The Public's Intended Uptake of Hypothetical Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Screening Scenarios: A Nationwide Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) may potentially reduce EAC-related mortality and morbidity. This study aimed to examine the Dutch population's intended uptake of 3 hypothetical EAC screening test scenarios and preferences for potential future organization. METHODS: A total of 8,350 Dutch individuals aged 45-75 years were invited, of whom 2,258 completed a web-based survey. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 hypothetical screening test scenarios (i.e., transnasal endoscopy, ingestible cell collection device, or breath analysis). The primary outcome was intended uptake. Secondary outcomes included acceptance of screening eligibility criteria and preferences regarding invitation, counseling, and diagnostic follow-up. We performed exploratory univariable and multivariable regression analyses to assess which determinants were associated with EAC screening intent. RESULTS: Intended uptake of screening was highest in the breath analysis scenario (95%), followed by conventional upper endoscopy (78%), an ingestible cell collection device (75%), and transnasal endoscopy (68%) ( P < 0.001). Anticipating discomfort was most strongly associated with decreased intention to undergo transnasal endoscopy (odds ratio 0.18, 95% confidence interval 0.11-0.29) or swallow a cell collection device (odds ratio 0.20, 95% confidence interval 0.13-0.32). Cancer worry and high acceptance of test sensitivity/specificity were consistently associated with a positive intention to participate in screening. Inviting persons for screening based on gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms, age, or the output of a risk prediction model was acceptable to 74%, 69%, and 66%, respectively. Inviting only men was acceptable for only 41% of women. The majority (58%) preferred to be invited by a public health organization, and 32% of the participants preferred to discuss their decision to participate with a healthcare professional. DISCUSSION: Participants in this study self-selected through a web-based survey, potentially introducing selection bias. Participants generally intended to participate in EAC screening, although the level of intent depended on the discomfort and performance associated with the offered screening test. Determining eligibility based on gastroesophageal reflux disease symptoms, age, or a risk calculator, but not sex, would be acceptable to most individuals.

Oesophageal cancer awareness and anticipated time to help-seeking: results from a population-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Modifying public awareness of oesophageal cancer symptoms might help to decrease late-stage diagnosis and, in turn, improve cancer outcomes. This study aimed to explore oesophageal cancer symptom awareness and determinants of lower awareness and anticipated time to help-seeking. METHODS: We invited 18,156 individuals aged 18 to 75 years using random sampling of the nationwide Dutch population registry. A cross-sectional web-based survey containing items adapted from the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer measure (i.e., cancer symptom awareness, anticipated time to presentation with dysphagia, health beliefs, and sociodemographic variables) was filled out by 3106 participants (response rate: 17%). Descriptive statistics were calculated and logistic regression analyses were performed to explore determinants of awareness and anticipated presentation (dichotomised as <1 month or ≥1 month). RESULTS: The number of participants that recognised dysphagia as a potential symptom of cancer was low (47%) compared with symptoms of other cancer types (change in bowel habits: 77%; change of a mole: 93%; breast lump: 93%). In multivariable analyses, non-recognition of dysphagia was associated with male gender (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.43-0.58), lower education (OR 0.44, 0.35-0.54), and non-western migration background (OR 0.43, 0.28-0.67). Anticipated delayed help-seeking for dysphagia was associated with not recognising it as possible cancer symptom (OR 1.58, 1.27-1.97), perceived high risk of oesophageal cancer (OR 2.20, 1.39-3.47), and negative beliefs about oesophageal cancer (OR 1.86, 1.20-2.87). CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate a disconcertingly low public awareness of oesophageal cancer symptoms. Educational interventions targeting groups with decreased awareness and addressing negative cancer beliefs may lead to faster help-seeking behaviour, although additional studies are needed to determine the effect on clinical cancer outcomes.

