Gastrointestinal cancer precursor risk and mortality in pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms: a nationwide cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm (IPMN) of the pancreas is a precursor of pancreatic cancer. While earlier research has shown a high prevalence of synchronous/metachronous extrapancreatic tumors in IPMN patients, these studies have often been small with retrospective data collection. The aim of the study was to examine absolute and relative risks of non-pancreatic gastrointestinal (GI) cancer precursors and mortality in histologically confirmed IPMN.

METHODS

Through the nationwide ESPRESSO histopathology cohort, we retrieved data on IPMN between 1965 and 2016. Each index case was matched to ≤5 general population controls. Through Cox regression, we estimated hazard ratios (HRs) for future GI cancer precursors and death.

RESULTS

A total of 117 patients with IPMN and 539 age- and sex-matched controls were included. Over a median of 2.1 years of follow up, we confirmed two (1.7%) incident GI cancer precursors in IPMN vs. four (0.7%) in controls, corresponding to an HR of 1.89 (95%CI = 0.34-10.55). By contrast, IPMN patients were at increased risk of death (HR 3.61 (95%CI = 1.79-7.27)). The most common cause of death in IPMN was pancreatic cancer (n = 14; 45.2% of all deaths).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no association between IPMN and other GI cancer precursors. This argues against comprehensive routine surveillance for other GI cancer precursors in IPMN patients. Mortality was increased in IPMN with pancreatic cancer being the most common cause of death, indicating the need for lifelong follow up in all resected and non-resected patients with IPMN. However, results should be confirmed in larger cohorts.

Comparison of IOL Power Prediction Accuracy between Two Swept-Source OCT Biometry Devices

PURPOSE

To compare intraocular lens (IOL) power prediction accuracy of the Eyestar 900 (EyeS900) and the IOLMaster 700 (IOLM700) based on estimated and measured posterior corneal power DESIGN: Retrospective, inter-instrument reliability study METHODS: Setting: Institutional.

PARTICIPANTS

225 eyes of 225 cataract surgery patients.

MEASUREMENTS

Patients underwent measurements by both devices preoperatively.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Spherical Equivalent Prediction Error (SEQ-PE), spread of the SEQ-PE (Precision) and the absolute SEQ-PE (accuracy) of each device using Barrett Universal II (BUII) formula with either estimated posterior keratometry (E-PK) or measured posterior keratometry (M-PK).

RESULTS

Trimmed mean SEQ-PEs of EyeS900 E-PK, EyeS900 M-PK, IOLM700 E-PK and IOLM700 M-PK were 0.03, 0.08, 0.02 and 0.08 D, respectively with no significant differences between EyeS900 E-PK and IOLM700 E-PK (p=0.31) as well as between EyeS900 M-PK and IOLM700 M-PK (p=0.31). Statistically significant SEQ-PE differences were found when E-PK and M-PK were compared, regardless of the device used, showing hyperopic SEQ-PE in M-PK calculations. Excellent correlation and agreement in SEQ-PE were found between the devices for both E-PK (p<0.001,r=0.848, mean bias:+0.01 D, 95% LOA of -0.32 to +0.34 D) and M-PK (p<0.001,r=0.776, mean bias:-0.01 D, 95% LOA of -0.42 to +0.39 D). No significant differences were found comparing absolute SEQ-PE and precision of the devices.

CONCLUSION

The Eyestar 900 and the IOLMaster 700 show comparable IOL power prediction accuracy by the BUII formula using either estimated or measured posterior keratometry. An adjusted lens factor may be required for BUII when utilizing measured posterior keratometry in both devices.

Accuracy of Astigmatism Calculation with the Barrett, Panacea, and enVista Toric Calculators

PURPOSE

To evaluate residual refractive astigmatism using the Panacea and enVista toric calculators, compared to the gold-standard Barrett toric calculator.

DESIGN

A retrospective and comparative study was conducted in one center.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of all patients with a diagnosis of senile cataracts and regular corneal astigmatism, without previous corneal or intraocular surgery, who underwent phacoemulsification with implantation of a toric intraocular lens, who had pre- and postoperative corneal topography, biometry, and refraction measurements.

RESULTS

The frequency of preoperative astigmatism according to the axis was 70 (84%) eyes showing with-the-rule (WTR) astigmatism, 9 (14%) eyes with against-the-rule (ATR) astigmatism, and 1 (2%) eye with oblique astigmatism. Regarding astigmatism prediction errors, there were statistically significant differences between the enVista and Panacea calculators (median of 0.39, 0.18, and 0.52 for Barrett, enVista, and Panacea, respectively). The residual astigmatism prediction error centroid was similar for the Barrett and enVista toric calculators, and both were lower compared to the Panacea calculator (x-component p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The enVista toric calculator incorporating the Emmetropia Verifying Optical (EVO) toric calculator provides similar results to the gold-standard Barrett calculator.

Radiofrequency ablation versus hybrid argon plasma coagulation in Barrett's esophagus: a prospective randomised trial

INTRODUCTION

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and hybrid argon plasma coagulation (H-APC) are established thermal ablation techniques for eradicating Barrett's esophagus after endoscopic resection. This study aimed to compare RFA with H-APC in relation to safety, effectiveness and eradication rates.

METHODS

After endoscopic resection, patients were randomly assigned to H-APC or RFA. A simplified H-APC technique was applied at 60 W. RFA was used with a 90° focal catheter and a simplified protocol of 12 J/cm2 × 3 or with a Halo 360° balloon and 10 J/cm2/cleaning/10 J/cm2. Eradication rates and adverse events were recorded. Patients received follow-up examinations after 3, 6, 12 and 24 months.

RESULTS

One hundred and one patients were finally included in the study (RFA N = 47, H-APC N = 54). The median follow-up period for short-term was 6.0 (CI 5.4-6.9) months and for long term 21 (CI 19.2.5-22.7) months. In total 211 ablations were performed. The eradication rates after long-term follow-up were 74.2% in the RFA group and 82.9% in the H-APC group. Post-interventional pain was significantly greater in the RFA group, with a mean score of 4.56/10 and duration of 7.54 days, in comparison with a mean score of 2.07/10 over 3.59 days in the H-APC group. Stenoses requiring intervention were noted in 3.7% of patients in the H-APC arm and 14.9% of those in the RFA arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Both ablation techniques have good results in relation to the eradication rate, with a slightly better outcome in the H-APC group. The severity and duration of pain were significantly greater in the RFA group.

