Socioeconomic Disparities Affect Outcomes in Early-Stage Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A SEER Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Socioeconomic determinants of health are understudied in early stage esophageal adenocarcinoma. We aimed to assess how socioeconomic status influences initial treatment decisions and survival outcomes in patients with T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We performed an observational study using the 2018 submission of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-18 database. A total of 1526 patients from 2004 to 2015 with a primary T1aN0M0 esophageal adenocarcinoma were subdivided into 3 socioeconomic tertiles based on their median household income. Endoscopic trends over time, rates of endoscopic and surgical treatment, 2- and 5-year overall survival, cancer-specific mortality, and non-cancer-specific mortality were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using R-studio. RESULTS: Patients within the lowest median household income tertile ($20,000-$54,390) were associated with higher cancer-specific mortality at 2 years (P < .01) and 5 years (P < .02), and lower overall survival at 2 and 5 years (P < .01) compared with patients in higher income tertiles. Patients with a higher income had a decreased hazard ratio for cancer-specific mortality (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.45-0.99) in a multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model. Patients within the higher income tertile were more likely to receive endoscopic intervention (P < .001), which was associated with improved cancer-specific mortality compared with patients who received primary surgical intervention (P = .001). The South had lower rates of endoscopy compared with other regions. CONCLUSIONS: Lower median household income was associated with higher rates of cancer-specific mortality and lower rates of endoscopic resection in T1aN0M0 esophageal adenocarcinoma. Population-based strategies aimed at identifying and rectifying possible etiologies for these socioeconomic and geographic disparities are paramount to improving patient outcomes in early esophageal cancer.

Comparison of endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty versus surgical sleeve gastrectomy: a Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is an incisionless, transoral, restrictive bariatric procedure designed to imitate sleeve gastrectomy (SG). Comparative studies and large-scale population-based data are limited. Additionally, no studies have examined the impact of race on outcomes after ESG. This study aims to compare short-term outcomes of ESG with SG and evaluate racial effects on short-term outcomes after ESG. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed over 600,000 patients in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database from 2016 to 2020. We compared occurrences of adverse events (AEs), readmissions, reoperations, and reinterventions within 30 days after procedures. Multivariate regression evaluated the impact of patient factors, including race, on AEs. RESULTS: A total of 6054 patients underwent ESG and 597,463 underwent SG. AEs were low after both procedures with no significant difference in major AEs (SG vs ESG: 1.1% vs 1.4%; P > .05). However, patients undergoing ESG had more readmissions (3.8% vs 2.6%), reoperations (1.4% vs .8%), and reinterventions (2.8% vs .7%) within 30 days (P < .05). Race was not significantly associated with AEs after ESG, with black race associated with a higher risk of AEs in SG. CONCLUSIONS: ESG demonstrates a comparable major AE rate with SG. Race did not impact short-term AEs after ESG. Further prospective studies long-term studies are needed to compare ESG with SG.

Concordance of ICD-10 Codes and the Clinical Diagnosis of Alcoholic Hepatitis.

INTRODUCTION: Many studies on alcoholic hepatitis (AH) use the International Classification of Disease (ICD) coding to identify patients. Data regarding the diagnostic accuracy of ICD codes for AH are limited. METHODS: A total of 151 patients with ICD-10 codes for AH were reviewed for the presence or absence of AH using standardized diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: Sixty-eight of the 151 patients met AH criteria, corresponding to a positive predictive value of 45%. Patients with AH experienced higher model for end-stage liver disease and mortality than those who did not ( P < 0.05). DISCUSSION: Our results suggest ICD-10 codes are not reliable for identifying AH. Studies using the ICD codes should be interpreted cautiously.

Associations between income and survival in cholangiocarcinoma: A comprehensive subtype-based analysis.

Backgrounds/Aims: Socioeconomic determinants of health are incompletely characterized in cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). We assessed how socioeconomic status influences initial treatment decisions and survival outcomes in patients with CCA, additionally performing multiple sub-analyses based on anatomic location of the primary tumor. Methods: Observational study using the 2018 submission of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-18 Database. In total, 5,476 patients from 2004-2015 with a CCA were separated based on median household income (MHI) into low income (< 25th percentile of MHI) and high income (> 25th percentile of MHI) groups. Seventy-three percent of patients had complete follow up data, and were included in survival analyses. Survival and treatment outcomes were calculated using R-studio. Results: When all cases of CCA were included, the high-income group was more likely than the low-income to receive surgery, chemotherapy, and local tumor destruction modalities. Initial treatment modality based on income differed significantly between tumor locations. Patients of lower income had higher overall and cancer-specific mortality at 2 and 5 years. Non-cancer mortality was similar between the groups. Survival differences identified in the overall cohort were maintained in the intrahepatic CCA subgroup. No differences between income groups were noted in cancer-specific or overall mortality for perihilar tumors, with variable differences in the distal cohort. Conclusions: Lower income was associated with higher rates of cancer-specific mortality and lower rates of surgical resection in CCA. There were significant differences in treatment selection and outcomes between intrahepatic, perihilar, and distal tumors. Population-based strategies aimed at identifying possible etiologies for these disparities are paramount to improving patient outcomes.