Comparison of adenoma miss rate and adenoma detection rate between conventional colonoscopy and colonoscopy with second generation distal attachment cuff: a multicenter, randomized, back-to-back trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endocuff VisionTM has been designed to enhance mucosal visualization thereby improving detection of (pre-)malignant colorectal lesions. This multicenter, international, back-to-back, randomized colonoscopy trial compared adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma miss rate (AMR) between Endocuff Vision-assisted colonoscopy (EVC) and conventional colonoscopy (CC). METHODS: Patients aged 40-75 years referred for non-immunochemical fecal occult blood test-based screening, surveillance, or diagnostic colonoscopy were included at ten hospitals and randomized into four groups: Group 1; 2xCC, Group 2; CC followed by EVC, Group 3; EVC followed CC and Group 4; 2xEVC. Primary outcomes included ADR and AMR. RESULTS: A total of 717 patients were randomized of which 661 patients (92.2%) had one and 646 (90.1%) patients had two completed back-to-back colonoscopies. EVC did not significantly improve ADR compared to CC (41.1% [95%-CI;36.1-46.3] versus 35.5% [95%-CI;30.7-40.6], respectively, P=0.125), but EVC did reduced AMR by 11.7% (29.6% [95%-CI;23.6-36.5] versus 17.9% [95%-CI;12.5-23.5], respectively, P=0.049). AMR of 2xCC compared to 2xEVC was also not significantly different (25.9% [95%-CI;19.3-33.9] versus 18.8% [95%-CI;13.9-24.8], respectively, P=0.172). Only 3.7% of the polyps missed during the first procedures had advanced pathologic features. Factors affecting risk of missing adenomas were age (P=0.002), Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (P=0.008) and region where colonoscopy was performed (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our trial shows that EVC reduces the risk of missing adenomas but does not lead to a significant improved ADR. Remarkably, 25% of adenomas are still missed during conventional colonoscopies, which is not different from miss rates reported 25 years ago; reassuringly, advanced features were only found in 3.7% of these missed lesions. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03418948.

Dutch, UK and US professionals' perceptions of screening for Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma: a concept mapping study.

BACKGROUND: Novel, less-invasive technologies to screen for Barrett's esophagus (BE) may enable a paradigm shift in early detection strategies for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Understanding professionals' perspectives on screening is important to determine how to proceed. We aimed to explore and compare professionals' perceptions of screening for BE and EAC screening in three countries. METHODS: In this study, 29 Dutch, 20 British and 18 American health care professionals (clinicians, researchers and policy makers) participated in concept mapping: a mixed-methods consensus building methodology. Statements on perceived barriers, facilitators, advantages, disadvantages, implications or worries associated with screening for BE and EAC were collected in asynchronous digital brainstorm sessions. Subsequently, participants sorted the statements into groups according to thematic similarity and assessed the relevance of each statement in evaluating the acceptability of BE and EAC screening. Multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis were used to map the associations between generated statements. RESULTS: Professionals across three countries identified eight consistent themes that relate to their perceptions of screening for BE and EAC: (1) Benefits, (2) Harms, (3) Clinical effectiveness concerns, (4) Screening population, (5) Screening modality, (6) Resources, (7) Ownership, and (8) Public communication. Dutch and American professionals prioritized the potential health benefits of screening but also questioned clinical impact. In contrast, British participants prioritized identification of the screening population and suitable test. CONCLUSIONS: Most professionals see potential in less-invasive screening tests for BE and EAC but underline the need to define the target screening population and determine benefits and harms before widely employing them. Successful implementation will require thoughtful consideration of the involvement of general practitioners, readiness of endoscopy and pathology services, balanced public communication, and country-specific regulations.

Professionals' views on the justification for esophageal adenocarcinoma screening: A systematic literature search and qualitative analysis.

Screening for early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), including screening for its precursor Barrett's esophagus (BE), has the potential to reduce EAC-related mortality and morbidity. This literature review aimed to explore professionals' views on the justification for EAC screening. A systematic search of Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and PsycInfo, from January 1, 2000 to September 22, 2022, identified 5 original studies and 63 expert opinion articles reporting professionals' perspectives on EAC screening. Included articles were qualitatively analyzed using the framework method, which was deductively led by modernized screening principles. The analyses showed that many professionals are optimistic about technological advancements in BE detection and treatment. However, views on whether the societal burden of EAC merits screening were contradictory. In addition, knowledge of the long-term benefits and risks of EAC screening is still considered insufficient. There is no consensus on who to screen, how often to screen, which screening test to use, and how to manage non-dysplastic BE. Professionals further point out the need to develop technology that facilitates automated test sample processing and public education strategies that avoid causing disproportionately high cancer worry and social stigma. In conclusion, modernized screening principles are currently insufficiently fulfilled to justify widespread screening for EAC. Results from future clinical screening trials and risk prediction modeling studies may shift professionals' thoughts regarding justification for EAC screening.