Exploring the Incidence and Associated Risk Factors of Barrett's Esophagus in African Americans: A Retrospective Study

Background

The prevalence of Barrett's esophagus (BE) in African Americans (AA) is uncertain. However, several potential risk factors, includes family history, male sex, ethnicity, chronic heartburn and acid reflux, age over 60, current or past smoking, and obesity are associated with BE. The aim of this study is to determine the incidence of BE in AA patients who underwent Esophageal Gastro Endoscopy (EGD).

Methods

Medical and demographic data of 1,253 AA patients with various symptoms, including BE, Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), esophageal squamous adenocarcinoma (SCC), hiatal hernia, H. pylori infection, Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD), Gastritis, and esophagitis, were collected from January 2004 to December 2014 at Howard University Hospital.

Results

Among the 1,253 patients, the median age was 61 and 49% were male out of the total. The frequencies of EAC (p= 0.05), and SCC (p= 0.002) were significantly high in males, along with SCC frequency significantly increased with older age (p<0.001). Furthermore, esophageal polyps with hiatal hernia (p=0.008) and H. pylori (p=<0.001) were found to be associated with esophagitis, and its presence may contribute to the development of BE.

Conclusion

The findings highlighted the high prevalence of GERD symptoms and pathologic gastritis along with EAC was less common than SCC and both types of esophageal cancer were associated with male gender and older age whereas, H. pylori infection was identified as a risk factor for pathologic gastritis in AA. Overall data emphasize the need for extensive research, increased awareness, diagnosis, and management of GERD, gastritis, and related conditions to uncover the underlying mechanisms and factors contributing to these conditions in the AA population.

Prospective clinical cohort study: low incidence of Barrett esophagus but high rate of reflux disease at 5-year follow-up after sleeve gastrectomy versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux disease seems more frequent after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) than Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB). Retrospective case series have raised concerns about a high incidence of Barrett esophagus (BE) after LSG.

OBJECTIVE

This prospective clinical cohort study compared the incidence of BE ≥5 years after LSG and LRYGB.

SETTING

St. Clara Hospital, Basel, and University Hospital, Zürich, Switzerland.

METHODS

Patients were recruited from 2 bariatric centers where preoperative gastroscopy is standard practice and LRYGB is preferred for patients with preexisting gastroesophageal reflux disease. At follow-up ≥5 years after surgery, patients underwent gastroscopy with quadrantic biopsies from the squamocolumnar junction and metaplastic segment. Symptoms were assessed using validated questionnaires. Wireless pH measurement assessed esophageal acid exposure.

RESULTS

A total of 169 patients were included, with a median 7.0 ± 1.5 years after surgery. In the LSG group (n = 83), 3 patients had endoscopically and histologically confirmed de novo BE; in the LRYGB group (n = 86), there were 2 patients with BE, 1 de novo and 1 preexisting (de novo BE, 3.6% versus 1.2%; P = .362). At follow-up, reflux symptoms were reported more frequently by the LSG group than by the LRYGB group (51.9% versus 10.5%). Similarly, moderate-to-severe reflux esophagitis (Los Angeles grade B-D) was more common (27.7% versus 5.8%) despite greater use of proton pump inhibitors (49.4% versus 19.7%), and pathologic acid exposure was more frequent in patients who underwent LSG than in patients who underwent LRYGB.

CONCLUSIONS

After at least 5 years of follow-up, a higher incidence of reflux symptoms, reflux esophagitis, and pathologic esophageal acid exposure was found in patients who underwent LSG compared with patients who underwent LRYGB. However, the incidence of BE after LSG was low and not significantly different between the 2 groups.

Management of Barrett's Esophagus: Practice-Oriented Answers to Clinical Questions

Barrett's esophagus is the most important complication of gastro-esophageal reflux disease and the only known precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma. The diagnosis and treatment of Barrett's esophagus are clinically challenging as it requires a high level of knowledge and competence in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. For instance, endoscopists should know when and how to perform biopsies when Barrett's esophagus is suspected. Furthermore, the correct identification and treatment of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus is crucial to prevent progression to cancer as well as it is the endoscopic surveillance of treated patients. Herein, we report practice-oriented answers to clinical questions that clinicians should be aware of when approaching patients with Barrett's esophagus.

An evaluation of the accuracy of toric intraocular lens power calculation based on measured total corneal refractive power

Purpose

To evaluate a method using measured values of total corneal refractive power (TCRP) for a manufacturer's online calculator by comparing it with the Barrett toric calculator (BTC) and Kane toric calculator (KTC) combined with simulated keratometry values (SimK).

Methods

This was a retrospective case series. Patient records were reviewed to identify the patients who had biometry with the IOL Master 700 and Pentacam recorded before toric IOL implantation and refractive follow-up data after implantation. The predicted error in residual astigmatism was calculated by vector analysis according to the calculation methods and the measurements used.

Results

A total of 70 eyes of 56 patients were included. The mean absolute astigmatism prediction errors were 0.6 ± 0.32, 0.59 ± 0.35, and 0.61 ± 0.35 D for the ATC_TCRP, BTC_SimK, and KTC_SimK calculators, respectively (P = 0.934), and the centroid of the prediction errors were 0.3 D @ 178°, 0.11 D @ 102°, and 0.09 D @ 147°, respectively (P = 0.23). In the with-the-rule subgroup, the centroid of the prediction error was 0.34 D @ 176° for ATC_TCRP and was the highest among the three calculation methods (P = 0.046).

Conclusion

The ATC_TCRP, BTC_SimK, and KTC_SimK calculators had similar performance with regards to their astigmatism prediction accuracy. The ATC_TCRP calculator combined with 4.0-mm apex/ring readings of TCRP was slightly intended to result in against-the-rule residual astigmatism.