Early safety and efficacy comparison of endoscopic bariatric interventions.

BACKGROUND: Intragastric balloon (IGB) placement and endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) are the 2 primary endoscopic bariatric therapies currently performed in the United States. Procedural selection is often based primarily on patient preference. There is a paucity of comparative data between these interventions. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to compare the short-term safety and efficacy of IGB to ESG in the largest, direct comparative analysis to date. SETTING: Accredited bariatric centers across the United States and Canada. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent IGB or ESG from 2016 to 2020 from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database. IGB patients were propensity matched (1:1) to ESG patients. We compared readmissions, reinterventions, serious adverse events (SAE), weight loss, procedure time, and length of stay between the 2 interventions. All outcomes were measured within 30 days of the initial procedure. RESULTS: A total of 1998 pairs of patients who underwent IGB and ESG were propensity matched with no difference in baseline characteristics. Patients who underwent ESG had more readmissions within 30 days. Patients who underwent IGB had more outpatient treatments for dehydration and re-interventions, with 3.7% of patients undergoing early balloon removal less than 30 days from implantation. Both procedures had similarly low rates of SAE (P > .05). ESG led to greater total body weight loss at 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: ESG and IGB are both safe procedures with comparably low rates of SAE. Higher rates of dehydration and re-interventions after IGB suggest that ESG is perhaps better tolerated.

Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty: A Safe Bariatric Intervention for Class III Obesity (BMI > 40).

PURPOSE: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is primarily offered to patients with class I and II obesity (BMI 30-40), although there are no guidelines specifying applicability. There is little data comparing ESG to bariatric surgery in patients with class III obesity (BMI > 40). This study evaluates the short-term safety of ESG compared to sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and gastric bypass (RYGB) in patients with class III obesity. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed over 500,000 patients who underwent ESG, SG, and RNYGB from 2016 to 2020 in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database. ESG patients were stratified by BMI to compare outcomes between class I and II versus class III obese patients. Class III obese patients who underwent ESG were also propensity matched to SG and RNYGB patients for matched comparisons. Primary outcomes included adverse events (AE), readmissions, re-operations, and re-interventions within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included procedure time, length of stay (LOS), and total body weight loss (%TBWL) at 30 days. RESULTS: Among ESG patients, those with BMI > 40 had no difference in AE, readmissions, or re-interventions versus patients with BMI 30-40 (p > 0.05), while achieving greater %TBWL at 30 days (p < 0.05). In comparison to surgery, ESG had similar AE to SG and less than RNYGB, while producing comparable %TBWL to SG and RNYGB at 30 days. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility and safety of ESG in patients with class III obesity are comparable to patients with class I and II obesity. Additionally, the safety of ESG in patients with class III obesity is comparable to SG and safer than RYGB. Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty: a safe bariatric intervention for class III obesity (BMI > 40).

Impact of Proceduralist Specialty on Outcomes Following Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty.

PURPOSE: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a novel minimally invasive weight loss procedure designed to mimic gastric volume reduction of surgical sleeve gastrectomy. Currently, both bariatric surgeons and gastroenterologists perform ESG, and early reports suggest that ESG is safe and effective for weight loss. However, as gastroenterologists and bariatric surgeons have variations in training backgrounds, it is important to evaluate for potential differences in clinical outcomes. To date, there are no studies comparing the impact of proceduralist specialization on outcomes of ESG. This study aims to assess whether proceduralist specialization impacts short-term safety and efficacy after ESG. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed over 6,000 patients who underwent ESG from 2016 to 2020 in the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP) database. ESG patients were stratified into two groups depending on the specialty of the physician performing the procedure, and propensity matched using baseline patient characteristics. We primarily compared adverse events (AE), readmissions, re-operations, and re-interventions within 30 days after procedure. Secondary outcomes included procedure time, length of stay (LOS), early weight loss, and emergency department (ED) visits after procedure. RESULTS: There was no difference in AE in ESG performed by gastroenterologists and bariatric surgeons. ESG performed by bariatric surgeons demonstrated a trend towards higher rate of re-operations within 30 days. ESG performed by gastroenterologists had more ED visits but did not lead to higher rate of re-intervention. LOS was shorter in ESG performed by gastroenterologists, but procedure time was longer. CONCLUSIONS: ESG is safely performed by both gastroenterologists and bariatric surgeons.