Optimized Surveillance Intervals Following Endoscopic Eradication of Dysplastic Barrett's Esophagus: An International Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Recommended surveillance intervals after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) after endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) are largely not evidence-based. Using recurrence rates in a multicenter international Barrett's esophagus (BE) CE-IM cohort, we aimed to generate optimal intervals for surveillance. METHODS: Patients with dysplastic BE undergoing EET and achieving CE-IM from prospectively maintained databases at 5 tertiary-care centers in the United States and the United Kingdom were included. The cumulative incidence of recurrence was estimated, accounting for the unknown date of actual recurrence that lies between the dates of current and previous endoscopy. This cumulative incidence of recurrence subsequently was used to estimate the proportion of patients with undetected recurrence for various surveillance intervals over 5 years. Intervals were selected that minimized recurrences remaining undetected for more than 6 months. Actual patterns of post-CE-IM follow-up evaluation are described. RESULTS: A total of 498 patients (with baseline low-grade dysplasia, 115 patients; high-grade dysplasia [HGD], 288 patients; and intramucosal adenocarcinoma [IMCa], 95 patients) were included. Any recurrence occurred in 27.1% and dysplastic recurrence occurred in 8.4% over a median of 2.6 years of follow-up evaluation. For pre-ablation HGD/IMCa, intervals of 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, and then annually, resulted in no patients with dysplastic recurrence undetected for more than 6 months, comparable with current guideline recommendations despite a 33% reduction in the number of surveillance endoscopies. For pre-ablation low-grade dysplasia, intervals of 1, 2, and 4 years balanced endoscopic burden and undetected recurrence risk. CONCLUSIONS: Lengthening post-CE-IM surveillance intervals would reduce the endoscopic burden after CE-IM with comparable rates of recurrent HGD/IMCa. Future guidelines should consider reduced surveillance frequency.

A prospective multicenter study using a new multiband mucosectomy device for endoscopic resection of early neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Early neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus (BE) can be effectively and safely removed by endoscopic resection (ER) using multiband mucosectomy (MBM). This study aimed to document performance of a novel MBM device designed for improved visualization, easier passage of accessories, and better suction power compared with other marketed MBM devices. METHODS: This international, single-arm, prospective registry in 14 referral centers (Europe, 10; United States, 3; Canada, 1) included patients with early BE neoplasia scheduled for ER. The primary endpoint was successful ER defined as complete resection of the delineated area in 1 procedure. Secondary outcomes were adverse events and procedure time. RESULTS: A total of 332 lesions was included in 291 patients (248 men; mean age, 67 years [standard deviation, 9.6]). ER indication was high-grade dysplasia in 64%, early adenocarcinoma in 19%, lesion with low-grade dysplasia in 11%, and a lesion without definite histology in 6%. Successful ER was reached in 322 of 332 lesions (97%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 94.6%-98.4%). A perforation occurred in 3 of 332 procedures (.9%; 95% CI, .31%-2.62%), all were managed endoscopically, and patients were admitted with intravenous antibiotics during days 2, 3, and 9. Postprocedural bleeding requiring an intervention occurred in 5 of 332 resections (1.5%; 95% CI, .65%-3.48%). Dysphagia requiring dilatation occurred in 11 patients (3.8%; 95% CI, 2.1%-6.6%). Median procedure time was 16 minutes (interquartile range, 12.0-26.0). CONCLUSIONS: In expert hands, the novel MBM device proved to be effective for resection of early neoplastic lesions in BE, with successful ER in 97% of procedures. Severe adverse events were rare and were effectively managed endoscopically or conservatively. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02482701.).

The cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency ablation for Barrett's esophagus with low-grade dysplasia: results from a randomized controlled trial (SURF trial).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Surveillance versus Radiofrequency Ablation (SURF) trial randomized 136 patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) containing low-grade dysplasia (LGD), to receive radiofrequency ablation (ablation, n = 68) or endoscopic surveillance (control, n = 68). Ablation reduced the risk of neoplastic progression to high-grade dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) by 25% over 3 years (1.5% for ablation vs 26.5% for control). We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from a provider perspective alongside this trial. METHODS: Patients were followed for 3 years to quantify their use of health care services, including therapeutic and surveillance endoscopies, treatment of adverse events, and medication. Costs for treatment of progression were analyzed separately. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated by dividing the difference in costs (excluding and including the downstream costs for treatment of progression) by the difference in prevented events of progression. Bootstrap analysis (1000 samples) was used to construct 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Patients who underwent ablation generated mean costs of U.S.$13,503 during the trial versus $2236 for controls (difference $11,267; 95% CI, $9996-$12,378), with an ICER per prevented event of progression of $45,066. Including the costs for treatment of progression, ablation patients generated mean costs of $13,523 versus $4,930 for controls (difference $8593; 95% CI, $6881-$10,153) with an ICER of $34,373. Based on the various ICER estimates derived from the bootstrap analysis, one can be reasonably certain (>75%) that ablation is efficient at a willingness to pay of $51,664 per prevented event of progression or $40,915 including downstream costs of progression. CONCLUSIONS: Ablation for patients with confirmed BE-LGD is more effective and more expensive than endoscopic surveillance in reducing the risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia/EAC. The increase in costs of ablation can be justified to avoid a serious event such as neoplastic progression. At a willingness to pay of $40,915 per prevented event of progression, one can be reasonably certain that ablation is efficient. (www.trialregister.nl number: NTR 1198.).