Accuracy of Barrett versus third-generation intraocular lens formula across all axial lengths

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate and compare the accuracy of Barrett Universal II versus third-generation formula for different intraocular lens (IOL) powers for Indian eyes with different axial lengths (ALs).

DESIGN

This is a retrospective, nonrandomized consecutive case series.

METHODS

This study reviewed 981 eyes from 825 patients who had uneventful cataract surgery and IOL implantation. The eyes were separated into subgroups based on AL as follows: short (<22.0 mm), medium (22.01-23.99 mm), and long (>24.0 mm). The predicted refractive outcome using formulas was calculated and compared with the actual refractive outcome to give the prediction error. The percentage of every refractive error absolute value for each formula was calculated at <±0.50D, 0.50D-0.75D, and >±0.75D.

RESULTS

In all, 981 eyes were analyzed. There were no significant differences in the median absolute error predicted by Barrett and the third-generation formulae. The Barrett Universal II formula resulted in significantly lowest mean spherical equivalent in short eyes (P = 0.0047) as well as a higher percentage of eyes with prediction errors within <±0.50D, 0.50D-0.75D, and >±0.75D. We found that the Barrett Universal II formula had the lowest predictive refraction error and mean absolute error across all ALs.

CONCLUSION

The Barrett Universal II formula rendered the lowest predictive error compared with SRK/T, Holladay, and Hoffer Q formulas. Thus, the Barrett Universal II formula may be regarded as a more reliable formula for achieving emmetropia and reducing postoperative refractive surprises across all ALs.

Accuracy of Six Intraocular Lens Power Calculations in Eyes with Axial Lengths Greater than 28.0 mm

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of several intraocular (IOL) lens power calculation formulas in long eyes. This was a single-site retrospective consecutive case series that reviewed patients with axial lengths (AL) > 28.0 mm who underwent phacoemulsification. The Wang−Koch (WK) adjustment and Cooke-modified axial length (CMAL) adjustment were applied to Holladay 1 and SRK/T. The median absolute error (MedAE) and the percentage of eyes with prediction errors ±0.25 diopters (D), ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were used to analyze the formula’s accuracy. This study comprised a total of 35 eyes from 25 patients. The Kane formula had the lowest MedAE of all the formulas, but all were comparable except Holladay 1, which had a significantly lower prediction accuracy with either AL adjustment. The SRK/T formula with the CMAL adjustment had the highest accuracy in predicting the formula outcome within ±0.50 D. The newer formulas (BU-II, EVO, Hill-RBF version 3.0, and Kane) were all equally predictable in long eyes. The SRK/T formula with the CMAL adjustment was comparable to these newer formulas with better outcomes than the WK adjustment. The Holladay 1 with either AL adjustment had the lowest predictive accuracy.

Population-Based Prevalence of Gastrointestinal Abnormalities at Colon Capsule Endoscopy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The population prevalence of gastrointestinal (GI) disease is unclear and difficult to assess in an asymptomatic population. The aim of this study was to determine prevalence of GI lesions in a largely asymptomatic population undergoing colon capsule endoscopy (CCE).

METHODS

Participants aged between 50-75 years were retrieved from the Rotterdam Study, a longitudinal epidemiological study, between 2017-2019. Participants received CCE with bowel preparation. Abnormalities defined as clinically relevant were Barrett segment >3cm, severe ulceration, polyp >10 mm or ≥3 polyps in small bowel (SB) or colon, and cancer.

RESULTS

Of 2800 invited subjects, 462 (16.5%) participants (mean age 66.8 years, female 53.5%) ingested the colon capsule. A total of 451 videos were analyzed, and in 94.7% the capsule reached the descending colon. At least 1 abnormal finding was seen in 448 (99.3%) participants. The prevalence of abnormalities per GI segment, and the most common type of abnormality, were as follows: Esophageal 14.8% (Barrett's esophagus <3 cm in 8.3%), gastric 27.9% (fundic gland polyps in 18.1%), SB abnormalities 33.9% (erosions in 23.8%), colon 93.3% (diverticula in 81.2%). A total of 54 participants (12%) had clinically relevant abnormalities, 3 (0.7%) in esophagus/stomach (reflux esophagitis grade D, Mallory Weiss lesion and severe gastritis), 5 (1.1%) in SB (polyps > 10 mm; n = 4, severe ulcer n = 1,) and 46 (10.2%) in colon (polyp > 10 mm or ≥3 polyps n = 46, colorectal cancer n = 1).

CONCLUSIONS

GI lesions are very common in a mostly asymptomatic Western population, and clinically relevant lesions were found in 12% at CCE. These findings provide a frame of reference for the prevalence rates of GI lesions in the general population.

Expression of DNA Mismatch Repair Proteins, PD1 and PDL1 in Barrett's Neoplasia

BACKGROUND/AIM

Cancers with a microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) status respond to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI). Regardless of the tumor type, MSI-H/dMMR status is a reliable biomarker for ICI responsiveness. This study aimed at determining the MSI-H status in precursor lesions to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) such as Barrett's esophagus (BE) and BE with either low-grade dysplasia (LGD) or high-grade dysplasia (HGD).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed immunohistochemical staining (IHC) for PMS2, MSH6, PD1, and PD-L1.

RESULTS

All cases of BE (50), LGD (48), and HGD (50) had intact PMS2 and MSH6 nuclear expression; were negative for PD1; and had a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) score <1. One EAC case (2%) was negative for PMS2 nuclear expression. One HGD case (2%) and two EAC cases (4%) were PD1 positive (CPS score <1 applied to PD1). One EAC case (2%) had a CPS score >1, and one EAC case (2%) was MSI-H. MSI-H tumors usually show PD-L1 expression, although the MSI-H EAC in this study had a PD-L1 CPS score of <1.

CONCLUSION

Further studies investigating EAC and its precursor lesions for PD1, PD-L1, and dMMR status may be informative regarding the immunogenicity of the evolution of EAC.

