Demographic Comparison of the Burden of Endoscopically Screenable Cancers in the United States.

Background and Aims: Gastrointestinal cancer incidence varies by race and ethnicity. In the United States (US), there are screening guidelines for esophageal cancer (EC) and colorectal cancer (CRC), but not gastric cancer (GC). We compared GC, CRC, and EC incidence among the most populous racial and ethnic groups to inform US interception strategies. Methods: We used SEER∗Stat to compare GC, CRC, and EC incidence rates across non-Hispanic White (NHW), non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and the 8 largest Asian American populations using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 9 registries (2010-2014). Results: Noncardia GC incidence was highest among Korean (18.7 cases per 100,000) and lowest among NHW (1.4 cases per 100,000) Americans. CRC incidence was highest among non-Hispanic Black, Southeast Asian, and Japanese (35.9, 34.2, and 33.8 per 100,000, respectively) Americans and lowest among South Asian Americans (18.9 per 100,000). EC incidence was greatest in NHW (4.7 per 100,000) and lowest in Filipino (1.2 per 100,000) Americans. The incidence of noncardia GC slightly exceeded colon cancer in Korean American men (25.5 vs 22.4 per 100,000). GC surpassed EC incidence in all non-White racial and ethnic groups. Conclusion: The burden of GC, CRC, and EC differs based on race and ethnicity. Non-White racial and ethnic groups experience a disproportionate burden of GC for which systematic programs for cancer interception, similar to CRC and EC, are needed.

Ascertainment of Helicobacter pylori Infection and Eradication Treatment Using a Nationwide Electronic Health Record Database.

Background and Aims: There are limited contemporary population-based data on Helicobacter pylori epidemiology and outcomes in the United States. Our primary aim was to create a validated cohort of veterans with H pylori testing or treatment using Veterans Health Administration data. Methods: Using Veterans Health Administration structured and unstructured data, we developed and validated 4 algorithms for H pylori infection (3 algorithms) and treatment status (1 algorithm). During the development phase, we iteratively modified each algorithm based on a manual review of random sets of electronic health records (reference standard). The a priori validation goal was to achieve a one-sided 95% confidence lower bound (LB) for positive predictive value (PPV) and/or negative predictive value (NPV) >90%. We applied the Bonferroni correction when both PPV and NPV were relevant. Results: For H pylori infection, we achieved 99.0% PPV (LB = 94.6%) and 100% NPV (LB = 96.4%) for discriminating H pylori positive vs negative status using structured (ie, laboratory tests) and 95% PPV (LB = 90.3%) and 97.9% NPV (LB = 93.9%) using unstructured (ie, histopathology reports) data. Diagnostic codes achieved 98% PPV (LB = 93.0%) for H pylori diagnosis. The treatment algorithm was composed of multiple antimicrobial combinations and overall achieved ≥98% PPV (LB = 93.0%) for H pylori treatment, except for amoxicillin/levofloxacin (PPV<60%). Application of these algorithms yielded nearly 1.2 million veterans with H pylori testing and/or treatment between 1999 and 2018. Conclusion: We assembled a validated national cohort of veterans who were tested or treated for H pylori infection. This cohort can be used for evaluating H pylori epidemiology and treatment patterns, as well as complications of chronic infection.

ERBB2 amplification in gastric cancer: a genomic insight into ethnic disparities.

Overall, gastric adenocarcinoma (GC) incidence rates have declined in recent years, but racial/ethnic disparities persist. Individuals who identify as Hispanic/Spanish/Latino are diagnosed with GC at younger ages and have poorer outcomes than non-Hispanic individuals. However, our understanding of GC biology across racial/ethnic groups remains limited. We assessed tumor genomic patterns by race/ethnicity among 1019 patients with primary GC in the AACR Project GENIE Consortium. Hispanic individuals presented with significantly higher rates of ERBB2/HER2 amplification vs other racial/ethnic groups (Hispanic: 13.9% vs 9.8% non-Hispanic White, 8.1% non-Hispanic Asian, and 11.0% non-Hispanic Black; p < .001, FDR adjusted q < 0.001). Hispanic patients also had higher odds of an ERBB2 amplification vs non-Hispanic whites in adjusted models (OR = 2.52, 95%CI = 1.20-5.33, p = .015). These findings underscore the important role of genomic factors in GC disparities. Ensuring equitable access to genomic profiling and targeted therapies, such as trastuzumab for HER2-overexpressing GC, is a promising avenue to mitigate GC disparities and improve outcomes.

