An Analysis of the GIQuIC Nationwide Quality Registry Reveals Unnecessary Surveillance Endoscopies in Patients With Normal and Irregular Z-Lines

Irregular Z-Line: To Biopsy or Not to Biopsy?

The z-line refers to the squamocolumnar junction which marks the transition between the normal stratified squamous epithelium of the distal esophagus and the columnar epithelium of the gastric cardia. An "irregular" z-line refers to an irregular appearing squamocolumnar junction characterized by the presence of columnar mucosa less than 1 cm in length that extends above the gastroesophageal junction. In contrast, Barrett's esophagus is diagnosed when columnar mucosa of at least 1 cm is seen in the distal esophagus extending above the gastroesophageal junction with biopsies demonstrating specialized intestinal metaplasia. Current guidelines recommend against taking routine biopsies from a normal or irregular z-line in the absence of visible abnormalities and advise against endoscopic surveillance in this patient population, in large part due to multiple studies demonstrating lack of progression to advanced neoplasia such as high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with an irregular z-line. Despite these recommendations, a sizable number of patients without Barrett's esophagus undergo biopsies from the z-line and are subsequently recommended to have surveillance endoscopies. Furthermore, patients with an irregular z-line are often mislabelled as Barrett's esophagus resulting in significant downstream consequences including higher healthcare costs and reduced health-related quality of life. In this review, we highlight the importance of landmark identification of the distal esophagus and gastroesophageal junction at the time of endoscopy, share recommendations from current guidelines related to the z-line, examine rates of neoplastic progression in those with an irregular z-line, discuss consequences of routinely biopsying an irregular z-line, and highlight strategies on how to approach an irregular z-line if seen on endoscopy. A careful, high-quality endoscopic examination can help to identify visible abnormalities at the z-line, which, if present, should be targeted for biopsies to rule out dysplasia and neoplasia.

Measuring and improving quality in esophageal care and swallowing disorders

Evaluating clinical care through quality-related metrics is increasingly common. There are now numerous quality statements and indicators related to the medical management of benign and pre-malignant esophageal diseases. Expert consensus leveraging evidence-based recommendations from published society guidelines has been the most frequently used basis for developing esophageal quality statements. While surgical care of patients with esophageal malignancies, including squamous cell carcinoma, has also been developed, those related to benign esophageal disease now include domains of diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring for gastroesophageal reflux disease, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), achalasia, and Barrett's esophagus (BE). Several recent studies evaluating adherence to quality metrics affirm substantial variation in practice patterns with opportunities for improvement in care across esophageal diseases. In particular, patient education regarding treatment options in achalasia, frequency of esophageal biopsies among patients with dysphagia to evaluate for EoE, and endoscopic evaluation within a BE segment are areas identified to have need for improvement. As the management of esophageal diseases becomes more complex and interdisciplinary, adherence to quality metrics may be a source of standardization and improvement in delivery and ultimately patient outcomes. Indeed, the development of national quality databases has resulted in a significant growth in the use of these metrics for quality improvement activities and may form the basis for future inclusion in quality reporting and payment programs.

Adjunctive Use of Wide-Area Transepithelial Sampling-3D in Patients With Symptomatic Gastroesophageal Reflux Increases Detection of Barrett's Esophagus and Dysplasia

INTRODUCTION

Patients with gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) symptoms undergoing screening upper endoscopy for Barrett's esophagus (BE) frequently demonstrate columnar-lined epithelium, with forceps biopsies (FBs) failing to yield intestinal metaplasia (IM). Repeat endoscopy is then often necessary to confirm a BE diagnosis. The aim of this study was to assess the yield of IM leading to a diagnosis of BE by the addition of wide-area transepithelial sampling (WATS-3D) to FB in the screening of patients with GERD.

METHODS

We performed a prospective registry study of patients with GERD undergoing screening upper endoscopy. Patients had both WATS-3D and FB. Patients were classified by their Z line appearance: regular, irregular (<1 cm columnar-lined epithelium), possible short-segment BE (1 to <3 cm), and possible long-segment BE (≥3 cm). Demographics, IM yield, and dysplasia yield were calculated. Adjunctive yield was defined as cases identified by WATS-3D not detected by FB, divided by cases detected by FB. Clinicians were asked if WATS-3D results affected patient management.