Comparison of refractive prediction for intraoperative aberrometry and Barrett True K no history formula in cataract surgery patients with prior radial keratotomy

PURPOSE

To compare prediction errors of the Barrett True K No History (Barrett TKNH) formula and intraoperative aberrometry (IA) in eyes with prior radial keratotomy (RK).

METHODS

A retrospective, non-randomized study of all patients with RK who underwent cataract surgery using IA at the UCHealth Sue Anschutz-Rodgers Eye Center from 2014 to 2019 was conducted. Refraction prediction error (RPE) for IA and Barrett TKNH was compared. General linear modelling accounting for the correlation between eyes was used to determine whether absolute RPE differed significantly between Barrett TKNH and IA. Outcome by number of RK cuts was also compared between the two methods.

RESULTS

Forty-seven eyes (31 patients) were included. The mean RPEs for Barrett TKNH and IA were 0.04 ± 0.92D and 0.01 ± 0.92D, respectively, neither was significantly different than zero (p = 0.77, p = 0.91). The median absolute RPEs were 0.50D and 0.48D, respectively (p = 0.70). The refractive outcome fell within ± 0.50D of prediction for 51.1% of eyes with Barrett TKNH and 55.3% with IA, and 80.8% were within ± 1.00D for both techniques. Mean absolute RPE increased with a higher number of RK cuts (grouped into < 8 cuts and ≥ 8 cuts) for both Barrett TKNH (0.35D and 0.74D, p = 0.008) and IA (0.30D and 0.80D, p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is no statistically significant difference between Barrett TKNH and IA in predicting postoperative refractive error in eyes with prior RK. Both are reasonable methods for choosing intraocular lens power. Eyes with more RK cuts have higher prediction errors.

Barrett's esophagus surveillance in a prospective Dutch multi-center community-based cohort of 985 patients demonstrates low risk of neoplastic progression

Background and Aims

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is accompanied by an increased risk of developing esophageal cancer. Accurate risk‐stratification is warranted to improve endoscopic surveillance. Most data available on risk factors is derived from tertiary care centers or from cohorts with limited surveillance time or surveillance quality. The aim of this study was to assess endoscopic and clinical risk factors for progression to high‐grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in a large prospective cohort of BE patients from community hospitals supported by an overarching infrastructure to ensure optimal surveillance quality.

Methods

A well‐defined prospective multicenter cohort study was initiated in six community hospitals in the Amsterdam region in 2003. BE patients were identified by PALGA search and included in a prospective surveillance program with a single endoscopist performing all endoscopies at each hospital. Planning and data collection was performed by experienced research nurses who attended all endoscopies. Endpoint was progression to HGD/EAC.

Results

Nine hundred eighty‐five patients were included for analysis. During median follow‐up of 7.9 years (IQR 4.1–12.5) 67 patients were diagnosed with HGD (n = 28) or EAC (n = 39), progression rate 0.78% per patient‐year. As a clinical risk factor age at time of endoscopy was associated with neoplastic progression (HR 1.05; 95% CI 1.03–1.08). Maximum Barrett length and low‐grade dysplasia (LGD) at baseline were endoscopic predictors of progression (HR 1.15; 95% CI 1.09–1.21 and HR 2.36; 95% CI 1.29–4.33).

Conclusion

Risk of progression to HGD/EAC in a large, prospective, community‐based Barrett's cohort was low. Barrett's length, LGD and age were important risk factors for progression.

(www.trialregister.nl NTR1789)

Comparison of three newer generation freely available intraocular lens power calculation formulae across all axial lengths

Purpose:

The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of three newer generation formulae (Barrett Universal II, EVO, Hill-RBF 2.0) for calculation of power of two standard IOLs—the Acrysof IQ and Tecnis ZCB00 across all axial lengths.

Methods:

In this retrospective series, 206 eyes of 206 patients, operated for cataract surgery with above two IOLs over the last 6 months, were included in the study. Preoperative biometry measurements were obtained from LenstarLS900. By using recommended lens constants, the mean error for each formula was calculated and compared. Then, the optimized IOL constants were calculated to reduce the mean error to zero. Mean and median absolute errors were calculated for all eyes and separately for short (AL<22.5 mm), medium (22.5–24.5 mm), and long eyes (>24.5 mm). Absolute errors and percentages of eyes within prediction errors of ±0.25 D, ±0.50 D, ±0.75 D, and ±1.00 D were compared.

Results:

Prediction error with using recommended lens constants was significantly lower in the Barrett Universal II formula as compared to the other two formulae. However, after optimizing lens constants, there were no significant differences in the absolute errors between the three formulae. The formulae ranked by mean absolute error were as follows: Barrett Universal II (0.304 D), EVO (0.317 D), and Hill-RBF (0.322) D. There were no significant differences between absolute errors in the three formulae in each of the short-, medium-, and long-eye subgroups.

Conclusion:

With proper lens constant optimization, the Barrett Universal II, EVO, and Hill-RBF 2.0 formulae were equally accurate in predicting IOL power across the entire range of axial lengths.

Barrett esophagus: What to expect from Artificial Intelligence?

The evaluation and assessment of Barrett's esophagus is challenging for both expert and nonexpert endoscopists. However, the early diagnosis of cancer in Barrett's esophagus is crucial for its prognosis, and could save costs. Pre-clinical and clinical studies on the application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Barrett's esophagus have shown promising results. In this review, we focus on the current challenges and future perspectives of implementing AI systems in the management of patients with Barrett's esophagus.

Preoperative measurements for cataract surgery: a comparison of ultrasound and optical biometric devices

PURPOSE

To evaluate differences in preoperative measurements and refractive outcomes between ultrasound and optical biometry when using the Barrett Universal II intraocular lens (IOL) power formula.

METHODS

In this consecutive case series, cataract extraction and IOL implantation cases from two surgical centers in Toronto, Canada, were recruited between January 2015 and July 2017. Differences between ultrasound (applanation or immersion A-scan) and optical biometry (IOLMaster 500) were compared for axial length (AL), anterior chamber depth and refractive outcomes. The primary outcome was the percentage of cases in each cohort within ± 0.50D of refractive error.