Dutch individuals' views of screening for oesophageal cancer: a focus group study.

OBJECTIVE: Screening for early oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), including its precursor Barrett's oesophagus (BO), can potentially reduce OAC-related morbidity and mortality. This study explores Dutch at-risk individuals' views of screening an at-risk population for BO/OAC. DESIGN: We invited 372 individuals with risk factors for OAC from primary care practices, 73 individuals with surveillance experience, and 221 participants of previous studies (BO/OAC screening trial or survey) to participate in focus groups. Transcripts were inductively and thematically analysed by two independent researchers. RESULTS: A total of 50 individuals (42% with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms) of 50-75 years participated. Themes that were raised included: theme 1 'screening intentions' describing participants' motivation to be screened (eg, early diagnosis, potential reassurance, physician recommendation, and knowing someone with cancer) or decline screening (eg, anticipated discomfort or suboptimal accuracy of the test); theme 2 'risk-based eligibility' describing the tension between effectiveness (eg, targeting high-risk individuals) and inclusivity (eg, making screening available for everyone); theme 3 'distributive justice', in which the pressure of a potential new screening programme on healthcare resources was discussed; and theme 4 'information needs' describing the perceived lack of information access and individuals' preference to discuss screening with their general practitioner. CONCLUSION: Individuals not only expressed high willingness to be screened but also voiced the concern that a new screening programme may pressure limited healthcare resources. If implemented, it is crucial to develop educational materials that meet the public's information needs and explain the test procedures and eligibility criteria while avoiding stigmatising language.

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy for the detection of Barrett's esophagus: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy (cEGD) is currently the gold standard endoscopic procedure for diagnosis and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE). This procedure is however less suitable for widespread screening because of its invasiveness and costs. An alternative endoscopic procedure is unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, patient tolerability, technical success rate, and safety of uTNE compared with cEGD for detecting BE and related neoplasia. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies that reported the diagnostic accuracy of uTNE compared with cEGD for detecting BE and related neoplasia. Eight prospective studies were included, in which 623 patients underwent both uTNE and cEGD. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of uTNE for detecting columnar epithelium were 98% (95% CI 83-100%) and 99% (95% CI 82-100%), respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of uTNE for detecting intestinal metaplasia in biopsies were 89% (95% CI 78-95%) and 93% (95% CI 71-98%), respectively. In three of the six studies that reported patient tolerability, a higher patient tolerability of uTNE compared with cEGD was reported. The technical success rate of uTNE ranged from 89% to 100% and no (serious) adverse events were reported. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that uTNE is an accurate, safe, and well-tolerated procedure for the detection of columnar epithelium and can be considered as screening modality for BE.

Public acceptance and uptake of oesophageal adenocarcinoma screening strategies: A mixed-methods systematic review.

Oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) is increasingly diagnosed and often fatal, thus representing a growing global health concern. Screening for its precursor, Barrett's oesophagus (BO), combined with endoscopic surveillance and treatment of dysplasia might prevent OAC. This review aimed to systematically explore the public's acceptance and uptake of novel screening strategies for OAC. We systematically searched three electronic databases (Ovid Medline/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE and PsycINFO) from date of inception to July 2, 2021 and hand-searched references to identify original studies published in English on acceptability and uptake of OAC screening. Two reviewers independently reviewed and appraised retrieved records and two reviewers extracted data (verified by one other reviewer). Of the 3674 unique records, 19 studies with 15 249 participants were included in the review. Thematic analysis of findings showed that acceptability of OAC screening is related to disease awareness, fear, belief in benefit, practicalities and physical discomfort. The findings were mapped on the Integrated Screening Action Model. Minimally invasive screening tests are generally well-tolerated: patient-reported outcomes were reported for sedated upper endoscopy (tolerability ++), transnasal endoscopy (tolerability +), tethered capsule endomicroscopy (tolerability +/-), and the Cytosponge-TFF3 test (acceptability ++). In discrete choice experiments, individuals mainly valued screening test accuracy. OAC screening has been performed in trials using conventional upper endoscopy (n = 231 individuals), transnasal endoscopy (n = 966), capsule endoscopy (n = 657) and the Cytosponge-TFF3 test (n = 9679), with uptake ranging from 14·5% to 48·1%. Intended participation in OAC screening in questionnaire-based studies ranged from 62·8% to 71·4%. We conclude that the general public seems to have interest in OAC screening. The findings will provide input for the design of a screening strategy that incorporates the public's values and preferences to improve informed participation. Identification of a screening strategy effective in reducing OAC mortality and morbidity remains a crucial prerequisite. Funding: This study was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) under grant 555,004,206.

