Anatomic location of Barrett's esophagus recurrence after endoscopic eradication therapy: development of a simplified surveillance biopsy strategy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Surveillance endoscopy is recommended after endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) for Barrett's esophagus (BE) because of the risk of recurrence. Currently recommended biopsy protocols are based on expert opinion and consist of sampling visible lesions followed by random 4-quadrant biopsy sampling throughout the length of the original BE segment. Despite this protocol, some recurrences are not visibly identified. We aimed to identify the anatomic location and histology of recurrences after successful EET with the goal of developing a more efficient and evidence-based surveillance biopsy protocol. METHODS: We performed an analysis of a large multicenter database of 443 patients who underwent EET and achieved complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) from 2005 to 2015. The endoscopic location of recurrence relative to the squamocolumnar junction (SCJ), visible recurrence identified during surveillance endoscopy, and time to recurrence after CE-IM were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty patients with BE recurrence were studied in the final analysis. Seventeen patients (34%) had nonvisible recurrences. In this group, biopsy specimens demonstrating recurrence were taken from within 2 cm of the SCJ in 16 of these 17 patients (94%). Overall, 49 of 50 recurrences (98%) occurred either within 2 cm of the SCJ or at the site of a visible lesion. Late recurrences (>1 year) were more likely to be visible than early (<1 year) recurrences (P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence after EET detected by random biopsy sampling is identified predominately in the distal esophagus and occurs earlier than visible recurrences. As such, we suggest a modified biopsy protocol with targeted sampling of visible lesions followed by random biopsy sampling within 2 cm of the SCJ to optimize detection of recurrence after EET. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02634645.).

Is Chemical Pyloroplasty Necessary for Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy?

BACKGROUND: Many centers use botulinum toxin for chemical pyloroplasty in minimally invasive esophagectomies as prophylaxis against delayed gastric emptying. No previous studies have compared botulinum toxin injection with no pyloric intervention for patients treated with a combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approach. The authors hypothesized that chemical pyloroplasty does not improve outcomes for these patients. METHODS: The study investigated patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomies from September 2009 to June 2015. Delayed gastric emptying was defined as inability to tolerate a soft diet by postoperative day 10, as corroborated by esophagram, upper endoscopy, or both. Data were compared using Student's t test, χ 2 analysis, and Mann-Whitney U test where appropriate. RESULTS: The study identified 71 patients treated with minimally invasive esophagectomy: 35 patients with chemical pyloroplasty treated from September 2009 to January 2014 and 36 patients without pyloric intervention from February 2014 to June 2015. The groups were statistically similar in age, gender distribution, T stage, percentage of patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy, body mass index, preoperative weight loss, preoperative serum albumin, and preoperative placement of feeding tubes (all p > 0.05). The overall incidence of delayed gastric emptying was low in both groups: 8.6% (3/35) of the patients with chemical pyloroplasty versus 5.6% (2/36) of the patients with no pyloric intervention (p = 0.62). The two groups also did not differ significantly in the development of aspiration pneumonia or the need for pyloric intervention. CONCLUSIONS: In a well-matched cohort study with a historical control group, use of botulinum toxin for chemical pyloroplasty in minimally invasive esophagectomies was not associated with improved outcomes related to the pylorus versus no pyloric intervention. Although preliminary, these data suggest that chemical pyloroplasty is not necessary in minimally invasive esophagectomy.

The Multidisciplinary Approach to GI Cancer Results in Change of Diagnosis and Management of Patients. Multidisciplinary Care Impacts Diagnosis and Management of Patients.

BACKGROUND: The multidisciplinary approach to GI cancer is becoming more widespread as a result of multimodality therapy. At the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH), we utilize a formal multidisciplinary approach through specialized clinics across a variety of settings, including pancreas and biliary cancer, esophageal and gastric cancer, liver cancer and neuroendocrine tumors (NET), and colorectal cancer. Patients with these suspected diagnoses are seen in a multidisciplinary clinic. We evaluated whether implementation of disease-specific multidisciplinary programs resulted in a change in diagnosis and/or change in management for these patients. METHODS: Data from 1747 patients were prospectively collected from inception of each multidisciplinary program through December 31, 2015. Change in diagnosis was defined as a change in radiographic or endoscopic findings that resulted in a change in cancer stage or clinical diagnosis and/or a change in pathologic diagnosis. Reports of incidental findings unrelated to primary diagnosis on radiographic evaluation were also assessed, but not included in overall change in diagnosis findings. We further evaluated if patients had a change in the management of their disease compared with outside recommendations. RESULTS: Of 1747 patients evaluated, change occurred in 38 % (pancreas and biliary), 13 % (esophageal and gastric); 22 % (liver and NET), and 16 % (colorectal). Change in management for each multidisciplinary program occurred in 35 % (pancreas and biliary), 20 % (esophageal and gastric), 27 % (liver and NET), and 13 % (colorectal). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a multidisciplinary clinic to manage GI cancer has a substantial impact in change in diagnosis and/or management in more than one-third of patients evaluated.

Multidisciplinary management for esophageal and gastric cancer.

The management of esophageal and gastric cancer is complex and involves multiple specialists in an effort to optimize patient outcomes. Utilizing a multidisciplinary team approach starting from the initial staging evaluation ensures that all members are in agreement with the plan of care. Treatment selection for esophageal and gastric cancer often involves a combination of chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, and palliative interventions (endoscopic and surgical), and direct communication between specialists in these fields is needed to ensure appropriate clinical decision making. At the University of Colorado, the Esophageal and Gastric Multidisciplinary Clinic was created to bring together all experts involved in treating these diseases at a weekly conference in order to provide patients with coordinated, individualized, and patient-centered care. This review details the essential elements and benefits of building a multidisciplinary program focused on treating esophageal and gastric cancer patients.

Establishing a framework for building multidisciplinary programs.

While most providers support the concept of a multidisciplinary approach to patient care, challenges exist to the implementation of successful multidisciplinary clinical programs. As patients become more knowledgeable about their disease through research on the Internet, they seek hospital programs that offer multidisciplinary care. At the University of Colorado Hospital, we utilize a formal multidisciplinary approach across a variety of clinical settings, which has been beneficial to patients, providers, and the hospital. We present a reproducible framework to be used as a guide to develop a successful multidisciplinary program.