RESULTS

In total, 527 cataract cases underwent IOLMaster testing. Of these, 329 eyes (62.4%) were also measured by applanation A-scan, and the other 198 eyes (37.6%) received immersion A-scan testing. Applanation ultrasound led to 5.8%, 16.0% and 46.4% of eyes within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D and ± 1.00D of refractive error, respectively, whereas the IOLMaster 500 led to 48.5%, 77.1% and 94.9%, respectively (n = 293, ± 0.50D: p < 0.001). Immersion ultrasound led to 31.2%, 57.6% and 91.2% of eyes within ± 0.25D, ± 0.50D and ± 1.00D of refractive error, respectively, whereas the IOLMaster 500 led to 42.4%, 72.0% and 92.0%, respectively (n = 125, ± 0.50D: p = 0.001). Applanation (n = 329, A-scan AL: 23.64 ± 1.67 mm, IOLMaster AL: 24.20 ± 1.70 mm, p < 0.001) and immersion ultrasound (n = 198, A-scan AL: 25.01 ± 2.06 mm, IOLMaster AL: 25.08 ± 2.13 mm, p = 0.002) yielded significantly lower AL values compared to optical biometry measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

Optical biometry yielded a significantly larger percentage of cases within ± 0.50D of refractive error compared to ultrasound biometry when using the Barrett Universal II IOL power formula.

Evaluation of Barrett universal II formula for intraocular lens power calculation in Asian Indian population

Purpose:

Barrett Universal II (BU-II) is considered as one of the most accurate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation formulas; however, there is no literature studying the same in Indian population. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of BU-II formula in prediction of IOL power for cataract surgery in Asian Indian population. This was an institutional, prospective, observational study.

Methods:

Patients with senile cataract who underwent phacoemulsification with posterior chamber IOL implantation were enrolled in the study. Biometry data from Lenstar-LS900 was used and IOL power was calculated using four IOL formulas: modified SRK-II, SRK/T, Olsen, and BU-II. Primary outcome was measured as the prediction error in postoperative refraction for each formula and secondary outcome was measured as the difference in mean absolute errors between the four formulas. SPSS Version-21 with P < 0.05 considered significant.

Results:

A total of 244 eyes were included in the study and were divided into three groups in accordance to axial length (AL): Group 1 (AL: 22–24.5 mm; N = 135), Group 2 (AL <22 mm; N = 53), and Group 3 (AL >24.5 mm; N = 56). BU-II formula gave the lowest mean absolute error (0.37 ± 0.27D) and median absolute error (0.34) in predicted postoperative refraction in the entire study population. When compared with the other formulas, mean absolute error was significantly lower in all three groups (P < 0.0005) as well, except for Olsen formula in the normal AL group, where the results were comparable (P = 0.742).

Conclusion:

BU-II performed as the most accurate formula in the prediction of postoperative refraction over a wide range of ALs.

Influence of pupil dilation on the Barrett universal II (new generation), Haigis (4th generation), and SRK/T (3rd generation) intraocular lens calculation formulas: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Despite the surge in the number of cataract surgeries, there is limited information available regarding the influence of pupil dilation on predicted postoperative refraction and its comparison with recommended various intraocular lens power calculated using the different parameters. We used three different IOL power calculation formulas: Barrett Universal II (Barrett) (5-variable formula), Haigis (3-variable formula), and SRK/T (2-variable formula), in order to investigate the potential effect of pupil dilation on the predicted postoperative refraction (PPR) and recommended intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 150 eyes. All variables were measured and calculated using a ZEISS IOL Master 700. The following variables were measured before and after dilation: anterior chamber depth (ACD), lens thickness (LT), white-to-white (WTW). PPR and recommended IOL power were calculated by Barrett, Haigis, and SRK/T IOL calculation formulas. The change in each variable before and after dilation, and the correlations between all changes were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Spearman's rank-order correlation test, respectively.

RESULTS

The mean absolute change (MAC) in PPR before and after dilation was found to be highest in the Barrett formula. Significant differences were found between each MAC (P <  0.0001). Significant changes were observed before and after dilation in ACD and LT (P <  0.0001), but not in WTW. Using the Barrett and Haigis formulas, there was a significant positive correlation between the change in PPR and change in ACD (P <  0.0001), and a negative correlation between change in PPR and change in LT (P <  0.0001). The correlations were strongest with the Barret formula followed by the Haigis, particularly in terms of LT. Changes in PPR determined by the Barrett formula also demonstrated a significant positive correlation with changes in WTW (P = 0.022). The recommended IOL power determined using Barrett and Haigis changed before and after dilation in 23.3 and 19.3% cases respectively, while SRK/T showed no change.

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of PPR and recommended IOL power, pupil dilation influenced mostly the Barrett formula. Given the stronger correlation between the changes in PPR when using Barrett and the changes in ACD, LT, and WTW, changes in ACD, LT, and WTW significantly affect how dilation influences the Barrett formula. Determining how dilation influences each formula and other variables is key to improving the accuracy of IOL calculations.

Y Chromosome Loss is a Frequent Event in Barrett's Adenocarcinoma and Associated with Poor Outcome

Background: The loss of the Y chromosome in various malignant diseases has been described previously. There are no reliable information on the actual frequency, significance and homogeneity of Y chromosome loss (LoY) in esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Methods: 400 male EAC including lymph-node metastases were analyzed with commercially available Y chromosome specific fluorescence in-situ probes. The results were correlated with molecular and immunohistochemical markers and clinicopathological aspects. Results: The entire cohort (n = 400) showed a singular LoY of one chromosome arm in 1.0% (q-arm) and 2.8% (p-arm), complete LoY in 52.5%. LoY was strongly associated with shortened overall-survival (OS). Patients with preserved Y chromosome had a median OS of 58.8 months, patients with LoY an OS of 19.4 months (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed LoY as an independent prognostic marker with a hazard ratio of 1.835 (95% CI 1.233–2.725). LoY correlated with TP53 mutations (p = 0.003), KRAS amplification (p = 0.004), loss of ARID1a (p = 0.045) and presence of LAG3 (p = 0.018). Conclusions: Loss of the Y chromosome is a very common phenomenon in EAC. The LoY is heterogeneously distributed within the tumor, but corresponding lymph node metastases frequently show homogeneous LoY, indicating a selection and metastasizing advantage with poor prognosis. To date, the male predominance of EAC (7–9:1) is unclear, so genetic explanatory models are favored. The LoY in EAC may be biologically and functionally relevant and additional genomic or functional analyses are needed.

