Antireflux Surgery Versus Antireflux Medication and Risk of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in Patients With Barrett's Esophagus.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Antireflux treatment is recommended to reduce esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett's esophagus. Antireflux surgery (fundoplication) counteracts gastroesophageal reflux of all types of carcinogenic gastric content and reduces esophageal acid exposure to a greater extent than antireflux medication (eg, proton pump inhibitors). We examined the hypothesis that antireflux surgery prevents esophageal adenocarcinoma to a larger degree than antireflux medication in patients with Barrett's esophagus. METHODS: This multinational and population-based cohort study included all patients with a diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus in any of the national patient registries in Denmark (2012-2020), Finland (1987-1996 and 2010-2020), Norway (2008-2020), or Sweden (2006-2020). Patients who underwent antireflux surgery were compared with nonoperated patients using antireflux medication. The risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma was calculated using multivariable Cox regression, providing hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs adjusted for age, sex, country, calendar year, and comorbidity. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 33,939 patients with Barrett's esophagus. Of these, 542 (1.6%) had undergone antireflux surgery. During up to 32 years of follow-up, the overall HR was not decreased in patients having undergone antireflux surgery compared with nonoperated patients using antireflux medication, but rather increased (adjusted HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.5). In addition, HRs did not decrease with longer follow-up, but instead increased for each follow-up category, from 1.8 (95% CI, 0.6-5.0) within 1-4 years of follow-up to 4.4 (95% CI, 1.4-13.5) after 10-32 years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Barrett's esophagus who undergo antireflux surgery do not seem to have a lower risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma than those using antireflux medication.

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Endoscopic Eradication Therapy of Barrett's Esophagus and Related Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) can be effective in eradicating BE and related neoplasia and has greater risk of harms and resource use than surveillance endoscopy. This clinical practice guideline aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the use of EET in BE and related neoplasia. METHODS: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients, conducted an evidence review, and used the Evidence-to-Decision Framework to develop recommendations regarding the use of EET in patients with BE under the following scenarios: presence of (1) high-grade dysplasia, (2) low-grade dysplasia, (3) no dysplasia, and (4) choice of stepwise endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or focal EMR plus ablation, and (5) endoscopic submucosal dissection vs EMR. Clinical recommendations were based on the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 5 recommendations for the use of EET in BE and related neoplasia. Based on the available evidence, the panel made a strong recommendation in favor of EET in patients with BE high-grade dysplasia and conditional recommendation against EET in BE without dysplasia. The panel made a conditional recommendation in favor of EET in BE low-grade dysplasia; patients with BE low-grade dysplasia who place a higher value on the potential harms and lower value on the benefits (which are uncertain) regarding reduction of esophageal cancer mortality could reasonably select surveillance endoscopy. In patients with visible lesions, a conditional recommendation was made in favor of focal EMR plus ablation over stepwise EMR. In patients with visible neoplastic lesions undergoing resection, the use of either endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection was suggested based on lesion characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the indications for EET in the management of BE and related neoplasia. Guidance is also provided regarding the considerations surrounding implementation of EET. Providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to guide future research opportunities.

Incidence and Prediction of Unrelated Mortality After Successful Endoscopic Eradication Therapy for Barrett's Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Follow-up (FU) strategies after endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) for Barrett's neoplasia do not consider the risk of mortality from causes other than esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We aimed to evaluate this risk during long-term FU, and to assess whether the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) can predict mortality. METHODS: We included all patients with successful EET from the nationwide Barrett registry in the Netherlands. Data were merged with National Statistics for accurate mortality data. We evaluated annual mortality rates (AMRs, per 1000 person-years) and standardized mortality ratio for other-cause mortality. Performance of the CCI was evaluated by discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: We included 1154 patients with a mean age of 64 years (±9). During median 59 months (p25-p75 37-91; total 6375 person-years), 154 patients (13%) died from other causes than EAC (AMR, 24.1; 95% CI, 20.5-28.2), most commonly non-EAC cancers (n = 58), cardiovascular (n = 31), or pulmonary diseases (n = 26). Four patients died from recurrent EAC (AMR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.1-1.4). Compared with the general Dutch population, mortality was significantly increased for patients in the lowest 3 age quartiles (ie, age <71 years). Validation of CCI in our population showed good discrimination (Concordance statistic, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.84) and fair calibration. CONCLUSION: The other-cause mortality risk after successful EET was more than 40 times higher (48; 95% CI, 15-99) than the risk of EAC-related mortality. Our findings reveal that younger post-EET patients exhibit a significantly reduced life expectancy when compared with the general population. Furthermore, they emphasize the strong predictive ability of CCI for long-term mortality after EET. This straightforward scoring system can inform decisions regarding personalized FU, including appropriate cessation timing. (NL7039).

