Intestinal metaplasia was required for diagnosis of BE by 90%, but the Prague classification was used by only 53% of those aware of it. The annual risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma was reported as 0.1-0.5% by 76%. Screening practices were variable, with 35% screening all patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease and 15% repeating endoscopy in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease following a negative screening. Surveillance guidelines were followed by 79% for nondysplastic BE and 86% for low-grade dysplasia, with expert pathology confirmation of dysplasia reported by 86%. Proton pump inhibitor dosing was variable, with 18% administering twice-daily doses and 30% titrating dose to symptoms. Ablation therapy was recommended by 6% for nondysplastic BE, 38% for low-grade dysplasia, and 52% for high-grade dysplasia. There is satisfactory adherence to the new AGA guidelines with respect to diagnosis, cancer risk estimates, and surveillance intervals in a select group of respondents. However, adherence continues to be variable in the use of the Prague classification, screening, and dosing of antisecretory therapy. Use of ablation therapy increases with grade of dysplasia. The reason for continued variability in adherence to BE practice guidelines remains unclear, and more evidence-based guidance is required to enhance clinical practice.

Low grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: Should we worry?

The optimal management for low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett’s esophagus is unclear. In this article the importance of LGD is discussed, including the significant risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Endoscopic surveillance is a management option but is plagued by sampling error and issues of suboptimal endoscopy. Furthermore endoscopic surveillance has not been demonstrated to be cost-effective or to reduce cancer mortality. The emergence of endoluminal therapy over the past decade has resulted in a paradigm shift in the management of LGD. Ablative therapy, including radiofrequency ablation, has demonstrated promising results in the management of LGD with regards to safety, cost-effectiveness, durability and reduction in cancer risk. It is, however, vital that a shared-decision making process occurs between the physician and the patient as to the preferred management of LGD. As such the management of LGD should be “individualised.”

Barrett's oesophagus: epidemiology, cancer risk and implications for management

Although endoscopic surveillance of patients with Barrett's oesophagus has been widely implemented, its effectiveness is debateable. The recently reported low annual oesophageal adenocarcinoma risk in population studies, the failure to identify most Barrett's patients at risk of disease progression, the poor adherence to surveillance and biopsy protocols, and the significant risk of misclassification of dysplasia all tend to undermine the effectiveness of current management, in particular, endoscopic surveillance programmes, to prevent or improve the outcomes of patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma. The ongoing increase in incidence of Barrett's oesophagus and consequent growth of the surveillance population, together with the associated discomfort and costs of endoscopic surveillance, demand improved techniques for accurately determining individual risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. More accurate techniques are needed to run efficient surveillance programmes in the coming decades. In this review, we will discuss the current knowledge on the epidemiology of Barrett's oesophagus, and the challenging epidemiological dilemmas that need to be addressed when assessing the current screening and surveillance strategies.

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett's oesophagus

These guidelines provide a practical and evidence-based resource for the management of patients with Barrett's oesophagus and related early neoplasia. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument was followed to provide a methodological strategy for the guideline development. A systematic review of the literature was performed for English language articles published up until December 2012 in order to address controversial issues in Barrett's oesophagus including definition, screening and diagnosis, surveillance, pathological grading for dysplasia, management of dysplasia, and early cancer including training requirements. The rigour and quality of the studies was evaluated using the SIGN checklist system. Recommendations on each topic were scored by each author using a five-tier system (A+, strong agreement, to D+, strongly disagree). Statements that failed to reach substantial agreement among authors, defined as >80% agreement (A or A+), were revisited and modified until substantial agreement (>80%) was reached. In formulating these guidelines, we took into consideration benefits and risks for the population and national health system, as well as patient perspectives. For the first time, we have suggested stratification of patients according to their estimated cancer risk based on clinical and histopathological criteria. In order to improve communication between clinicians, we recommend the use of minimum datasets for reporting endoscopic and pathological findings. We advocate endoscopic therapy for high-grade dysplasia and early cancer, which should be performed in high-volume centres. We hope that these guidelines will standardise and improve management for patients with Barrett's oesophagus and related neoplasia.

[Screening for adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus: yes or no, when and how?]

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the main recognized risk factor for the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). The incidence of this cancer and its associated mortality has increased in developed countries during the last few years. Detection of EAC at earlier stages could potentially improve survival dramatically in these patients, which is especially important as mortality from EAC remains high despite the available treatments. Therefore, endoscopic surveillance is an attractive option for patients with Barrett's esophagus. Consequently, periodic endoscopic surveillance is recommended by all the International Gastroenterology Societies in an attempt to detect EAC at an early and potentially curable stage. Currently, the frequency of endoscopic surveillance and its need in Barrett's esophagus with low-grade dysplasia or without dysplasia are under discussion. This review presents the available evidence in order to assist clinicians in the decision-making process.

Longer inspection time is associated with increased detection of high-grade dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend that endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) be performed by using a strict biopsy protocol. However, novel methods to improve BE surveillance are still needed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of Barrett's inspection time (BIT) on yield of surveillance.

DESIGN

Post hoc analysis of data obtained from a clinical trial.

SETTING

Five tertiary referral centers.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing BE surveillance.

INTERVENTIONS

Coordinators prospectively recorded the time spent inspecting the BE mucosa with a stopwatch.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Endoscopically suspicious lesions, high-grade dysplasia (HGD)/esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).