Comparison of using Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer G4 and Barrett formula in predicting low cylinder preoperatively for cataract surgeries

PURPOSE

To compare corneal astigmatism estimation from Barrett toric calculator, with measurement from Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer G4 in low corneal cylinder patients.

METHODS

Preoperative corneal astigmatism was measured using Auto Kerato-Refractometer (AutoKM), IOL Master, and Galilei G4 (combined Placido-dual Scheimpflug analyzer) and was processed by Barrett toric calculator with measurements obtained from Auto Kerato-Refractometer and from IOL Master. A total of 42 eyes undergoing cataract surgery with nontoric intraocular lens implantation were included. Corneal astigmatism was calculated based on manifest refractive astigmatism with implications of surgically induced astigmatism. Errors in predicted residual astigmatism were calculated by the difference between postoperative manifest cylindrical refractive error and preoperative corneal cylinder using vector analysis.

RESULTS

Centroid error in predicted residual astigmatism was with-the-rule 0.36 D for AutoKM and 0.48 D for IOL Master, was lower at 0.24 D for the Barrett-IOL Master, and was lowest at 0.21 D for the Barrett-AutoKM (p < .001). The Galilei G4 demonstrated the highest centroid error for SimK (0.53 D) and lower for total corneal power (0.49 D). The Barrett toric calculator obtained the lowest median absolute error in predicted residual astigmatism for AutoKM (0.43 D) and IOL Master (0.54 D). The Barrett-IOL Master demonstrated that 61% and 76% of eyes were within 0.50 and 0.75 D of the predicted residual astigmatism, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The Barrett-IOL Master had more accurate prediction of residual astigmatism for low astigmatism eyes before cataract surgery compared to Galilei Dual Scheimpflug Analyzer G4 in this study.

Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Adenocarcinomas of the Esophagogastric Junction

BACKGROUND

Adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) is uncommon in Eastern countries, including Japan, but it is believed that the incidence of EGJ adenocarcinoma will increase in Asia in the future due to the decreasing incidence of Helicobacter pylori infection. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a minimally invasive and curative treatment that allows precise pathological assessment.

SUMMARY

Magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging may be useful for differential diagnoses and for delineating the cancer margin of EGJ adenocarcinoma, but subsquamous carcinoma extension, which is the invasion of EGJ adenocarcinoma beneath the normal esophageal squamous epithelium, makes it difficult to detect cancer margins of the oral side in ESD for EGJ adenocarcinoma. Since subsquamous carcinoma extension was reported to be less than 1 cm in most cases, the oral safety margin that is placed 1 cm from the squamocolumnar junction is useful for negative cancerous horizontal margin. A multicenter retrospective study of esophageal adenocarcinoma including EGJ adenocarcinoma showed that mucosal and submucosal cancer within 500 μm from the muscularis mucosa without lymphovascular involvement, a poorly differentiated component, and lesion size over 3 cm were not associated with metastasis. Several retrospective studies about ESD for EGJ adenocarcinoma have suggested feasible short-term and long-term outcomes using curative criteria based on gastric cancer guidelines. Key Messages: ESD would be a good first-line treatment for superficial EGJ adenocarcinoma, including Barrett's adenocarcinoma. Additional information about the incidence of metastasis would help confirm the indication of ESD for EGJ adenocarcinoma.

Histological assessment & use of immunohistochemical markers for detection of dysplasia in Barrett's esophageal mucosa

BACKGROUND

Histological assessment of dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus (BE) has high inter-observer variability. Hence, use of ancillary markers for early detection of dysplasia in BE is an important clinical question.

METHODS

In this retrospective study consecutive cases of BE (n = 59), over a period of 4 years were included. Hematoxylin and eosin stained sections were reviewed independently by 3 senior qualified pathologists, who graded the dysplasia according to the Vienna Classification system and inter-observer agreement was analysed using the Kappa statistics. Subsequently Alpha-Methyl Acyl-CoA Racemase (AMACR), p53, CyclinD1, β-catenin, H2AX and M30 immunohistochemical (IHC) stains were examined on the following disease categories: BE with no dysplasia [NFD] (45), BE with indefinite for dysplasia (IFD) (4), low grade dysplasia (LGD) (3), high grade dysplasia (HGD) (2) and in adenocarcinomas (5). H score was calculated by adding up products of different grades of stain distribution and stain intensities (range of scores 0-300).

RESULTS

Among the 3 pathologists, overall agreement was poor (k 0.06; 95% CI -0.089 to 0.145), with highest disagreement noted for differentiating the LGD and IFDs (k = 0.21). After revising the histological criteria, the kappa improved to 0.53. Among the IHC stains performed, p53, β-catenin, H2AX and M30 stains were significantly useful to differentiate between IFD and LGD (P values: 0.04, 0.004, 0.05 & 0.04, respectively). AMACR and β-catenin stains though were up-regulated in HGD/adenocarcinomas than in other categories, their expression were not statistically different between the IFD and LGDs.

CONCLUSIONS

A detail histological scoring system may bring uniformity in histological interpretation of dysplasia in BE. Using a combined panel of IHC stains seems helpful in detection of dysplasia in BE, especially to differentiate the IFD and LGD changes in BE.

Esophageal sensitivity to acid in patients with Barrett's esophagus is not related to preserved esophageal mucosal integrity

BACKGROUND

Patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) usually have severe gastroesophageal reflux. However, they often have surprisingly few reflux symptoms. We hypothesized that BE patients are less sensitive to acid than gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) patients without Barrett and that this is due to an unusual preservation of mucosal integrity of the squamous epithelium prohibiting transepithelial acid diffusion.