Clinical Outcomes After Endoscopic Management of Low-Risk and High-Risk T1a Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is standard of care for T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, data on outcomes in high-risk T1a EAC are limited. We assessed and compared outcomes after EET of low-risk and high-risk T1a EAC, including intraluminal EAC recurrence, extraesophageal metastases, and overall survival. METHODS: Patients who underwent EET for T1a EAC at 3 referral Barrett's esophagus endotherapy units between 1996 and 2022 were included. Patients with submucosal invasion, positive deep margins, or metastases at initial diagnosis were excluded. High-risk T1a EAC was defined as T1a EAC with poor differentiation and/or lymphovascular invasion, with low-risk disease being defined without these features. All pathology was systematically assessed by expert gastrointestinal pathologists. Baseline and follow-up endoscopy and pathology data were abstracted. Time-to-event analyses were performed to compare outcomes between groups. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-eight patients with T1a EAC were included (high risk, n = 45; low risk, n = 143) with a median age of 70 years, and 84% were men. Groups were comparable for age, sex, Barrett's esophagus length, lesion size, and EET technique. Rates of delayed extraesophageal metastases (11.1% vs 1.4%) were significantly higher in the high-risk group ( P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the rates of intraluminal EAC recurrence ( P = 0.79) and overall survival ( P = 0.73) between the 2 groups. DISCUSSION: Patients with high-risk T1a EAC undergoing successful EET had a substantially higher rate of extraesophageal metastases compared with those with low-risk T1a EAC on long-term follow-up. These data should be factored into discussions with patients while selecting treatment approaches. Additional prospective data in this area are critical.

Update on applications of endoscopic cryotherapy in the gastrointestinal tract.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Endoscopic cryotherapy has emerged as a minimally invasive procedure for targeted tissue ablation within the gastrointestinal tract. This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of current clinical applications of EC with a review of the pertinent literature. RECENT FINDINGS: Endoscopic cryotherapy has demonstrated safety and efficacy for various gastrointestinal conditions. Recent studies have highlighted the efficacy of endoscopic cryotherapy, including both liquid nitrogen-based spray cryotherapy and the novel cryoballoon focal ablation system, in achieving complete eradication of dysplasia and neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus. Endoscopic cryotherapy has also shown promise as a second-line treatment option for patients with dysplastic Barrett's esophagus refractory to radiofrequency ablation and as an alternative to surgical resection for duodenal adenomas, when endoscopic resection is not feasible. Innovative applications for the treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding and management of benign refractory esophageal strictures have also been reported. SUMMARY: Endoscopic cryotherapy represents a safe, effective, and well tolerated therapeutic option for various clinical scenarios in gastrointestinal endoscopy, including challenging disease states such as refractory Barrett's esophagus and advanced esophageal cancer. Advancements in cryotherapy technology and ongoing research continue to explore additional clinical indications and expand the role of endoscopic cryotherapy in patient care with an aim toward improved patient outcomes.