Endoscopic Surveillance of Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Gastric intestinal metaplasia (GIM) is a precancerous condition. Limited data exist on real-world clinical practice relative to guidelines. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate adherence to GIM risk stratification and identify factors associated with follow-up endoscopy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted manual chart review of patients with histologically confirmed GIM at an urban, tertiary medical center were identified retrospectively and details of their demographics, Helicobacter pylori, biopsy protocol, endoscopic/histologic findings, and postendoscopy follow-up were recorded. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with follow-up endoscopy. RESULTS: Among 253 patients, 59% were female, 37% non-Hispanic White (NHW), 26% Hispanic, 16% non-Hispanic Black (NHB). The median age at index endoscopy was 63.4 years (IQR: 55.9 to 70.0), with median follow-up of 65.1 months (IQR: 44.0 to 72.3). H. pylori was detected in 21.6% patients at index EGD. GIM extent and subtype data were frequently missing (22.9% and 32.8%, respectively). Based on available data, 26% had corpus-extended GIM and 28% had incomplete/mixed-type GIM. Compared with NHW, Hispanic patients had higher odds of follow-up EGD (OR=2.48, 95% CI: 1.23-5.01), while NHB patients had 59% lower odds of follow-up EGD (OR=0.41, 95% CI: 0.18-0.96). Corpus-extended GIM versus limited GIM (OR=2.27, 95% CI: 1.13-4.59) was associated with follow-up EGD, but GIM subtype and family history of gastric cancer were not. CONCLUSIONS: We observed suboptimal risk stratification among patients with GIM and notable race and ethnic disparities with respect to endoscopic surveillance. Targeted interventions are needed to improve practice patterns and mitigate observed disparities.

Impact of Helicobacter pylori Infection and Treatment on Colorectal Cancer in a Large, Nationwide Cohort.

PURPOSE: Helicobacter pylori is the most common cause of infection-associated cancer worldwide. We aimed to evaluate the impact of H. pylori infection and treatment on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. PATIENTS: US Veterans who completed H. pylori testing between 1999 and 2018. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis among adults within the Veterans Health Administration who completed testing for H. pylori. The primary exposures were (1) H. pylori test result (positive/negative) and (2) H. pylori treatment (untreated/treated) among H. pylori-positive individuals. The primary outcomes were CRC incidence and mortality. Follow-up started at the first H. pylori testing and continued until the earliest of incident or fatal CRC, non-CRC death, or December 31, 2019. RESULTS: Among 812,736 individuals tested for H. pylori, 205,178 (25.2%) tested positive. Being H. pylori-positive versus H. pylori-negative was associated with higher CRC incidence and mortality. H. pylori treatment versus no treatment was associated with lower CRC incidence and mortality (absolute risk reduction 0.23%-0.35%) through 15-year follow-up. Being H. pylori-positive versus H. pylori-negative was associated with an 18% (adjusted hazard ratio [adjusted HR], 1.18 [95% CI, 1.12 to 1.24]) and 12% (adjusted HR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.21]) higher incident and fatal CRC risk, respectively. Individuals with untreated versus treated H. pylori infection had 23% (adjusted HR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.13 to 1.34]) and 40% (adjusted HR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.24 to 1.58]) higher incident and fatal CRC risk, respectively. The results were more pronounced in the analysis restricted to individuals with nonserologic testing. CONCLUSION: H. pylori positivity may be associated with small but statistically significant higher CRC incidence and mortality; untreated individuals, especially those with confirmed active infection, appear to be most at risk.