METHODS

We prospectively analyzed esophageal sensitivity and esophageal mucosal integrity in GERD patients with and without BE and healthy subjects. An acid perfusion test was performed and mucosal integrity was assessed in vivo by electrical tissue impedance spectroscopy and ex vivo by Ussing chamber experiments with biopsy specimens.

KEY RESULTS

Gastroesophageal reflux disease patients with BE were less sensitive to acid than GERD patients without BE, but more sensitive to acid than healthy controls (time to perception Barrett's 14.0 minutes, GERD 4.6 minutes, controls 17.5 minutes). However, extracellular impedance (6.2 and 5.7 vs 8.4×10³  Ω/m) and transepithelial resistance (94.0 and 89 vs 118 Ω/cm² ) was similar in BE and GERD patients and significantly lower than in healthy subjects. Transepithelial fluorescein flux was equally increased in GERD patients with and without BE (1.6 and 1.7×10³ vs 0.6×10³  nmol/cm² /h).

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

Esophageal hypersensitivity to acid is less pronounced in BE patients than in GERD patients without Barrett. However, mucosal integrity of the squamous epithelium is equally impaired in GERD patients with and without Barrett, indicating that factors other than esophageal mucosal barrier integrity explain the difference in acid sensitivity between those with BE and those without.

The impact of flexible endoscopy in esophageal surgery

Achalasia and Treatment of esophageal Adenocarcinoma are commonly associated to surgical resection. Newer technologies in interventional endoscopy gave way to a substantial paradigm shift in the management of these conditions. In the case of achalasia, endoscopic myotomy is rapidly displacing Heller's myotomy as the gold standard in many centers. Early stage neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus (BE) comprising high-grade dysplasia (HGD), intramucosal and, in some cases, submucosal carcinoma is now being treated without the need of esophagectomy. This review presents a summary of the most relevant endoscopic techniques for both achalasia and esophageal cancer. Endoscopic advances in diagnostic and therapeutic arenas allow for minimally invasive therapies and organ preservation in most settings of achalasia and early stage neoplasia of the esophagus provided that the clinical setting and physician's expertise are prepared for this approach.

Management of Gastroesophageal Junction Tumors

Gastroesophageal junction tumors have been increasing in incidence over time, with most tumors presenting at a locally advanced stage. The treatment plan depends on the stage at diagnosis. PET-CT and endoscopic ultrasound are used to determine clinical stage. Depending on the location of the tumor in the esophagus and stomach, treatment can include chemotherapy with or without radiation, followed by surgery if there is no disease progression. Prognosis is related to stage at diagnosis and response to preoperative treatment. Most surgery for gastroesophageal junction tumors can be performed minimally invasively, which helps decrease postoperative length of stay and morbidity from surgery.

Dysplasia discrimination in intestinal-type neoplasia of the esophagus and colon via digital image analysis

Determining gastrointestinal tract dysplasia level is clinically important but can be difficult, and given this challenge, we investigated colonic and esophageal dysplastic progression using digital image analysis (IA). Whole slide images were obtained for colonic normal mucosa (NCM), hyperplastic polyps (HP), conventional tubular adenomas (TA), and adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and esophageal intestinal metaplasia negative for dysplasia (IM), indefinite for dysplasia (IFD), low-grade dysplasia (LGD), and HGD. Characteristic nuclei were circumscribed, and parameters discriminating groups included nuclear circumference (μm), area (μm(2)), and 15 positive pixel count (PPC) algorithm IA measurements. In colon polyps and esophageal lesions, average nuclear area and circumference ranged 30-108.6 μm(2) and 27.5-48.9 μm, respectively. Differences for average nuclear area and circumference met statistical significance (p < 0.05) between diagnostic groups in the esophagus and colon, except for IM versus IFD nuclear area. Pixel intensity (brightness) separated lesions within both groups with statistical significance except for colonic TAs versus HPs and esophageal LGD versus IM. HGD nuclei in both groups demonstrated more pixel staining heterogeneity than other lesions. Hierarchical clustering and principal component analysis demonstrated that lesions with similar diagnoses tended to cluster together on a low- to high-grade spectrum. Our results confirm that quantitative IA is an effective adjunct reflecting dysplasia in colon polyps and Barrett esophagus lesions. Nuclear area, circumference, and PPC algorithm findings distinguished lesions in a statistically significant manner. This suggests utility for future studies on similar methods, which may provide an adjunctive ancillary technique for pathologists and enhance patient care.

Endoscopic Therapy of Early Carcinoma of the Oesophagus

Background

Oesophageal cancer is a comparatively rare disease in the Western world. Prognosis is highly dependent on the choice of treatment. Early stages can be treated by endoscopic resection, whereas surgery needs to be performed in the case of advanced carcinomas. Technical progress has enabled high-definition endoscopes and technical add-ons which help the endoscopist in finding fine irregularities in the oesophageal mucosa, though interpretation still remains challenging.

Methods

In this review, we discuss both novel and old diagnostic procedures and their value, as well as the current recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of early oesophageal carcinomas. The database of PubMed and Medline was searched and analysed to provide all relevant literature for this review.

Results and Conclusion

Endoscopic resection is the therapy of choice in early oesophageal cancer. In case of adenocarcinoma it is mandatory to perform subsequent ablation of all residual Barrett's mucosa to avoid metachronous lesions.

Management of Barrett's esophagus: From screening to newer treatments

Barrett's esophagus is a premalignant condition of the esophagus in which the squamous epithelium of the lower end of the esophagus is replaced with columnar epithelium. Since the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma is on the rise, the major gastroenterology societies have come up with their recommendations for screening and surveillance. Specific factors like obesity, white race, age over 50 years, early age of onset of GERD, smoking and hiatal hernia have been identified as increasing the risk of Barrett's esophagus and adenocarcinoma. The diagnosis requires both endoscopic identification of columnar-lined mucosa and histological confirmation with biopsy. Most medical societies recommend screening people with GERD and other risk factors with endoscopy, but other alternatives employing less invasive methods are currently being studied. Surveillance strategies vary depending on the endoscopic findings and the Seattle biopsy protocol with random 4-quadrant sampling is recommended. Biomarkers have shown promising results, but more studies are needed in the future. White light endoscopy is the standard practice, but other advanced imaging modalities have shown variable results and hence more studies are awaited for further validation. Endoscopic eradication techniques, including both resection and ablation, have shown good but variable results for treating dysplastic lesions confined to the mucosa. Resection procedures to remove visible lesions followed by ablation of the dysplastic mucosa have shown the best results with higher eradication rates and lower recurrence rates. Surgical management is reserved for lesions with sub-mucosal invasion and lymph node spread with increased risk of metastasis.

