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.

Barrett's esophagus with low-grade dysplasia: high rate of upstaging at Barrett's esophagus referral units suggests progression rates may be overestimated.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The reported progression rate from low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett's esophagus (BE) to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) ranges from .4% to 13.4% per year. We hypothesize that some reported progression rates may be overestimated because of prevalent HGD or EAC that was not identified during endoscopic assessments performed in the community. Our aim is to determine the proportion of prevalent HGD or EAC detected by BE referral units (BERUs) in patients referred from the community with a recent diagnosis of LGD. METHODS: All patients referred from the community to 6 BERUs with a diagnosis of BE with LGD were identified. Patients with an assessment endoscopy performed at BERUs more than 6 months from their referral endoscopy in the community were excluded. Visible lesions and histology outcomes were compared between the community referral endoscopy and the assessment endoscopy performed at BERUs. RESULTS: The median time between BERU assessment and referral endoscopy was 79 days (interquartile range, 54-114). Of the 75 patients referred from the community with LGD, BERU assessment identified HGD or EAC in 20 patients (27%). BERU assessment identified more visible lesions than referral endoscopy performed in the community (39 [52%] vs 9 [12%], respectively; P = .029). CONCLUSIONS: BERU assessment endoscopy identified more visible lesions than community referral endoscopy and identified HGD or EAC in 27% of patients referred from the community with a recent diagnosis of LGD. Reported progression rates from LGD to HGD or EAC may be overestimated.

Antibodies against human papillomavirus proteins in Barrett's dysplasia and intramucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma.

High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16/18 have been associated with Barrett's dysplasia (BD)/esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Nevertheless, no data exist in relation to serological analysis for HPV antibodies in BD/EAC with site-specific viral DNA status. We prospectively examined antibodies to multiple HPV types in 438 patients representing hospital/reflux controls and Barrett's metaplasia (BM)/BD/intramucosal EAC. Antibody responses to HPV6/11/16/18/31/33/45/52/58 were analyzed using multiplex serology, including antibodies to E6/E7/E1/E2 and L1 antigens. Seropositivity for individual HPV proteins was infrequent in both cases and controls and was ≤10.2%. There was no difference in the seroprevalence of antibodies to any HPV antigen/antibody combination between reclassified cases (BD/EAC) and controls (hospital/reflux/BM) or between HPV16 or HPV18 DNA cases and controls, respectively. Among HPV16 DNA-positive BD/EAC cases, antibodies to HPV16 E7 were significantly more prevalent (3/26, 11.5%) than in hospital and reflux controls plus BM (5/328, 1.5%) (adjusted OR = 10.12, 95% CI: 1.61-63.73, P = 0.014). Among HPV18 DNA-positive cases, antibodies to HPV18 E1 were present in 3/6 (50%) cases versus 5/328 (1.5%) controls (adjusted OR = 44.28, 95% CI: 6.10-321.47, P = 0.0002). Although antibodies against HPV were generally uncommon in cases and controls, immune responses against two early proteins of HPV16/18 were significantly more frequent in viral DNA-positive BD/intramucosal EAC.

Comparative outcomes of radiofrequency ablation for Barrett's oesophagus with different baseline histology.

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is currently recommended for dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus (BO); however, there are limited data on treatment response when stratified by baseline histology. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to evaluate RFA outcomes and durability for BO with different baseline histology. METHODS: Patients treated with RFA between 2007 and 2017 at a single institution were retrospectively included. Outcome measures were: (a) complete remission of dysplasia (CRD) and intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) at 18 months, (b) complication rate and (c) durability of CRD and CRIM. RESULTS: A total of 148 patients underwent RFA, of whom 113 completed the treatment protocol (21 low-grade dysplasia (LGD), 46 high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and 46 intramucosal carcinoma (IMC)). CRD and CRIM were achieved in 94.7% and 78.8% of patients, respectively. When stratified by baseline histology, there was no significant difference in CRD between groups (LGD, 95.2%; HGD, 95.7%; and IMC, 93.5%; p = 0.89). Similarly, there was no significant difference in CRIM between groups (LGD, 71.4%; HGD, 76.1% and IMC, 87.0%; p = 0.39). CRD and CRIM durability at 24 months for LGD, HGD and IMC were 100%, 97.7% and 100% (log rank p = 0.31), and 100%, 89.0% and 95.5%, respectively (log rank p = 0.62). CONCLUSION: Baseline histology is not a predictor of RFA response. Once CRD and CRIM are achieved, these effects are durable over time.