Diagnosis and management of Barrett esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

MR1 : ESGE recommends the following standards for Barrett esophagus (BE) surveillance:- a minimum of 1-minute inspection time per cm of BE length during a surveillance endoscopy- photodocumentation of landmarks, the BE segment including one picture per cm of BE length, and the esophagogastric junction in retroflexed position, and any visible lesions- use of the Prague and (for visible lesions) Paris classification- collection of biopsies from all visible abnormalities (if present), followed by random four-quadrant biopsies for every 2-cm BE length.Strong recommendation, weak quality of evidence. MR2: ESGE suggests varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance are advised.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR3: ESGE suggests that, if a patient has reached 75 years of age at the time of the last surveillance endoscopy and/or the patient's life expectancy is less than 5 years, the discontinuation of further surveillance endoscopies can be considered. Weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence. MR4: ESGE recommends offering endoscopic eradication therapy using ablation to patients with BE and low grade dysplasia (LGD) on at least two separate endoscopies, both confirmed by a second experienced pathologist.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR5: ESGE recommends endoscopic ablation treatment for BE with confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD) without visible lesions, to prevent progression to invasive cancer.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR6: ESGE recommends offering complete eradication of all remaining Barrett epithelium by ablation after endoscopic resection of visible abnormalities containing any degree of dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. MR7: ESGE recommends endoscopic resection as curative treatment for T1a Barrett's cancer with well/moderate differentiation and no signs of lymphovascular invasion.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR8: ESGE suggests that low risk submucosal (T1b) EAC (i. e. submucosal invasion depth ≤ 500 µm AND no [lympho]vascular invasion AND no poor tumor differentiation) can be treated by endoscopic resection, provided that adequate follow-up with gastroscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and computed tomography (CT)/positrion emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in expert centers.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR9: ESGE suggests that submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (tumor invasion > 500 µm into the submucosa), and/or (lympho)vascular invasion, and/or a poor tumor differentiation should be considered high risk. Complete staging and consideration of additional treatments (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and/or surgery) or strict endoscopic follow-up should be undertaken on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR10 A: ESGE recommends that the first endoscopic follow-up after successful endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) of BE is performed in an expert center.Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence. B: ESGE recommends careful inspection of the neo-squamocolumnar junction and neo-squamous epithelium with high definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy during post-EET surveillance, to detect recurrent dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. C: ESGE recommends against routine four-quadrant biopsies of neo-squamous epithelium after successful EET of BE.Strong recommendation, low level of evidence. D: ESGE suggests, after successful EET, obtaining four-quadrant random biopsies just distal to a normal-appearing neo-squamocolumnar junction to detect dysplasia in the absence of visible lesions.Weak recommendation, low level of evidence. E: ESGE recommends targeted biopsies are obtained where there is a suspicion of recurrent BE in the tubular esophagus, or where there are visible lesions suspicious for dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. MR11: After successful EET, ESGE recommends the following surveillance intervals:- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of HGD or EAC:at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of LGD:at 1, 3, and 5 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

Today's Mistakes and Tomorrow's Wisdom In Barrett's Surveillance.

Background: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the only known precursor lesion of esophageal adenocarcinoma, a malignancy with increasing incidence and poor survival rates. To reduce mortality, regular endoscopic surveillance of BE patients is recommended to detect neoplasia in an (endoscopically) curable stage. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of current BE surveillance strategies, its pitfalls, and potential future directions to optimize BE surveillance. Summary: Several societal guidelines provide surveillance strategies. However, when practicing those endoscopies multiple drawbacks are encountered. Important challenges are time-consuming biopsy protocols with low adherence rates, biopsy sampling error, interobserver variability in endoscopic detection of lesions, and interobserver variability in diagnosis of dysplasia. Furthermore, the overall efficacy and cost-effectiveness of surveillance are questioned. Using novel techniques, such as artificial intelligence and personalized surveillance intervals, can help to overcome these obstacles. Key Messages: Currently, there is room for improvement in BE surveillance. Better risk-stratification is expected to reduce both patient and healthcare burdens. Personalized and dynamic surveillance intervals accompanied by novel techniques in detection and histopathological assessment of dysplasia may be tools for a change in the right direction.

Sex Differences in Neoplastic Progression in Barrett's Esophagus: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

Recommendations in Barrett's esophagus (BE) guidelines are mainly based on male patients. We aimed to evaluate sex differences in BE patients in (1) probability of and (2) time to neoplastic progression, and (3) differences in the stage distribution of neoplasia. We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study including 868 BE patients. Cox regression modeling and accelerated failure time modeling were used to estimate the sex differences. Neoplastic progression was defined as high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and/or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Among the 639 (74%) males and 229 females that were included (median follow-up 7.1 years), 61 (7.0%) developed HGD/EAC. Neoplastic progression risk was estimated to be twice as high among males (HR 2.26, 95% CI 1.11-4.62) than females. The risk of HGD was found to be higher in males (HR 3.76, 95% CI 1.33-10.6). Time to HGD/EAC (AR 0.52, 95% CI 0.29-0.95) and HGD (AR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19-0.86) was shorter in males. Females had proportionally more EAC than HGD and tended to have higher stages of neoplasia at diagnosis. In conclusion, both the risk of and time to neoplastic progression were higher in males. However, females were proportionally more often diagnosed with (advanced) EAC. We should strive for improved neoplastic risk stratification per individual BE patient, incorporating sex disparities into new prediction models.

Self-expandable duodenal metal stent placement for the palliation of gastric outlet obstruction over the past 20 years.

INTRODUCTION: Duodenal stent placement is a palliative option for management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). In the last 20 years, management of gastrointestinal cancers has considerably changed. It is unknown if these changes have affected clinical outcome of duodenal stent placement. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary referral center. Patients who underwent duodenal stent placement for GOO-symptoms due to a malignant stricture were included. Primary outcome was GOO-symptom free survival. Secondary outcomes included stent-related adverse event rates. Potential explanatory parameters such as period of stent placement (1998-2009 vs 2010-2019), prior treatments, peritoneal deposits, and stricture length were evaluated using multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 147 patients (62 % male; median age 64 years) were included. After a median of 28 days after stent placement, 82 patients (57 %) had recurrent GOO-symptoms. GOO-symptom free survival was significantly lower in 2010-2019 (P < 0.01). Time period was the only independent predictor for reduced GOO-symptom free survival (HR 1.76, P < 0.01). Stent-related adverse event rates increased over time (1998-2009: 31 % vs 2010-2019: 37 %). Prior treatment with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy was significantly associated with an increased risk of adverse events (OR 2.53, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcome of duodenal stent placement did not improve over time. The decreased GOO-symptom free survival and increased adverse event rate in more recent years are probably related to the chemo- and/or radiotherapy treatment provided prior to duodenal stent placement.