Incidence and Prediction of Unrelated Mortality After Successful Endoscopic Eradication Therapy for Barrett's Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Follow-up (FU) strategies after endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) for Barrett's neoplasia do not consider the risk of mortality from causes other than esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We aimed to evaluate this risk during long-term FU, and to assess whether the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) can predict mortality. METHODS: We included all patients with successful EET from the nationwide Barrett registry in the Netherlands. Data were merged with National Statistics for accurate mortality data. We evaluated annual mortality rates (AMRs, per 1000 person-years) and standardized mortality ratio for other-cause mortality. Performance of the CCI was evaluated by discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: We included 1154 patients with a mean age of 64 years (±9). During median 59 months (p25-p75 37-91; total 6375 person-years), 154 patients (13%) died from other causes than EAC (AMR, 24.1; 95% CI, 20.5-28.2), most commonly non-EAC cancers (n = 58), cardiovascular (n = 31), or pulmonary diseases (n = 26). Four patients died from recurrent EAC (AMR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.1-1.4). Compared with the general Dutch population, mortality was significantly increased for patients in the lowest 3 age quartiles (ie, age <71 years). Validation of CCI in our population showed good discrimination (Concordance statistic, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.84) and fair calibration. CONCLUSION: The other-cause mortality risk after successful EET was more than 40 times higher (48; 95% CI, 15-99) than the risk of EAC-related mortality. Our findings reveal that younger post-EET patients exhibit a significantly reduced life expectancy when compared with the general population. Furthermore, they emphasize the strong predictive ability of CCI for long-term mortality after EET. This straightforward scoring system can inform decisions regarding personalized FU, including appropriate cessation timing. (NL7039).

Clinical Relevance of Random Biopsies From the Esophagogastric Junction After Complete Eradication of Barrett's Esophagus is Low.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Although random histological sampling from the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) after complete eradication of Barrett's esophagus (BE) is recommended, its clinical relevance is questionable. This study aimed to assess the incidence and long-term outcomes of findings from random EGJ biopsies in a nationwide cohort with long-term follow-up. METHODS: We included all patients with successful endoscopic eradication therapy (EET), defined as complete endoscopic eradication of all visible BE (CE-BE), for early BE neoplasia from the Dutch registry. Patients were treated and followed-up in 9 expert centers according to a joint protocol. Outcomes included the incidence of intestinal metaplasia (IM) at the EGJ (EGJ-IM) and the association between IM and visible (dysplastic) BE recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 1154 patients were included with a median follow-up of 43 months (interquartile range, 22-69 months). At the time of CE-BE, persisting EGJ-IM was found in 7% of patients (78/1154), which was reproduced during further follow-up in 46% of patients (42/78). No significant association existed between persisting EGJ-IM at CE-BE and recurrent non-dysplastic or dysplastic BE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-2.13 and HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.17-3.06, respectively). Among patients with no EGJ-IM at the time of CE-BE (1043/1154; 90%), EGJ-IM recurred in 7% (72/1043) after a median of 21 months (interquartile range, 15-36 months), and was reproduced during further follow-up in 26% of patients (19/72). No association was found between recurrent EGJ-IM and non-dysplastic or dysplastic recurrence (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.67-2.06 and HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.04-1.96, respectively). CONCLUSION: Because EGJ-IM was not associated with a higher risk for recurrent disease, we recommend to consider abandoning random EGJ sampling after successful EET, under the condition that care is provided in expert centers, and the esophagus, including the EGJ, is carefully inspected (Netherlands Trial Register, NL7309).

Today's Mistakes and Tomorrow's Wisdom in the Management of T1b Barrett's Adenocarcinoma.

Background: Given the limitation that endoscopic resection only enables local intraluminal treatment without lymphadenectomy, the standard treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) with invasion of the submucosa (T1b) has long been surgical esophageal resection. However, in recent literature, the risk of lymph node metastases (LNM) associated with T1b EAC appears to be lower than previously assumed, and endoscopic management is increasingly being considered a valid and less invasive alternative to surgery. Summary: Surgical esophageal resection performed after radical endoscopic resection of T1b EAC often does not show any residual tumor or LNM in the resected specimen. Given the morbidity and mortality associated with surgical esophageal resection, endoscopic management with strict surveillance protocols has been more widely applied provided that the initial tumor was radically removed by endoscopic resection, reserving surgery for those cases where the additional risk of surgical esophageal resection is justified. These are the cases where intraluminal recurrent neoplasia is found that cannot be retreated endoscopically or cases with locoregional LNM detected during follow-up. In the future, selection of patients who can safely be managed endoscopically and those who may benefit from additional surgery after endoscopic resection of T1b EAC may become more tailored, using risk prediction calculators or sentinel node navigated surgery. Key Messages: Management of patients with T1b EAC is shifting from surgical treatment to less invasive endoscopic treatment strategies, including watchful waiting approaches. The risk of LNM of T1b EAC appears to be lower than long assumed. In the future, management of T1b EAC may become more individualized based on tools to predict LNM risk per patient case.