Nonthermal resection device for ablation of Barrett's esophagus: a feasibility and safety study.

BACKGROUND: Several techniques exist for the eradication of Barrett's esophagus (BE); however, all have limitations regarding successful conversion to squamous epithelium and a complication profile. We aimed to assess the feasibility and safety of a new nonthermal device, the EndoRotor, for the eradication of BE as a first-line ablation technique. METHODS: Patients with BE were prospectively included at two tertiary referral centers in The Netherlands. INCLUSION CRITERIA: BE length 2-5 cm, with low grade dysplasia, high grade dysplasia, or residual BE after endoscopic resection (ER) of a lesion containing early neoplasia. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: previous ER > 50 % circumference, or previous ablation therapy. Follow-up endoscopy was performed 3 months after ablation therapy. Outcomes were the percentage of endoscopically visible BE surface regression and complications. RESULTS: 30 patients were included (age 66 years, interquartile range [IQR] 59-73, median BE C0M3, 25 male). Overall, 18 patients underwent ER prior to ablation. Median percentage BE ablated was 100 % (IQR 94 %-100 %). Median visual BE surface regression at 3-month follow-up was 80 % (IQR 68 %-95 %). Multiple residual Barrett's islands were commonly seen. Six patients (20 %) had a treatment-related complication requiring intervention, including one perforation (3 %), one postprocedural hemorrhage (3 %), and four strictures (13 %). Post-procedural pain was reported in 18 patients (60 %). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic ablation of BE using this novel nonthermal device was found to be technically demanding, with a longer procedure time compared with established ablation techniques and a high complication rate. Based on these results, we do not recommend its use as a first-line ablation technique for the eradication of BE.

Trends and projections in the incidence of oesophageal cancer in the Netherlands: An age-period-cohort analysis from 1989 to 2041.

In Western populations, the incidence of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) has been declining, whereas the incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) has been increasing. Our study examines temporal trends in the incidence of oesophageal cancer in the Netherlands between 1989 and 2016, in addition to predicting future trends through 2041. Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and Statistics Netherlands were collected to obtain incidence trends of OSCC and OAC for the period 1989 to 2016. Age-period-cohort (APC) modelling was used to estimate the contribution of age, calendar period and birth cohort on the observed incidence trends. To predict the future numbers of new cases of both OSCC and OAC from 2017 to 2041, log-linear APC models were fitted to the trends of 1989 to 2016. The age-standardised incidence rates of OSCC have decreased slightly for men and increased slightly for women. In contrast, a marked increase in the incidence of OAC was observed, ranging from 2.8 per 100 000 persons in 1989 to 10.1 in 2016. This increase in OAC incidence was more prominent in men, and it will result in an increased risk of OAC for successive generations. Future projections indicate that the incidence of OAC will further increase to 13.1 per 100 000 persons in 2037 to 2041, meaning that there will be 13 259 cases of OAC in 2037 to 2041, as compared to 9386 diagnoses in 2017 to 2021. The changing epidemiologic trends in oesophageal cancer in the Netherlands should be reflected in the development of prevention, early detection and treatment strategies.

