Overutilization of endoscopic surveillance in nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines suggest that patients with nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE) undergo endoscopic surveillance every 3 to 5 years, but actual use of surveillance endoscopy and the determinants of variation in surveillance intervals are not known. OBJECTIVE: To measure use of surveillance endoscopy and its variation in patients with nondysplastic BE. DESIGN: Multicenter, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Three sites in Arizona, Minnesota, and North Carolina. PATIENTS: This study involved patients who had prevalent BE without a history of high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma. INTERVENTION: Participants were given validated measures of quality of life, numeracy, and cancer risk perception, and the total number of prior endoscopic surveillance examinations was measured. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Oversurveillance was defined as >1 surveillance examination per 3-year period. RESULTS: Among 235 patients with nondysplastic BE, 76% were male and 94% were white. The average (± standard deviation [SD]) duration of BE was 6.5 ± 5.9 years. The mean (± SD) number of endoscopies per 3-year period was 2.7 ± 2.6. Oversurveillance was present in 65% of participants, resulting in a mean of 2.3 excess endoscopies per patient. Neither numeracy skills nor patient perception of cancer risk were associated with oversurveillance. LIMITATIONS: Endoscopies were measured by patient report, which is subject to error. Results may be generalizable only to patients seen in academic centers. CONCLUSION: Most patients with nondysplastic BE had more surveillance endoscopic examinations than is recommended by published guidelines. Patient factors did not predict oversurveillance, indicating that other factors may influence decisions about the interval and frequency of surveillance examinations.

Risk factors for progression of low-grade dysplasia in patients with Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Data vary on the progression of low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE); in patients with LGD, we investigated the incidence of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and compared progression in patients with different forms of LGD (prevalent vs incident and multifocal vs unifocal). We assessed the effects of consensus diagnosis of LGD on progression rates to HGD and EAC among expert pathologists. METHODS: In a multicenter outcomes project, 210 patients with BE and LGD (classified as incident, prevalent, or persistent) were included. Patients were followed up for an average of 6.2 years (959.6 patient-years). Persistent LGD was defined as detection of LGD on ≥2 consecutive occasions during the follow-up period and extent as either unifocal (LGD at one level of BE segment) or multifocal (>1 level). Histology specimens were reviewed by 2 blinded pathologists. RESULTS: Six patients developed EAC (incidence of 0.44%/year), and 21 developed HGD (incidence of 1.6%/year). The incidence of the combination of HGD and EAC was 1.83%/year. There were no associations between presence of prevalent, incident, or persistent LGD and the extent of LGD with progression rates. Based on consensus diagnosis of 88 reviewed specimens, there was no difference in the progression of LGD to either EAC (the incidence based on analyses by the local pathologist was 0.18%/year, the incidence when there was agreement between the local and one central pathologist was 0.21%/year, and the incidence when all 3 pathologists were in agreement was 0.39%/year) or combined HGD and EAC (0.94%/year, 0.87%/year, and 0.84%/year, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patients with BE and LGD have a low annual incidence of EAC, similar to nondysplastic BE. There are no risk factors for progression and there is significant interobserver variation in diagnosis, even among expert pathologists.

Patients with nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus have low risks for developing dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The risks of dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) are not clear for patients with nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE); the rate of progression has been overestimated in previous studies. We studied the incidences of dysplasia and EAC and investigated factors associated with progression of BE. METHODS: The BE study is a multicenter outcomes project of a large cohort of patients with BE. Neoplasia was graded as low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia (HGD), or EAC. Patients followed up for at least 1 year after the index endoscopy examination were included, whereas those diagnosed with dysplasia and EAC within 1 year of diagnosis with BE (prevalent cases) were excluded. Of 3334 patients with BE, 1204 met the inclusion criteria (93.7% Caucasian; 88% male; mean age, 59.3 y) and were followed up for a mean of 5.52 years (6644.5 patient-years). RESULTS: Eighteen patients developed EAC (incidence, 0.27%/y; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.43) and 32 developed HGD (incidence, 0.48%/y; 95% CI, 0.34-0.68). The incidence of HGD and EAC was 0.63%/y (95% CI, 0.47-0.86). There were 217 cases of low-grade dysplasia (incidence, 3.6%/y; 95% CI, 3.2-4.1). Five and 10 years after diagnosis, 98.6% (n = 540) and 97.1% (n = 155) of patients with NDBE were cancer free, respectively. The length of the BE was associated significantly with progression (EAC <6 cm, 0.09%/y vs EAC ≥ 6 cm, 0.65%/y; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There is a lower incidence of dysplasia and EAC among patients with NDBE than previously reported. Because most patients are cancer free after a long-term follow-up period, surveillance intervals might be lengthened, especially for patients with shorter segments of BE.