The use of a real-time computer-aided detection system for visible lesions in the Barrett's esophagus during live endoscopic procedures: a pilot study (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This pilot study evaluated the performance of a recently developed computer-aided detection (CADe) system for Barrett's neoplasia during live endoscopic procedures. METHODS: Fifteen patients with a visible lesion and 15 without were included in this study. A CAD-assisted workflow was used that included a slow pullback video recording of the entire Barrett's segment with live CADe assistance, followed by CADe-assisted level-based video recordings every 2 cm of the Barrett's segment. Outcomes were per-patient and per-level diagnostic accuracy of the CAD-assisted workflow, in which the primary outcome was per-patient in vivo CADe sensitivity. RESULTS: In the per-patient analyses, the CADe system detected all visible lesions (sensitivity 100%). Per-patient CADe specificity was 53%. Per-level sensitivity and specificity of the CADe-assisted workflow were 100% and 73%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, detection by the CADe system of all potentially neoplastic lesions in Barrett's esophagus was comparable to that of an expert endoscopist. Continued refinement of the system may improve specificity. External validation in larger multicenter studies is planned. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT05628441.).

Feasibility of esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection after radiofrequency ablation treatment in patients with Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a well-established treatment for Barrett's esophagus (BE) in the United States. Similarly, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been widely performed for early esophageal carcinoma. However, conducting ESD after RFA can be technically challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of ESD in patients with prior RFA. METHODS: This study was a single-center retrospective analysis of patients who underwent esophageal ESD after undergoing prior RFA treatment for BE. RESULTS: Of 44 esophageal ESD cases, 7 underwent prior RFA. In those 7 cases, the en bloc resection rate was 100%, and the R0 resection rate was 86%. No acute or delayed adverse events or rehospitalizations occurred in any patient. CONCLUSIONS: ESD may be a feasible and safe option for patients with a history of RFA. It could be considered for esophageal neoplasms in patients previously treated with RFA for BE.

Liquid nitrogen spray cryotherapy for eradication of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus: results from a multicenter prospective registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Liquid nitrogen spray cryotherapy (SCT) is an alternative to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for eradication of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aimed to assess the safety, efficacy, and durability of SCT in a multicenter U.S. registry. METHODS: This is a multicenter prospective registry of adults with BE treated with truFreeze Spray Cryotherapy (Steris, Mentor, Ohio, USA) (4 community and 11 academic sites, 2013-2022). Complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CEIM) and dysplasia (CED) were assessed in BE with dysplasia or intramucosal adenocarcinoma. Kaplan-Meier analysis of CEIM and CED was performed. Hazard ratios for CEIM stratified by baseline risk factors were calculated. RESULTS: Among 138 subjects with low-grade dysplasia (24%), high-grade dysplasia (49%), and intramucosal adenocarcinoma (27%), 34% received prior RFA therapy. Subjects received a median of 2 SCT sessions. Adverse events were uncommon, with 5.5% reporting strictures and 0.7% a perforation. Rates of CEIM and CED, respectively, were 66% and 84% after 2 years and 67% and 92% after 3 years. In RFA-naïve patients, CEIM was 77% and CED was 96% at 3 years. Increasing BE length (per centimeter: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.96) and prior treatment with RFA (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.39; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.69) were associated with a lower rate of CEIM. Recurrence occurred in 8.8% (n = 6) at a mean follow-up of 2.5 years after CEIM. CONCLUSION: In this largest reported prospective cohort, liquid nitrogen SCT was safe and effective for the treatment of dysplastic and neoplastic BE. Response was lower in those with prior failed RFA; in that cohort, approximately 50% attained CEIM at 3 years.

Vertical tumor-positive resection margins and the risk of residual neoplasia after endoscopic resection of Barrett's neoplasia: a nationwide cohort with pathology reassessment.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the proportion of patients with residual neoplasia after endoscopic resection (ER) for Barrett's neoplasia with confirmed tumor-positive vertical resection margin (R1v). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients undergoing ER for Barrett's neoplasia with histologically documented R1v since 2008 in the Dutch Barrett Expert Centers. We defined R1v as cancer cells touching vertical resection margins and Rx as nonassessable margins. Reassessment of R1v specimens was performed by experienced pathologists until consensus was reached regarding vertical margins. RESULTS: 101/110 included patients had macroscopically complete resections (17 T1a, 84 T1b), and 99/101 (98%) ER specimens were histologically reassessed, with R1v confirmed in 74 patients (75%), Rx in 16%, and R0 in 9%. Presence/absence of residual neoplasia could be assessed in 66/74 patients during endoscopic reassessment (52) and/or in the surgical resection specimen (14), and 33/66 (50%) had residual neoplasia. Residual neoplasia detected during endoscopy was always endoscopically visible and biopsies from a normal-appearing ER scar did not detect additional neoplasia. Of 25 patients who underwent endoscopic follow-up (median 37 months [interquartile range 12-50]), 4 developed local recurrence (16.0%), all detected as visible abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: After ER with R1v, 50% of patients had no residual neoplasia. Histological evaluation of ER margins appears challenging, as in this study 75% of documented R1v cases were confirmed during reassessment. Endoscopic reassessment 8-12 weeks after ER seems to accurately detect residual neoplasia and can help to determine the most appropriate strategy for patients with R1v.