RESULTS

Of 23,933 patients, 6,829 (28.5%) met endoscopic criteria for BE. Of these, 2,878 (42.1%) had IM identified by either FB or WATS-3D. Among patients fulfilling endoscopic criteria for BE, the adjunctive yield of WATS-3D was 76.5% and absolute yield was 18.1%. One thousand three hundred seventeen patients (19.3%) who fulfilled endoscopic BE criteria had IM detected solely by WATS-3D. Of 240 patients with dysplasia, 107 (44.6%) were found solely by WATS-3D. Among patients with positive WATS-3D but negative FB, the care plan changed in 90.7%.

DISCUSSION

The addition of WATS-3D to FB in patients with GERD being screened for BE resulted in confirmation of BE in an additional one-fifth of patients. Furthermore, dysplasia diagnoses approximately doubled.

Prevalence and Predictors of Barrett's Esophagus After Negative Initial Endoscopy: Analysis From Two National Databases

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Guidelines suggest a single screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in patients with multiple risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aimed to determine BE prevalence and predictors on repeat EGD after a negative initial EGD, using 2 large national databases (GI Quality Improvement Consortium [GIQuIC] and TriNetX).

METHODS

Patients who underwent at least 2 EGDs were included and those with BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma detected at initial EGD were excluded. Patient demographics and prevalence of BE on repeat EGD were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess for independent risk factors for BE detected on the repeat EGD.

RESULTS

In 214,318 and 153,445 patients undergoing at least 2 EGDs over a median follow-up of 28-35 months, the prevalence of BE on repeat EGD was 1.7% in GIQuIC and 3.4% in TriNetX, respectively (26%-45% of baseline BE prevalence). Most (89%) patients had nondysplastic BE. The prevalence of BE remained stable over time (from 1 to >5 years from negative initial EGD) but increased with increasing number of risk factors. BE prevalence in a high-risk population (gastroesophageal reflux disease plus ≥1 risk factor for BE) was 3%-4%.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of >350,000 patients, rates of BE on repeat EGD ranged from 1.7%-3.4%, and were higher in those with multiple risk factors. Most were likely missed at initial evaluation, underscoring the importance of a high-quality initial endoscopic examination. Although routine repeat endoscopic BE screening after a negative initial examination is not recommended, repeat screening may be considered in carefully selected patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and ≥2 risk factors for BE, potentially using nonendoscopic tools.

Wide Variability in Dysplasia Detection Rate and Adherence to Seattle Protocol and Surveillance Recommendations in Barrett' Esophagus: A Population-Based Analysis using the GIQuIC National Quality Benchmarking Registry

INTRODUCTION

Variability in adherence rates to the Seattle protocol and to surveillance interval recommendations, established quality indicators (QIs) in Barrett's esophagus (BE), are unknown.

METHODS

We evaluated endoscopist and site-based adherence rates to these QIs from 1/2018-5/2021 using the GI Quality Improvement Consortium (GIQuIC) national registry with matched endoscopy and pathology data.

RESULTS

Across 153 practices with 572 endoscopists performing 20,155 endoscopies, adherence to Seattle protocol varied by endoscopists (median 93.8%, IQR 18.9%) and by site (median 90.0%, IQR 20.1%). Adherence to appropriate surveillance intervals for nondysplastic BE also varied by endoscopist (median 82.4%, IQR 36.3%) and site (median 77.2%, IQR 29.8%). Overall dysplasia detection rate was 3.1% and varied among endoscopists and sites.

CONCLUSION

These US population-based results can serve as a benchmark for quality initiatives and intervention trials aimed at improving outcomes for BE patients.

Mechanisms and pathophysiology of Barrett oesophagus

Barrett oesophagus, in which a metaplastic columnar mucosa that can predispose individuals to cancer development lines a portion of the distal oesophagus, is the only known precursor of oesophageal adenocarcinoma, the incidence of which has increased profoundly over the past several decades. Most evidence suggests that Barrett oesophagus develops from progenitor cells at the oesophagogastric junction that proliferate and undergo epithelial-mesenchymal transition as part of a wound-healing process that replaces oesophageal squamous epithelium damaged by gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). GERD also seems to induce reprogramming of key transcription factors in the progenitor cells, resulting in the development of the specialized intestinal metaplasia that is characteristic of Barrett oesophagus, probably through an intermediate step of metaplasia to cardiac mucosa. Genome-wide association studies suggest that patients with GERD who develop Barrett oesophagus might have an inherited predisposition to oesophageal metaplasia and that there is a shared genetic susceptibility to Barrett oesophagus and to several of its risk factors (such as GERD, obesity and cigarette smoking). In this Review, we discuss the mechanisms, pathophysiology, genetic predisposition and cells of origin of Barrett oesophagus, and opine on the clinical implications and future research directions.