Oesophageal biopsies are insufficient to predict final histology after endoscopic resection in early Barrett's neoplasia

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection (ER) with or without ablation is the first choice treatment for early Barrett's neoplasia. Adequate staging is important to assure a good oncological outcome.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of pre-operative biopsies in patients who undergo ER for high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or early adenocarcinoma (EAC) in Barrett's oesophagus (BE) and the cardia.

METHODS

Between November 2005-May 2012, 142 ERs performed in 137 patients were obtained. Worst pre-ER and ER histology were compared. Upgrading/downgrading was defined as any more/less severe histological grading on the ER specimen.

RESULTS

The accuracy of pre-ER biopsies in predicting final histology was 61%. ER changed the pre-treatment diagnosis in 55 of the 142 procedures (39%) with downgrading in 23 cases (16%) and upgrading from HGD to T1a or T1b in 32 cases (23%). In the majority of upgraded cases, a visible lesion according to the Paris classification could be detected (26/32, 81%).

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic accuracy of oesophageal biopsies alone in predicting final pathology in Barrett's dysplasia is only 61%. The majority of upgraded lesions are detectable. When ablative therapy is considered in HGD Barrett's dysplasia a meticulous inspection for and removal of all small visible lesions is mandatory.

The impact of endoscopic ultrasound findings on clinical decision making in Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia or early esophageal adenocarcinoma

The clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for staging patients with Barrett's esophagus and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or intramucosal carcinoma (IMC) prior to endoscopic therapy is unclear. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with HGD or IMC referred to an American medical center for endoscopic treatment between 2004 and 2010. All patients had pretreatment staging by EUS. We examined the frequency that EUS findings consistent with advanced disease (tumor invasion into the submucosa, lymph node involvement, or regional metastasis) led to a change in management. The analysis was stratified by nodularity and pre-EUS histology. We identified one hundred thirty-five patients with HGD (n = 106, 79%) or IMC (n = 29, 21%) had staging by EUS (79 non-nodular, 56 nodular). Pathologic lymph nodes or metastases were not found by EUS. There were no endosonographic abnormalities noted in any patient with non-nodular mucosa (0/79). Abnormal EUS findings were present in 8/56 patients (14%) with nodular neoplasia (five IMC, three HGD). Endoscopic mucosal resection was performed in 44 patients with a nodule, with 13% (6/44) having invasive cancer. In nodular neoplasia, the EUS and endoscopic mucosal resection were abnormal in 24% (5/21) and 40% (6/15) of those with IMC and 9% (3/35) and 0% (0/29) of those with HGD, respectively. In this study we found that EUS did not alter management in patients with non-nodular HGD or IMC. Because the diagnostic utility of EUS in subjects with non-nodular Barrett's esophagus is low, the value of performing endoscopic mucosal resection in this setting is questionable. For patients with nodular neoplasia, resection of the nodule with histological examination had greater utility than staging by EUS.

[Prevalence and epidemiology of Barrett's esophagus in the province of Barcelona]

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of Barrett's esophagus (BE) varies from 0.45% to 2.2% in patients who undergo upper endoscopy and is >12% when the indication is for reflux symptoms. The prevalence has progressively increased in recent years but is unknown in the population of the province of Barcelona.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the prevalence of BE and its epidemiological characteristics in our population.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We prospectively evaluated patients referred to the Endoscopy Unit of Hospital Clinic and Hospital General de Catalunya for an upper endoscopy. We excluded patients with known BE, prior upper endoscopy, esophagogastric surgery or refusal to participate in the study. Demographic data, alcohol intake, Helicobacter pylori infection and consumption of antisecretory agents were recorded, among other information. Participants completed a standardized questionnaire to assess the presence of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms and their severity.

RESULTS

Between July 2010 and July 2012, we included 200 patients (100 in each center). The mean age was 48.9 ± 15.6 years and the majority were women (n=120, 60%). Symptoms of GERD were present in 46 patients (23%) and some degree of esophagitis was present in 31 (15.5%). Infection by H. pylori was present in 29.7%. BE was found endoscopically in 14 (7%) patients, but was histologically confirmed in only 8 (4%). The only variable that correlated with the finding of BE was male sex.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of BE in our environment is similar to that reported in Western countries. The absence of reflux symptoms does not rule out the possibility of BE.

Role of endoscopy in GERD

Endoscopy is commonly performed for the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Endoscopy allows the physician to evaluate esophageal mucosa for evidence of esophagitis and Barrett esophagus, to obtain mucosal biopsies for evaluation of such conditions as eosinophilic esophagitis and diagnosis and grading of Barrett esophagus, and to apply various therapies. In a patient with suboptimal response to GERD therapy, endoscopy excludes other etiologies as a cause of patients' symptoms. Newer endoscopic therapies for GERD are available or are in development. Advances in imaging techniques in development will improve the diagnostic yield of endoscopy and may replace the need for mucosal biopsies.

Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy for Diagnosis of Barrett's Esophagus

Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is established as a premalignant condition in the distal esophagus. Current surveillance guidelines recommend random biopsies every 1–2 cm at intervals of 3–5 years. Advanced endoscopic imaging of BE underwent several technical revolutions within the last decade including broad-field (red-flag) techniques (e.g., chromoendoscopy) and small-field techniques with confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) at the forefront. In this review we will focus on advanced endoscopic imaging using CLE for the diagnosis and characterization of BE and associated neoplasia. In addition, we will critically discuss the technique of CLE and provide some tricks and hints for the daily routine practice of CLE for diagnosis of BE.