Safety and efficacy of salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection for Barrett's neoplasia recurrence after radiofrequency ablation.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of salvage endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for Barrett's neoplasia recurrence after radiofrequency ablation (RFA). METHODS: Data from patients at 16 centers were collected for a multicenter retrospective study. Patients who underwent at least one RFA treatment for Barrett's esophagus and thereafter underwent further esophageal ESD for neoplasia recurrence were included. RESULTS: Data from 56 patients who underwent salvage ESD between April 2014 and November 2022 were collected. Immediate complications included one muscular tear (1.8%) treated with stent (Agree classification: grade IIIa). Two transmural perforations (3.6%; treated with clips) and five muscular tears (8.9%; two treated with clips) had no clinical impact and were not considered as adverse events. Seven patients (12.5%) developed strictures (grade IIIa), which were treated with balloon dilation. Histological analysis showed 36 adenocarcinoma, 17 high grade dysplasia, and 3 low grade dysplasia. En bloc and R0 resection rates were 89.3% and 66.1%, respectively. Resections were curative in 33 patients (58.9%), and noncurative in 22 patients (39.3%), including 11 "local risk" (19.6%) and 11 "high risk" (19.6%) resections. At the end of follow-up with a median time of 14 (0-75) months after salvage ESD, and with further endoscopic treatment if necessary (RFA, argon plasma coagulation, endoscopic mucosal resection, ESD), neoplasia remission ratio was 37/53 (69.8%) and the median remission time was 13 (1-75) months. CONCLUSION: In expert hands, salvage ESD was a safe and effective treatment for recurrence of Barrett's neoplasia after RFA treatment.

Durability of radiofrequency ablation for long-segment and ultralong-segment Barrett's esophagus over 10 years.

BACKGROUND: Long-term durability data for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to prevent esophageal adenocarcinoma in long-segment (LSBE) and ultralong-segment Barrett's esophagus (ULSBE) is lacking. This study aimed to determine 10-year cancer progression, eradication, and complication rates in LSBE and ULSBE patients treated with RFA. METHODS: Single-surgeon prospective database of patients with LSBE (≥ 3 to < 8 cm) and ULSBE (≥ 8 cm) who underwent RFA (2001-2021) were retrospectively analyzed. Ten-year cancer progression calculated with Kaplan-Meier analysis. Eradication rates, including complete remission of dysplasia (CR-D) and intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM), and rates of recurrence and complications, compared between LSBE and ULSBE groups. RESULTS: Ten years after starting treatment, the cancer rate was 14.3% in 56 patients. CR-D and CR-IM rates were 87.5% and 67.9%, respectively. Relapse rates from CR-D were 1.8% and 3.6% from CR-IM. Eradication rates for dysplasia in LSBE and ULSBE patients (90.6% versus 83.3%) and IM (71.9% versus 62.5%) were not significantly different. ULSBE patients required higher mean number of ablation sessions for IM eradication (4.7 versus 3.7, p = 0.032), while complication rates including strictures (4.2% versus 6.2%), perforation (0 versus 0), and bleeding (4.2% versus 3.1%), were similar between ULSBE and LSBE patients, respectively. On multivariate analysis, shorter Barrett's segment and baseline low-grade dysplasia were associated with increased likelihood for eradication of IM and dysplasia. A total number of ablation sessions or endoscopic resections ≥ 3 was associated with reduced likelihood for eradication. CONCLUSION: RFA was durable in maintaining dysplasia and IM eradication in both LSBE and ULSBE over 10 years, and with low complication rates. IM eradication was more difficult to achieve in ULSBE. Late development of cancer occurred in 14.3%.