Patients Prioritize a Low-volume Bowel Preparation in Colitis-associated Colorectal Cancer Surveillance: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) undergo surveillance colonoscopies at fixed intervals to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Taking patients' preferences for determining surveillance strategies into account could improve adherence and patient satisfaction. This study aimed to determine patient preferences for CRC surveillance in IBD. METHODS: We conducted a web-based, multicenter, discrete choice experiment among adult IBD patients with an indication for surveillance. Individuals were repeatedly asked to choose between 3 hypothetical surveillance scenarios. The choice tasks were based on bowel preparation (0.3-4 L), CRC risk reduction (8% to 1%-6%), and interval (1-10 years). Attribute importance scores, trade-offs, and willingness to participate were calculated using a multinomial logit model. Latent class analysis was used to identify subgroups with similar preferences. RESULTS: In total, 310 of 386 sent out questionnaires were completed and included in the study. Bowel preparation was prioritized (attribute importance score 40.5%) over surveillance interval and CRC risk reduction (31.1% and 28.4%, respectively). Maximal CRC risk reduction, low-volume bowel preparation (0.3 L laxative with 2 L clear liquid) with 2-year surveillance was the most preferred combination. Three subgroups were identified: a "surveillance avoidant," "CRC risk avoidant," and "surveillance preferring" groups. Membership was correlated with age, educational level, perceived CRC risk, the burden of bowel preparation, and colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: Inflammatory bowel disease patients consider bowel preparation as the most important element in acceptance of CRC surveillance. Heterogeneity in preferences was explained by 3 latent subgroups. These findings may help to develop an individualized endoscopic surveillance strategy in IBD patients.

This discrete choice experiment identified volume of bowel preparation as the attribute impacting patients' preferences regarding colitis-associated colorectal cancer surveillance most. Three subgroups were identified with similar preferences and distinct clinical characteristics.

Increased risk of Barrett's oesophagus and related neoplasia in individuals with a positive family history.

BACKGROUND: Considering the poor prognosis of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), it is important to identify individuals at increased risk of developing EAC who may benefit from early detection and prevention strategies. We aimed to determine whether individuals with a positive family history of Barrett's oesophagus (BE) and EAC are at an increased risk of oesophageal neoplasia. METHODS: In a multi-centre case-control study, BE patients with or without related oesophageal neoplasia and randomly selected population controls filled out a questionnaire to collect information on family history and other risk factors for BE and EAC. Positive family history was defined as having ≥1 first-degree relative with BE or EAC whose diagnosis was histologically confirmed in the Dutch nationwide histopathology database. FINDINGS: We included 480 BE patients and 420 controls without BE who had a total of 6393 first-degree relatives. A pathologically confirmed positive family history was significantly higher in BE patients compared with controls (6.5% versus 0.9; p < 0.001). Positive family history was independently associated with an increased risk of BE (OR 5.04; 95% CI 1.45-17.58; p = 0.01) after adjusting for known risk factors, such as gastroesophageal reflux disease and body mass index, and family size. INTERPRETATION: We found that familial clustering of BE and EAC is present in 6.5% of Dutch BE patients. Subjects with ≥1 first-degree relative with BE or EAC have a 5-fold increased risk of BE and EAC. These findings emphasize the importance of a detailed family history in patients with BE or EAC to identify individuals at increased risk who may benefit from early detection strategies to prevent EAC-related mortality.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: the effects of family history on the risk of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend different screening approaches for individuals with a family history of Barrett's oesophagus (BO) or oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), varying from no screening to screening all individuals with a positive family history. AIMS: To determine evidence-based risk estimates for individuals with a family history of BO or OAC METHODS: We systematically searched Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library until October 2020 to identify all studies that reported on the association between family history and the risk of BO and OAC. Pooled summary estimates of adjusted relative risks and prevalence of familial BO/OAC with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random effects model. RESULTS: Fourteen studies comprising 16 189 BO/OAC patients were analysed. Familial clustering was seen in 8.84% (95% CI: 5.54-13.82) and 4.37% (95% CI: 2.15-8.69) of patients with BO and OAC, respectively (nine studies). Screening first-degree relatives of BO patients had a diagnostic yield between 12% and 44% for BO (four studies). However, the yield for high-grade dysplasia and OAC was low (<2%). Individuals with a positive family history had a higher risk of having BO (aRR 3.26; 95% CI 1.43-7.40; I2  = 46%; three studies) and OAC (aRR 2.19; 95% CI 1.14-4.21; I2  = 48%; five studies) compared to individuals without a family history. CONCLUSIONS: A verified family history of BO or OAC is a strong risk factor for both BO and OAC. A positive family history could be a clinically meaningful way to identify high-risk individuals who may benefit from early detection strategies.

