Low Risk of Progression of Barrett's Esophagus to Neoplasia in Women.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Men are at a higher risk for Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), but little is known about BE progression to dysplasia and EAC in women. We performed a retrospective, multicenter cohort study to assess risk of BE progression to dysplasia and EAC in women compared with men. We also investigated comorbidities, medication use, and endoscopic features that contribute to sex differences in risk of BE progression. METHODS: We collected data from large cohort of patients with BE seen at 6 centers in the United States and Europe, followed for a median 5.7 years. We obtained demographic information (age, sex, ethnicity), clinical history (tobacco use, body mass index, comorbidities), endoscopy results (procedure date, BE segment length), and histopathology findings. Neoplasia was graded as low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia (HGD), or EAC. Rates of disease progression between women and men were compared using χ2 analysis and the Student t test. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between sex and disease progression after adjusting for possible confounding variables. RESULTS: Of the total 4263 patients in the cohort, 2145 met the inclusion criteria, including 324 (15%) women. There was a total of 34 (1.6%) incident EACs, with an overall annual incidence of 0.3% (95% confidence interval: 0.2%-0.4%). We found significant differences between women and men in annual incidence rates of EAC (0.05% for women vs. 0.3% in men; P=0.04) and in the combined endpoint of HGD or EAC (0.1% for women vs. 1.1% for men; P<0.001). Female gender was an independent predictor for reduced progression to HGD or EAC when rates of progression were adjusted for body mass index, smoking history, race, use of aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, proton-pump inhibitors, or statins, hypertriglyceridemia, BE length, and histology findings at baseline (hazard ratio: 0.11; 95% confidence interval: 0.03-0.45; P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: In a multicenter study of men versus women with BE, we found a significantly lower risk of disease progression to cancer and HGD in women. The extremely low risk of EAC in women with BE (0.05%/y) indicates that surveillance endoscopy may not be necessary for this subgroup of patients with BE.

Development and Validation of a Model to Determine Risk of Progression of Barrett's Esophagus to Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: A system is needed to determine the risk of patients with Barrett's esophagus for progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We developed and validated a model to determine of progression to HGD or EAC in patients with BE, based on demographic data and endoscopic and histologic findings at the time of index endoscopy. METHODS: We performed a longitudinal study of patients with BE at 5 centers in United States and 1 center in Netherlands enrolled in the Barrett's Esophagus Study database from 1985 through 2014. Patients were excluded from the analysis if they had less than 1 year of follow-up, were diagnosed with HGD or EAC within the past year, were missing baseline histologic data, or had no intestinal metaplasia. Seventy percent of the patients were used to derive the model and 30% were used for the validation study. The primary outcome was development of HGD or EAC during the follow-up period (median, 5.9 years). Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. We assigned a specific number of points to each BE risk factor, and point totals (scores) were used to create categories of low, intermediate, and high risk. We used Cox regression to compute hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals to determine associations between risk of progression and scores. RESULTS: Of 4584 patients in the database, 2697 were included in our analysis (84.1% men; 87.6% Caucasian; mean age, 55.4 ± 20.1 years; mean body mass index, 27.9 ± 5.5 kg/m2; mean length of BE, 3.7 ± 3.2 cm). During the follow-up period, 154 patients (5.7%) developed HGD or EAC, with an annual rate of progression of 0.95%. Male sex, smoking, length of BE, and baseline-confirmed low-grade dysplasia were significantly associated with progression. Scores assigned identified patients with BE that progressed to HGD or EAC with a c-statistic of 0.76 (95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.80; P < .001). The calibration slope was 0.9966 (P = .99), determined from the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a scoring system (Progression in Barrett's Esophagus score) based on male sex, smoking, length of BE, and baseline low-grade dysplasia that identified patients with BE at low, intermediate, and high risk for HGD or EAC. This scoring system might be used in management of patients.

Normal saline solution versus other viscous solutions for submucosal injection during endoscopic mucosal resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EMR is being increasingly practiced for the removal of large colorectal polyps. A variety of solutions such as normal saline solution (NS) and other viscous and hypertonic solutions (VS) have been used as submucosal injections for EMR. A systematic review and meta-analysis is presented comparing the efficacy and adverse events of EMR performed using NS versus VS. METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted a search of all databases for human, randomized controlled trials that compared NS with VS for EMR of colorectal polyps. Data on complete en bloc resection, presence of residual lesions, and adverse events were extracted using a standardized protocol. Pooled odds ratio (OR) estimates along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using fixed effect or random effects models. RESULTS: Five prospective, randomized controlled trials (504 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The mean polyp sizes were 20.84 mm with NS and 21.44 mm with VS. On pooled analysis, a significant increase in en bloc resection (OR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.11-3.29; P = .02; I2 = 0%) and decrease in residual lesions (OR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.91; P = .02; I2 = 0%) were noted in VS compared with NS. There was no significant difference in the rate of overall adverse events between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Use of VS during EMR leads to higher rates of en bloc resection and lower rates of residual lesions compared with NS, without any significant difference in adverse events. Endoscopists could consider using VS for EMR of large colorectal polyps and NS for smaller polyps because there is no significant difference in the outcomes with lesions <2 cm.