Long- vs short-segment Barrett's esophagus-derived adenocarcinoma: clinical features and outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of Barrett's esophageal adenocarcinoma (BEA) is increasing, and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been frequently performed for its treatment. However, the differences between the characteristics and ESD outcomes between short- and long-segment BEA (SSBEA and LSBEA, respectively) are unclear. We compared the clinicopathological characteristics and short- and long-term outcomes of ESD between both groups. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 155 superficial BEAs (106 SSBEAs and 49 LSBEAs) treated with ESD in 139 patients and examined their clinicopathological features and ESD outcomes. SSBEA and LSBEA were classified based on whether the maximum length of the background mucosa of BEA was < 3 cm or ≥ 3 cm, respectively. RESULTS: Compared with SSBEA, LSBEA showed significantly higher proportions of cases with the macroscopically flat type (36.7% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.001), left wall location (38.8% vs. 11.3%, p < 0.001), over half of the tumor circumference (20.4% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001), and synchronous lesions (17.6% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). Compared with SSBEA, regarding ESD outcomes, LSBEA showed significantly longer resection duration (91.0 min vs. 60.5 min, p < 0.001); a lower proportion of submucosal invasion (14.3% vs. 29.2%, p = 0.047), horizontal margin negativity (79.6% vs. 94.3%, p = 0.0089), and R0 resection (69.4% vs. 86.8%, p = 0.024); and a higher proportion of post-procedural stenosis cases (10.9% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.027). The 5-year cumulative incidence of metachronous cancer in patients without additional treatment was significantly higher for LSBEA than for SSBEA (25.0% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The clinicopathological features of LSBEA and SSBEA and their treatment outcomes differed in many aspects. As LSBEAs are difficult to diagnose and treat and show a high risk of metachronous cancer development, careful ESD and follow-up or eradication of the remaining BE may be required.

[Endoscopic Diagnosis and Treatment of Early Mucosal Neoplasms in the Oesophagus]. / Endoskopische Diagnostik und Therapie von malignen epithelialen Läsionen und ihren Vorläufern im Ösophagus.

Endoscopy is the gold standard for diagnosis of oesophageal cancer and its precursor lesions. Besides this, endoscopy treatment of these precursor lesions and early oesophageal cancer has been well evaluated and established. This includes dysplastic lesions associated with Barrett's oesophagus and early adenocarcinoma, as well as early squamous cell cancer of the oesophagus. The role of endoscopy for diagnosis and treatment of these lesions is summarised.

Endoscopic Resections for Barrett's Neoplasia: A Long-Term, Single-Center Follow-Up Study.

Background and Objectives: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are both well-established and effective treatments for dysplasia and early cancer in Barrett's esophagus (BE). This study aims to compare the short- and long-term outcomes associated with these procedures in treating Barrett's neoplasia. Materials and Methods: This single-center retrospective cohort study included 95 patients, either EMR (n = 67) or ESD (n = 28), treated for Barrett's neoplasia at Sahlgrenska University Hospital between 2004 and 2019. The primary outcome was the complete (en-bloc) R0 resection rate. Secondary outcomes included the curative resection rate, additional endoscopic resections, adverse events, and overall survival. Results: The complete R0 resection rate was 62.5% for ESD compared to 16% for EMR (p < 0.001). The curative resection rate for ESD was 54% versus 16% for EMR (p < 0.001). During the follow-up, 22 out of 50 patients in the EMR group required additional endoscopic resections (AERs) compared to 3 out of 21 patients in the ESD group (p = 0.028). There were few adverse events associated with both EMR and ESD. In both the stratified Kaplan-Meier survival analysis (Log-rank test, Chi-square = 2.190, df = 1, p = 0.139) and the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model (hazard ratio of 0.988; 95% CI: 0.459 to 2.127; p = 0.975), the treatment group (EMR vs. ESD) did not significantly impact the survival outcomes. Conclusions: Both EMR and ESD are effective and safe treatments for BE neoplasia with few adverse events. ESD resulted in higher curative resection rates with fewer AERs, indicating its potential as a primary treatment modality. However, the survival analysis showed no difference between the methods, highlighting their comparable long-term outcomes.