Public Preferences and Predicted Uptake for Esophageal Cancer Screening Strategies: A Labeled Discrete Choice Experiment.

INTRODUCTION: As novel, less invasive (non)endoscopic techniques for detection of Barrett's esophagus (BE) have been developed, there is now renewed interest in screening for BE and related neoplasia. We aimed to determine public preferences for esophageal adenocarcinoma screening to understand the potential of minimally invasive screening modalities. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was conducted in 1,500 individuals, aged 50-75 years, from the general population. Individuals were repeatedly asked to choose between screening scenarios based on conventional upper endoscopy, transnasal endoscopy, nonendoscopic cell collection devices, breath analysis, and a blood test, combined with various levels of test sensitivity and specificity, and no screening. A multinomial logit model was used to estimate individuals' preferences and to calculate expected participation rates. RESULTS: In total, 554 respondents (36.9%) completed the survey. The average predicted uptake was 70.5% (95% confidence interval: 69.1%-71.8%). Test sensitivity (47.7%), screening technique (32.6%), and specificity (19.7%) affected screening participation (all P < 0.05). A low test sensitivity had the highest impact on screening participation, resulting in a 25.0% (95% confidence interval: 22.6%-27.7%) decrease. Respondents preferred noninvasive screening tests over endoscopic and capsule-based techniques, but only if sensitivity and specificity were above 80%. DISCUSSION: Our study suggests that individuals generally prefer noninvasive BE screening tests. However, these tests would unlikely improve screening uptake when associated with a much lower accuracy for detecting BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma compared with conventional upper endoscopy. Improving accuracy of minimally invasive screening strategies and informing the target population about these accuracies is therefore essential to maximally stimulate screening participation.

Individuals' Preferences for Esophageal Cancer Screening: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

OBJECTIVES: The increasing incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and the dismal prognosis has stimulated interest in the early detection of EAC. Our objective was to determine individuals' preferences for EAC screening and to assess to what extent procedural characteristics of EAC screening tests predict willingness for screening participation. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment questionnaire was sent by postal mail to 1000 subjects aged 50 to 75 years who were randomly selected from the municipal registry in the Netherlands. Each subject answered 12 discrete choice questions of 2 hypothetical screening tests comprising 5 attributes: EAC-related mortality risk reduction, procedure-related pain and discomfort, screening location, test specificity, and costs. A multinomial logit model was used to estimate individuals' preferences for each attribute level and to calculate expected rates of uptake. RESULTS: In total, 375 individuals (37.5%) completed the questionnaire. Test specificity, pain and discomfort, mortality reduction, and out-of-pocket costs all had a significant impact on respondents' preferences. The average expected uptake of EAC screening was 62.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 61.1-64.5). Severe pain and discomfort had the largest impact on screening uptake (-22.8%; 95% CI -26.8 to -18.7). Male gender (ß 2.81; P < .001), cancer worries (ß 1.96; P = .01), endoscopy experience (ß 1.46; P = .05), and upper gastrointestinal symptoms (ß 1.50; P = .05) were significantly associated with screening participation. CONCLUSIONS: EAC screening implementation should consider patient preferences to maximize screening attendance uptake. Based on our results, an optimal screening test should have high specificity, cause no or mild to moderate pain or discomfort, and result in a decrease in EAC-related mortality.

Factors involved in endoscopists' choice for prophylactic clipping after colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection: a discrete choice experiment.

Background: Delayed bleeding (DB) occurs in ∼10% after colorectal EMR. Prophylactic clipping (PC) was reported to significantly decrease DB-rate in proximal lesions ≥2 cm.Objective: Our aim was to determine which predefined variables contribute to using PC in clinical practice.Methods: We performed an international discrete choice experiment (DCE) among ∼500 endoscopists. Relevant variables for PC use were selected by EMR experts: previous DB, anticoagulants, polyp size, morphology, location, intraprocedural bleeding and visible vessel(s). Respondents answered case scenarios with various variable combinations, each time choosing only one scenario for PC, or the 'none' option. Part-worth utilities and importance weights were calculated using HB regression. Subsequently, a predictive model was created to calculate the likelihood of endoscopists choosing PC in any given case.Results: The survey was completed by 190 EMR endoscopists from 17 countries. In total, 8% would never use PC, whereas 30.9% never chose the 'none' option. All variables except polyp type were significant in decision-making for PC (p < .01). The most important factor was anticoagulant use, accounting for 22.5% in decision-making. Polyps <2 cm were considered eligible for PC by 14% in the presence of high-weighing factors such as anticoagulant use. No significant differences were found between high and low-to-moderately experienced endoscopists.Conclusions: PC after EMR is often considered useful by endoscopists, usually based on risk factors for DB. Anticoagulant use was the most important factor in decision-making for PC, independent of endoscopist experience. Although not considered cost-effective, one in seven endoscopists chose PC for adenomas <2 cm.