Dynamic Prediction of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonoscopic surveillance is recommended in patients with colonic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) given their increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to develop and validate a dynamic prediction model for the occurrence of advanced colorectal neoplasia (aCRN, including high-grade dysplasia and CRC) in IBD. METHODS: We pooled data from 6 existing cohort studies from Canada, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Patients with IBD and an indication for CRC surveillance were included if they underwent at least 1 follow-up procedure. Exclusion criteria included prior aCRN, prior colectomy, or an unclear indication for surveillance. Predictor variables were selected based on the literature. A dynamic prediction model was developed using a landmarking approach based on Cox proportional hazard modeling. Model performance was assessed with Harrell's concordance-statistic (discrimination) and by calibration curves. Generalizability across surveillance cohorts was evaluated by internal-external cross-validation. RESULTS: The surveillance cohorts comprised 3731 patients, enrolled and followed-up in the time period from 1973 to 2021, with a median follow-up period of 5.7 years (26,336 patient-years of follow-up evaluation); 146 individuals were diagnosed with aCRN. The model contained 8 predictors, with a cross-validation median concordance statistic of 0.74 and 0.75 for a 5- and 10-year prediction window, respectively. Calibration plots showed good calibration. Internal-external cross-validation results showed medium discrimination and reasonable to good calibration. CONCLUSIONS: The new prediction model showed good discrimination and calibration, however, generalizability results varied. Future research should focus on formal external validation and relate predicted aCRN risks to surveillance intervals before clinical application.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on High-Quality Upper Endoscopy: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this Clinical Practice Update (CPU) Expert Review is to provide clinicians with guidance on best practices for performing a high-quality upper endoscopic exam. METHODS: The best practice advice statements presented herein were developed from a combination of available evidence from published literature, guidelines, and consensus-based expert opinion. No formal rating of the strength or quality of the evidence was carried out, which aligns with standard processes for American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute CPUs. These statements are meant to provide practical, timely advice to clinicians practicing in the United States. This Expert Review was commissioned and approved by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Updates (CPU) Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPU Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology & Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Endoscopists should ensure that upper endoscopy is being performed for an appropriate indication and that informed consent clearly explaining the risks, benefits, alternatives, sedation plan, and potential diagnostic and therapeutic interventions is obtained. These elements should be documented by the endoscopist before the procedure. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Endoscopists should ensure that adequate visualization of the upper gastrointestinal mucosa, using mucosal cleansing and insufflation as necessary, is achieved and documented. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: A high-definition white-light endoscopy system should be used for upper endoscopy instead of a standard-definition white-light endoscopy system whenever possible. The endoscope used for the procedure should be documented in the procedure note. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Image enhancement technologies should be used during the upper endoscopic examination to improve the diagnostic yield for preneoplasia and neoplasia. Suspicious areas should be clearly described, photodocumented, and biopsied separately. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Endoscopists should spend sufficient time carefully inspecting the foregut mucosa in an anterograde and retroflexed view to improve the detection and characterization of abnormalities. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Endoscopists should document any abnormalities noted on upper endoscopy using established classifications and standard terminology whenever possible. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Endoscopists should perform biopsies for the evaluation and management of foregut conditions using standardized biopsy protocols. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Endoscopists should provide patients with management recommendations based on the specific endoscopic findings (eg, peptic ulcer disease, erosive esophagitis), and this should be documented in the medical record. If recommendations are contingent upon histopathology results (eg, H pylori infection, Barrett's esophagus), then endoscopists should document that appropriate guidance will be provided after results are available. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Endoscopists should document whether subsequent surveillance endoscopy is indicated and, if so, provide appropriate surveillance intervals. If the determination of surveillance is contingent on histopathology results, then endoscopists should document that surveillance intervals will be suggested after results are available.

Endoscopic Surveillance of Intestinal Metaplasia of the Esophagogastric Junction: A Decision Modeling Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma (EGJAC) has been rising. Intestinal metaplasia of the esophagogastric junction (EGJIM) is a common finding in gastroesophageal reflux (irregular Z-line) and may represent an early step in the development of EGJAC in the West. Worldwide, EGJIM may represent progression along the Correa cascade triggered by Helicobacter pylori . We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance of EGJIM. METHODS: We developed a decision analytic model to compare endoscopic surveillance strategies for 50-year-old patients after diagnosis of non-dysplastic EGJIM: (i) no surveillance (standard of care), (ii) endoscopy every 3 years, (iii) endoscopy every 5 years, or (iv) 1-time endoscopy at 3 years. We modeled 4 progression scenarios to reflect uncertainty: A (0.01% annual cancer incidence), B (0.05%), C (0.12%), and D (0.22%). RESULTS: Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance depended on the progression rate of EGJIM to cancer. At the lowest progression rate (scenario A, 0.01%), no surveillance strategies were cost-effective. In moderate progression scenarios, 1-time surveillance at 3 years was cost-effective, at $30,989 and $16,526 per quality-adjusted life year for scenarios B (0.05%) and C (0.12%), respectively. For scenario D (0.22%), surveillance every 5 years was cost-effective at $77,695 per quality-adjusted life year. DISCUSSION: Endoscopic surveillance is costly and can cause harm; however, low-intensity longitudinal surveillance (every 5 years) is cost-effective in populations with higher EGJAC incidence. No surveillance or 1-time endoscopic surveillance of patients with EGJIM was cost-effective in low-incidence populations. Future studies to better understand the natural history of EGJIM, identify risk factors of progression, and inform appropriate surveillance strategies are required.