Risk stratification for synchronous/metachronous recurrence after endoscopic submucosal dissection for Barrett's esophageal adenocarcinoma using the length of Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND: In Japan, the standard management of Barrett's esophageal adenocarcinoma after endoscopic submucosal dissection involves follow-up; however, multifocal synchronous/metachronous lesions are sometimes observed after endoscopic submucosal dissection. Risk stratification of multifocal cancer facilitates appropriate treatment, including eradication of Barrett's esophagus in high-risk cases; however, no effective risk stratification methods have been established. Thus, we identified the risk factors for multifocal cancer and explored risk-stratified treatment strategies for residual Barrett's esophagus. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the data of 97 consecutive patients with superficial Barrett's esophageal adenocarcinomas who underwent curative resection with endoscopic submucosal dissection. Multifocal cancer was defined by the presence of synchronous/metachronous lesions during follow-up. We used Cox regression analysis to identify the risk factors for multifocal cancer and subsequently analyzed differences in cumulative incidences. RESULTS: The cumulative incidences of multifocal cancer at 1, 3, and 5 years were 4.4%, 8.6%, and 10.7%, respectively. Significant risk factors for multifocal cancer were increased circumferential and maximal lengths of Barrett's esophagus. The cumulative incidences of multifocal cancer at 3 years were lower for patients with circumferential length < 4 cm and maximal length < 5 cm (2.9% and 1.2%, respectively) than for patients with circumferential length ≥ 4 cm and maximal length ≥ 5 cm (51.5% and 49.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Risk stratification of multifocal cancer using length of Barrett's esophagus was effective. Further multicenter prospective studies are needed to substantiate our findings.

Long-term (18 Years) Results of Patients With Long-segment Barrett Esophagus Submitted to Acid Suppression-duodenal Diversion Operation: Better Than Nissen Fundoplication?

OBJECTIVE: To determine late results of AS-DD procedure in long-segment (LSBE) and extralong-segment BE (ELSBE) using subjective and objective measurements to ascertain the histological impact over intestinal metaplasia (IM) and progression to EAC. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Barrett esophagus (BE) is a known precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), and Nissen fundoplication has proven to be unable to stop mixed reflux among them. Our group proposed a surgical procedure that handles pathophysiological changes responsible for BE. METHODS: This prospective study included 127 LSBE and ELSBE subjects submitted to clinical and functional analyses. They were presented to selective vagotomy, fundoplication, partial gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction. The changes in IM were determined in both groups. RESULTS: Follow-up was completed at a mean of 18 years in 81% of the cases. Visick I-II scores were seen in 88% of LSBE and 65% in ELSBE ( P < 0.01). There was significant healing of erosive esophagitis and esophageal peptic ulcers, and strictures were resolved in 71%. There was 38% of IM regression in LSBE. Two cases in each group progressed to EAC at a mean of 15 years. Pathologic acid reflux was abolished in 91% and duodenal in 100%. There was a regression of low-grade dysplasia to IM in 80%. CONCLUSIONS: AS-DD permanently eliminates pathologic refluxate to the esophagus. The progression to HGD/EAC is lower compared to medical treatment, with an 8-fold reduction in LSBE and 2.2-fold in ELSBE. AS-DD seems to influence IM behaviors, and it is a tool that could reduce and delay progression to EAC.