Esophageal adenocarcinoma phenotypes and risk factors

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has increased significantly over the last several decades. The majority of EAC patients present without a prior history of Barrett's esophagus (BE). As a result, endoscopic surveillance has made a suboptimal impact on EAC survival. These concerns raise serious question whether the time has come to take a different direction. The aim of this article is to review evolving evidence of EAC phenotypes and risk factors.

RECENT FINDINGS

A recent study has identified two phenotypes of EAC based on the presence or absence of intestinal metaplasia (IM) in the background of the tumor (BE/IM and non-BE/IM). The study found that one-half of patients with EAC have the non-BE/IM phenotype, which is associated with more aggressive behavior and worse survival. A retrospective review demonstrates that the proportion of the two phenotypes has been stable over the last decades. Similarly, the increasing incidence of EAC cannot be explained by an increased frequency of new, unique risk factors but rather by a higher prevalence of already known risk factors. Emerging data also demonstrates that, whereas reflux symptoms are an unreliable feature for screening regardless of phenotype, the absence of reflux symptoms is more common for the non-BE/IM. Differences in the degree of genomic methylation and immune response might explain the two phenotypes at a genomic level.

SUMMARY

EAC phenotypes have implications for tumor behavior and phenotypic differences might underlie our suboptimal screening efforts. Future screening efforts should not uniformly rely on reflux symptoms as a prerequisite for screening and should consider alternatives to the current screening strategy.

Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus: An Updated ACG Guideline

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.

The evolution of endoscopic therapy for Barrett's esophagus

Barrett’s esophagus is the condition in which a metaplastic columnar epithelium replaces the stratified squamous epithelium that normally lines the distal esophagus. The condition develops as a consequence of chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease and predisposes the patient to the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma. The diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus have undergone dramatic changes over the years and continue to evolve today. Endoscopic eradication therapy has revolutionized the management of dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus and early esophageal adenocarcinoma by significantly reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with the prior gold standard of therapy, esophagectomy. The purpose of this review is to highlight current principles in the management and endoscopic treatment of this disease.

Important Quality Metrics and Standardization in Endoscopy

Quality metrics and standardization has become critical as the Affordable Care Act mandates that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services change reimbursement from volume to a value-based system. While the most commonly used quality indicators are related to that of colonoscopy, quality metrics for other procedures and endoscopy units have been developed mainly by the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Data to show that these quality metrics, especially in the field of advanced endoscopy as well as in the era of COVID-19 pandemic, can improve patient outcomes, are anticipated.

Racial Disparities in Adherence to Quality Indicators in Barrett's Esophagus: An Analysis Using the GIQuIC National Benchmarking Registry

INTRODUCTION

Racial disparities in outcomes in esophageal adenocarcinoma are well established. Using a nationwide registry, we aimed to compare clinical and endoscopic characteristics of blacks and whites with Barrett's esophagus (BE) and adherence to defined quality indicators.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the Gastrointestinal Quality Improvement Consortium Registry between January 2012 and December 2019. Patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with an indication of BE screening or surveillance, or an endoscopic finding of BE, were included. Adherence to recommended endoscopic surveillance intervals of 3-5 years for nondysplastic BE and adherence to Seattle biopsy protocol were assessed. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to assess variables associated with adherence.

RESULTS

A total of 100,848 esophagogastroduodenoscopies in 84,789 patients met inclusion criteria (blacks-3,957 and whites-96,891). Blacks were less likely to have histologically confirmed BE (34.3% vs 51.7%, P < 0.01), had shorter BE lengths (1.61 vs 2.35 cm, P < 0.01), and were less likely to have any dysplasia (4.3% vs 7.1%, P < 0.01). Although whites were predominantly male (62.2%), about half of blacks with BE were female (53.0%). Blacks with nondysplastic BE were less likely to be recommended appropriate surveillance intervals (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.68-0.89). Adherence rates to the Seattle protocol were modestly higher among blacks overall (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04-1.20), although significantly lower among blacks with BE segments >6 cm.

DISCUSSION

The use of sex as a risk factor for BE screening may be inappropriate among blacks. Fewer blacks were recommended appropriate surveillance intervals, and blacks with longer segment BE were less likely to undergo Seattle biopsy protocol.