Detection of Barrett's oesophagus through exhaled breath using an electronic nose device.

Timely detection of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) and even more so its precursor Barrett's oesophagus (BO) could contribute to decrease OAC incidence and mortality. An accurate, minimally-invasive screening method for BO for widespread use is currently not available. In a proof-of-principle study in 402 patients, we developed and cross-validated a BO prediction model using volatile organic compounds (VOCs) analysis with an electronic nose device. This electronic nose was able to distinguish between patients with and without BO with good diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity 91% specificity 74%) and seemed to be independent of proton pump inhibitor use, the presence of hiatal hernia, and reflux. This technique may enable an efficient, well-tolerated, and sensitive and specific screening method to select high-risk individuals to undergo upper endoscopy.

Barrett oesophagus.

Barrett oesophagus (BE), the only known histological precursor of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), is a condition in which the squamous epithelium of the oesophagus is replaced by columnar epithelium as an adaptive response to gastro-oesophageal reflux. EAC has one of the fastest rising incidences of cancers in Western countries and has a dismal prognosis. BE is usually detected during endoscopic examination, and diagnosis is confirmed by the histological presence of intestinal metaplasia. Advances in genomics and transcriptomics have improved our understanding of the pathogenesis and malignant progression of intestinal metaplasia. As the majority of EAC cases are diagnosed in individuals without a known history of BE, screening for BE could potentially decrease disease-related mortality. Owing to the pre-malignant nature of BE, endoscopic surveillance of patients with BE is imperative for early detection and treatment of dysplasia to prevent further progression to invasive EAC. Developments in endoscopic therapy have resulted in a major shift in the treatment of patients with BE who have dysplasia or early EAC, from surgical resection to endoscopic resection and ablation. In addition to symptom control by optimization of lifestyle and pharmacological therapy with proton pump inhibitors, chemopreventive strategies based on NSAIDs and statins are currently being investigated for BE management.

Endosheath ultrathin transnasal endoscopy is a cost-effective method for screening for Barrett's esophagus in patients with GERD symptoms.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening is currently not considered to be cost effective in the general population but may be effective in high-risk subgroups, such as 50-year-old white men with chronic reflux disease (GERD). A new modality for screening is unsedated transnasal endoscopy using endosheath technology (uTNE), which has been shown to be safe and effective in clinical practice. In this study, we determined the cost-utility of uTNE in a high-risk subgroup compared with no screening or screening with standard endoscopy. METHODS: A Markov model was used to simulate screening of 50-year-old white men with symptoms of GERD with either uTNE or standard endoscopy compared with no screening, over a lifetime horizon. Input variables were based on the literature and recent data on uTNE screening for BE. The study was designed from a healthcare payer perspective by using direct costs. Primary outcome measures were costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of uTNE and standard endoscopy compared with no screening. Sensitivity analysis was performed for several factors, such as prevalence of BE. RESULTS: Costs of uTNE, standard endoscopy, and no screening were estimated at, $2495, $2957, and $1436, respectively. Compared with no screening, uTNE screening resulted in an overall QALY increase of 0.039 (95% percentile 0.018; 0.063) and an ICUR of $29,446 per QALY gained (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.516-53.091), whereas standard endoscopy compared with no screening resulted in a QALY increase of 0.034 (95% CI, 0.015-0.056) and an ICUR of $47,563 (95% CI, 31,036-82,970). CONCLUSION: Both uTNE and standard endoscopy seem to be cost-effective screening methods in a screening cohort of 50-year-old white men with GERD at a willingness-to-pay cutoff of $50,000.