RESULTS

A total of 112 patients underwent endoscopic surveillance by 11 individual endoscopists. Patients with longer BITs were more likely to have an endoscopically suspicious lesion (P < .001) and more endoscopically suspicious lesions (P = .0001) and receive a diagnosis of HGD/EAC (P = .001). There was a direct correlation between the endoscopist's mean BIT per centimeter of BE and the detection of patients with HGD/EAC (ρ = .63, P = .03). Endoscopists who had an average BIT longer than 1 minute per centimeter of BE detected more patients with endoscopically suspicious lesions (54.2% vs 13.3%, P = .04), and there was a trend toward a higher detection rate of HGD/EAC (40.2% vs 6.7%, P = .06).

LIMITATIONS

Post hoc analysis of an enriched study population and experienced endoscopists at tertiary referral centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Longer time spent inspecting the BE segment is associated with the increased detection of HGD/EAC. Taking additional time to perform a thorough examination of the BE mucosa may serve as an easy and widely available method to improve the yield of BE surveillance.

Barrett's Esophagus: Emerging Knowledge and Management Strategies

The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has increased exponentially in the last 3 decades. Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the only known precursor of EAC. Patients with BE have a greater than 40 folds higher risk of EAC compared with the general population. Recent years have witnessed a revolution in the clinical and molecular research related to BE. However, several aspects of this condition remain controversial. Data regarding the true prevalence of BE have varied widely. Recent studies have suggested a lower incidence of EAC in nondysplastic BE (NDBE) than previously reported. There is paucity of prospective data showing a survival benefit of screening or surveillance for BE. Furthermore, the ever-increasing emphasis on healthcare cost containment has called for reexamination of the screening and surveillance strategies for BE. There is a need for identification of reliable clinical predictors or molecular biomarkers to risk-stratify patients who might benefit the most from screening or surveillance for BE. Finally, new therapies have emerged for the management of dysplastic BE. In this paper, we highlight the key areas of controversy and uncertainty surrounding BE. The paper discusses, in detail, the current literature about the molecular pathogenesis, biomarkers, histopathological diagnosis, and management strategies for BE.

Inter-endoscopist agreement in diagnosis of Barrett's oesophagus

OBJECTIVE

To assess how interpretation of abnormalities at the oesophago-gastric junction (OGJ) when making a diagnosis of Barrett's oesophagus (BO) varies between endoscopists and to examine the impact of the endoscopy experience on these decisions.

DESIGN/SETTING

Members of the Irish Society of Gastroenterology who regularly perform gastroscopy were invited to participate in a web based image assessment study.

INTERVENTIONS

Questions were posed to ascertain level of endoscopy experience, and participants were asked to indicate the presence or absence of BO in 12 endoscopic images of the OGJ.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was overall level of agreement in responses and relationship to endoscopy experience.

RESULTS

The responses of 65 clinicians regularly performing gastroscopy were analysed. In 3/12 images, showing typical long segment BO, there was a strong consensus on the endoscopic diagnosis (>95% agreement). However, agreement was fair to poor (κ for multiple raters, 0.31) on the presence or absence of short BO segments at endoscopy. Minimal differences were observed between experienced endoscopists (individuals with >10 years' endoscopy experience) and less experienced counterparts in the threshold for BO diagnosis. Inter-endoscopist agreement overall was not significantly better within the more experienced group.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrates low interobserver agreement in endoscopic diagnosis of (short segment) BO, even among experienced endoscopists. Given the costs associated with endoscopic surveillance of BO, prompt efforts to promote consensus diagnosis and improve agreement are required as an important quality improvement measure in this area.

Diagnosis and management of Barrett's esophagus: What's next?

The past decade has led to marked improvements in our understanding regarding the pathogenesis and risk of progression of Barrett's esophagus (BE), enhanced imaging technology to improve dysplasia detection, and the development and refinement of endoscopic techniques, such as mucosal ablation and endoscopic mucosal resection(EMR), to eradicate BE. However, many questions remain including identifying which, if any, candidates are most appropriate for screening for BE; how to improve current surveillance protocols; predicting which patients with BE will develop neoplastic progression; identifying the most appropriate candidates for endoscopic eradication therapy; developing algorithms for appropriate management posteradication; and understanding the potential role of chemoprophylaxis. This article describes potential future advances regarding screening, surveillance, risk stratification, endoscopic eradication therapies, and chemoprevention and provides a potential future management strategy for patients with BE.

Barrett's esophagus surveillance: When, how often, does it work?

Barrett's esophagus is a well-known risk factor for the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Current practice guidelines recommend endoscopic surveillance of patients with Barrett's esophagus in an attempt to detect cancer at an early and potentially curable stage. This review addresses the rationale behind surveillance and criteria for inclusion of patients in surveillance programs as well as the appropriate technique and intervals that should be used. This work addresses other key topics in Barrett's esophagus surveillance, including the efficacy of surveillance programs, physician compliance with surveillance guidelines, cost-effectiveness of surveillance programs, and areas for future research.

Autofluorescence and narrow band imaging in Barrett's esophagus

This review discusses the application of 2 novel imaging techniques in Barrett's esophagus: autofluorescence imaging and narrow band imaging (NBI). Autofluorescence as well as NBI may help to direct endoscopic therapy for early neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus; their value in daily practice, however, seems to be limited and needs further evaluation.