Non-endoscopic screening for Barrett's esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in at risk Veterans.

BACKGROUND: While rates of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma (EAC) in the US continue to rise, many patients at risk of disease are not screened. EsoCheck (EC), a non-endoscopic esophageal balloon sampling device coupled with EsoGuard (EG), a DNA based screening assay, is an FDA-approved minimally invasive alternative to the traditional screening method of upper endoscopy. AIM: To prospectively determine the diagnostic accuracy, tolerance, and acceptability of the EC/EG test in a screening population. METHODS: We recruited Veterans who met the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) Guideline criteria for endoscopic Barrett's Esophagus (BE) and EAC screening at Louis Stokes Cleveland Veteran Affairs Medical Center. All study participants completed unsedated EC guided distal esophageal sampling followed by a sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Diagnostic yield of the EG assay and EGD was recorded and used in calculation of sensitivity and specificity of EC/EG in prospective screening. The abbreviated Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6) questionnaire was administered before and after completion of EC. Overall tolerance of EC sampling was evaluated on a 10-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Esophageal cancer screening was accepted by 130/782 (16.6%) eligible veterans and we analyzed results of those who completed both screening tests (N = 124). Prevalence of BE/EAC among studied veterans was 12.9% (16/124), based on EGD. Sensitivity and specificity of EC/EG for EGD-detected BE/EAC were 92.9% (95% CI 66.1, 99.8) and 72.2% (95% CI 62.1, 80.8), respectively. Positive and negative predictive values were 32.5% (95% CI 18.6, 49.1) and 98.6% (95% CI 92.4, 100), respectively. Baseline STAI-6 scores were reflective of notable levels of anxiety among veterans in the peri-procedural setting. Mean post-procedure acceptability score for Esocheck test was 7.23 (SD 2.45). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest excellent sensitivity and negative predictive value of EC/EG in a screening population of veterans, making this modality a powerful screening tool for BE and EAC.

Cold versus hot endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile colon polyps: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND : For large sessile colorectal polyps (LSCPs), endoscopic mucosal resection without diathermy ("cold endoscopic mucosal resection [EMR]") is gaining popularity because of its safety advantages over conventional EMR ("hot EMR"). Polyp recurrence rates have been reported to be higher with cold EMR. Considering these differences, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of these two techniques. METHODS : A decision analysis model was constructed for EMR of an LSCP. The decision tree incorporated the EMR method, clip use, procedural mortality, adverse events and their management, and polyp recurrence. Outcomes included days of lost productivity and marginal cost difference. Adverse event and recurrence rates were extracted from the existing literature, giving emphasis to recent systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. RESULTS : Through 30 months of follow-up, the average cost of removing an LSCP by cold EMR was US$5213, as compared to $6168 by hot EMR, yielding a $955 cost difference (95 % confidence interval $903-$1006). Average days of lost productivity were 6.2 days for cold EMR and 6.3 days for hot EMR. This cost advantage remained over several analyses accounting for variations in recurrence rates and clip closure strategies. Clip cost and LSCP recurrence rate had the greatest and the least impacts on the marginal cost difference, respectively. CONCLUSION : Cold EMR is the dominant strategy over hot EMR, with lower cost and fewer days of lost productivity. In theory, a complete transition to cold EMR for LSCPs in the USA could result in an annual cost saving approaching US$7 million to Medicare beneficiaries.

A nonrandomized trial of vitamin D supplementation for Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency may increase esophageal cancer risk. Vitamin D affects genes regulating proliferation, apoptosis, and differentiation and induces the tumor suppressor 15-hydroxyprostaglandin dehydrogenase (PGDH) in other cancers. This nonrandomized interventional study assessed effects of vitamin D supplementation in Barrett's esophagus (BE). We hypothesized that vitamin D supplementation may have beneficial effects on gene expression including 15-PGDH in BE. METHODS: BE subjects with low grade or no dysplasia received vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) 50,000 international units weekly plus a proton pump inhibitor for 12 weeks. Esophageal biopsies from normal plus metaplastic BE epithelium and blood samples were obtained before and after vitamin D supplementation. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D was measured to characterize vitamin D status. Esophageal gene expression was assessed using microarrays. RESULTS: 18 study subjects were evaluated. The baseline mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level was 27 ng/mL (normal ≥30 ng/mL). After vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels rose significantly (median increase of 31.6 ng/mL, p<0.001). There were no significant changes in gene expression from esophageal squamous or Barrett's epithelium including 15-PGDH after supplementation. CONCLUSION: BE subjects were vitamin D insufficient. Despite improved vitamin D status with supplementation, no significant alterations in gene expression profiles were noted. If vitamin D supplementation benefits BE, a longer duration or higher dose of supplementation may be needed.

Gastrointestinal malignancies at five regional referral hospitals in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of published data regarding the trend and distribution of gastrointestinal malignancies in Uganda. OBJECTIVES: To study the trend and distribution of gastrointestinal malignancies over a 10 year period at five regional referral hospitals in Uganda. METHODS: Patient's charts with histologically confirmed diagnoses of gastrointestinal malignancies for the period 2002-2011 were identified. Case information, which included age at diagnosis, sex, and year of diagnosis, primary anatomic site of the tumour and hospitals attended, was retrospectively abstracted. Patient's clinical and demographic features were compared. RESULTS: Oesophageal cancer was the most common (28.8%) followed by liver (25.8%), stomach (18.4%) and colorectal (14.3%). The mean age at diagnosis for all the cancers was not significantly different in both sexes 54.1, (SD16.1) versus 53.6, (SD 14.7). The highest mean annual number of cases of oesophageal and stomach cancers was 21.8, (SD 15.5) and 16.6, (SD 13.0) respectively from Mbarara Hospital; Lacor had the highest mean annual number of liver cancer cases (21, SD 17.7) followed by Mbale (11.4, SD 8.3). The mean annual number of colorectal cancers was highest in Mbale Hospital (10.3, SD 8.1) followed by Lacor (4.9, SD 3.9). The distribution of oesophageal, liver, stomach and colorectal cancers diagnosed per year across the five referral hospitals was different, P<0.001. CONCLUSION: Oesophageal, liver, stomach and colorectal cancer remain the most common gastrointestinal malignancies and their rate is increasing in Uganda. There is a need for awareness, endoscopic and radiological assessment of symptomatic individuals and a need for screening of high index patients.

Endoscopic Evaluation in the Workup of Pancreatic Cancer.

Early diagnosis and accurate staging of pancreatic cancer is very important to plan optimal management strategy. Endoscopy plays an important role in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer. Endoscopic ultrasound imaging (EUS) is the most sensitive modality for diagnosis, especially for small pancreatic tumors; it also allows tissue acquisition for histological diagnosis. Computed tomography scanning and EUS play complementary roles in staging and are comparable in determining resectability. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography allows tissue sampling but is limited to palliative biliary drainage in most cases. In this article, we review the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, with special emphasis on the use of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).