Risk for cancer in Barrett's esophagus: medical versus surgical therapy.

Esophageal adenocarcinoma associated with Barrett's esophagus has been increasing in incidence over the past three decades. Our understanding of the risks for the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus is evolving. Newer treatment options for Barrett's esophagus are being developed in all areas, including endoscopic therapy, surgery, and chemoprevention trials.

Colorectal screening after polypectomy: a national survey study of primary care physicians.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations by primary care physicians for colorectal screening after polypectomy will influence rates of colonoscopy in open-access systems that do not require consultation by a gastroenterologist before colonoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the surveillance recommendations of primary care physicians after polypectomy and compare them with recommendations from the U.S. Multisociety Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of physicians. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 500 physicians from the American College of Physicians and 500 physicians from the American Academy of Family Physicians, obtained by using a mail survey. MEASUREMENTS: Physicians were asked when they would recommend repeated colonoscopy for a hypothetical 55-year-old man with no family history of colorectal cancer after the following 6 results on colonoscopy: hyperplastic polyp, one 6-mm tubular adenoma, two 6-mm tubular adenomas, one 12-mm tubulovillous adenoma, one 12-mm tubular adenoma with focal high-grade dysplasia, and no polyp but a previous tubular adenoma. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 57% (568 physicians). Of the respondents, 48% were internists and 52% were family practitioners. Sixty-one percent of respondents would survey a hyperplastic polyp in 5 years or less, 71% would survey a single tubular adenoma in 3 years or less, and 80% would survey 2 tubular adenomas in 3 years or less. LIMITATIONS: The results are based on physicians' self-reported practices from clinical vignettes and may not match actual practice. CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians recommend postpolypectomy colonoscopic surveillance more frequently than is recommended by practice guidelines, especially if the colonoscopy showed a hyperplastic polyp or a single small adenoma.

Primary care physician attitudes toward endoscopic screening for GERD symptoms and unsedated esophagoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend consideration of screening patients with chronic GERD for Barrett's esophagus (BE). Unsedated esophagoscopy (UE) is a less costly alternative to standard EGD for identifying BE. The aim of this study was to determine the indications for EGD referral, the barriers to screening, and the interest in performing UE. METHODS: A one-page survey was mailed to a random sample of 500 family practitioners and 500 internists. This sample was obtained from the American Academy of Family Physicians and American Society of Internal Medicine (500 from each organization). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 54%. The majority (78%) refer more than 50% of their GERD patients for EGD; however, 34% also refer more than 10% of their patients for barium studies. Primary care physicians cited alarm symptoms, refractory symptoms, and chronicity and severity of symptoms as the major indications for referral for EGD. Gender, age, obesity, and tobacco use were cited less frequently. Cost of endoscopy, poor patient acceptance, and lack of evidence were the most common reasons cited for not referring for EGD. A majority of respondents (62%) indicated that the availability of UE would increase referral for the procedure, and 52% would be willing to perform UE in their office. CONCLUSIONS: Severe, refractory, and chronic symptoms are the primary reasons for endoscopic referral from primary care physicians who manage patients with GERD. Other risk factors for BE, such as gender and age, do not appear to be important determinants for endoscopic referral. Further evaluation of UE as a mechanism to increase screening for BE in primary care patients is merited.