Clinical Relevance of Random Biopsies From the Esophagogastric Junction After Complete Eradication of Barrett's Esophagus is Low.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although random histological sampling from the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) after complete eradication of Barrett's esophagus (BE) is recommended, its clinical relevance is questionable. This study aimed to assess the incidence and long-term outcomes of findings from random EGJ biopsies in a nationwide cohort with long-term follow-up. METHODS: We included all patients with successful endoscopic eradication therapy (EET), defined as complete endoscopic eradication of all visible BE (CE-BE), for early BE neoplasia from the Dutch registry. Patients were treated and followed-up in 9 expert centers according to a joint protocol. Outcomes included the incidence of intestinal metaplasia (IM) at the EGJ (EGJ-IM) and the association between IM and visible (dysplastic) BE recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 1154 patients were included with a median follow-up of 43 months (interquartile range, 22-69 months). At the time of CE-BE, persisting EGJ-IM was found in 7% of patients (78/1154), which was reproduced during further follow-up in 46% of patients (42/78). No significant association existed between persisting EGJ-IM at CE-BE and recurrent non-dysplastic or dysplastic BE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-2.13 and HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.17-3.06, respectively). Among patients with no EGJ-IM at the time of CE-BE (1043/1154; 90%), EGJ-IM recurred in 7% (72/1043) after a median of 21 months (interquartile range, 15-36 months), and was reproduced during further follow-up in 26% of patients (19/72). No association was found between recurrent EGJ-IM and non-dysplastic or dysplastic recurrence (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.67-2.06 and HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.04-1.96, respectively). CONCLUSION: Because EGJ-IM was not associated with a higher risk for recurrent disease, we recommend to consider abandoning random EGJ sampling after successful EET, under the condition that care is provided in expert centers, and the esophagus, including the EGJ, is carefully inspected (Netherlands Trial Register, NL7309).

Dysplastic Recurrence After Successful Treatment for Early Barrett's Neoplasia: Development and Validation of a Prediction Model.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The combination of endoscopic resection and radiofrequency ablation is the treatment of choice for eradication of Barrett's esophagus (BE) with dysplasia and/or early cancer. Currently, there are no evidence-based recommendations on how to survey patients after successful treatment, and most patients undergo frequent follow-up endoscopies. We aimed to develop and externally validate a prediction model for visible dysplastic recurrence, which can be used to personalize surveillance after treatment. METHODS: We collected data from the Dutch Barrett Expert Center Registry, a nationwide registry that captures outcomes from all patients with BE undergoing endoscopic treatment in the Netherlands in a centralized care setting. We used predictors related to demographics, severity of reflux, histologic status at baseline, and treatment characteristics. We built a Fine and Gray survival model with least absolute shrinkage and selection operator penalization to predict the incidence of visible dysplastic recurrence after initial successful treatment. The model was validated externally in patients with BE treated in Switzerland and Belgium. RESULTS: A total of 1154 patients with complete BE eradication were included for model building. During a mean endoscopic follow-up of 4 years, 38 patients developed recurrent disease (1.0%/person-year). The following characteristics were independently associated with recurrence (strongest to weakest predictor): a new visible lesion during treatment phase, higher number of endoscopic resection treatments, male sex, increasing BE length, high-grade dysplasia or cancer at baseline, and younger age. External validation showed a C-statistic of 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.86-0.94) with good calibration. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first externally validated model to predict visible dysplastic recurrence after successful endoscopic eradication treatment of BE with dysplasia or early cancer. On external validation, our model has good discrimination and calibration. This model can help clinicians and patients to determine a personalized follow-up strategy.

The 2022 top 10 list of endoscopy topics in medical publishing: an annual review by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Editorial Board.

Using a systematic literature search of original articles published during 2022 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and other high-impact medical and gastroenterology journals, the 10-member Editorial Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy composed a list of the 10 most significant topic areas in GI endoscopy during the study year. Each Editorial Board member was directed to consider 3 criteria in generating candidate lists-significance, novelty, and global impact on clinical practice-and subject matter consensus was facilitated by the Chair through electronic voting. The 10 identified areas collectively represent advances in the following endoscopic spheres: artificial intelligence, endoscopic submucosal dissection, Barrett's esophagus, interventional EUS, endoscopic resection techniques, pancreaticobiliary endoscopy, management of acute pancreatitis, endoscopic environmental sustainability, the NordICC trial, and spiral enteroscopy. Each board member was assigned a consensus topic area around which to summarize relevant important articles, thereby generating this précis of the "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2022.

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.