Analysis of metastases rates during follow-up after endoscopic resection of early "high-risk" esophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: After endoscopic resection (ER) of early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), the optimal management of patients with high-risk histologic features for lymph node metastases (ie, submucosal invasion, poor differentiation grade, or lymphovascular invasion) remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate outcomes of endoscopic follow-up after ER for high-risk EAC. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, data were collected from all Dutch patients managed with endoscopic follow-up (endoscopy, EUS) after ER for high-risk EAC between 2008 and 2019. We distinguished 3 groups: intramucosal cancers with high-risk features, submucosal cancers with low-risk features, and submucosal cancers with high-risk features. The primary outcome was the annual risk for metastases during follow-up, stratified for baseline histology. RESULTS: One hundred twenty patients met the selection criteria. Median follow-up was 29 months (interquartile range, 15-48). Metastases were observed in 5 of 25 (annual risk, 6.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0-15) high-risk intramucosal cancers, 1 of 55 (annual risk, .7%; 95% CI, 0-4.0) low-risk submucosal cancers, and 3 of 40 (annual risk, 3.0%; 95% CI, 0-7.0) high-risk submucosal cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas the annual metastasis rate for high-risk submucosal EAC (3.0%) was somewhat lower than expected in comparison with previous reported percentages, the annual metastasis rate of 6.9% for high-risk intramucosal EAC is new and worrisome. This calls for further prospective studies and suggests that strict follow-up of this small subgroup is warranted until prospective data are available.

Impact of expert center endoscopic assessment of confirmed low grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus diagnosed in community hospitals.

BACKGROUND : The optimal management for patients with low grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett's esophagus (BE) is unclear. According to the Dutch national guideline, all patients with LGD with histological confirmation of the diagnosis by an expert pathologist (i. e. "confirmed LGD"), are referred for a dedicated re-staging endoscopy at an expert center. We aimed to assess the diagnostic value of re-staging endoscopy by an expert endoscopist for patients with confirmed LGD. METHODS : This retrospective cohort study included all patients with flat BE diagnosed in a community hospital who had confirmed LGD and were referred to one of the nine Barrett Expert Centers (BECs) in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with prevalent high grade dysplasia (HGD) or cancer during re-staging in a BEC. RESULTS : Of the 248 patients with confirmed LGD, re-staging in the BEC revealed HGD or cancer in 23 % (57/248). In 79 % (45/57), HGD or cancer in a newly detected visible lesion was diagnosed. Of the remaining patients, re-staging in the BEC showed a second diagnosis of confirmed LGD in 68 % (168/248), while the remaining 9 % (23/248) had nondysplastic BE. CONCLUSION : One quarter of patients with apparent flat BE with confirmed LGD diagnosed in a community hospital had prevalent HGD or cancer after re-staging at an expert center. This endorses the advice to refer patients with confirmed LGD, including in the absence of visible lesions, to an expert center for re-staging endoscopy.

Incidence and outcomes of poor healing and poor squamous regeneration after radiofrequency ablation therapy for early Barrett's neoplasia.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic eradication therapy with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is effective in most patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). However, some patients experience poor healing and/or poor squamous regeneration. We evaluated incidence and treatment outcomes of poor healing and poor squamous regeneration. METHODS: We included all patients treated with RFA for early BE neoplasia from a nationwide Dutch registry based on a joint treatment protocol. Poor healing (active inflammatory changes or visible ulcerations ≥ 3 months post-RFA), poor squamous regeneration (< 50 % squamous regeneration), and treatment success (complete eradication of BE [CE-BE]) were evaluated. RESULTS: 1386 patients (median BE C2M5) underwent RFA with baseline low grade dysplasia (27 %), high grade dysplasia (30 %), or early cancer (43 %). In 134 patients with poor healing (10 %), additional time and acid suppression resulted in complete esophageal healing, and 67/134 (50 %) had normal squamous regeneration with 97 % CE-BE. Overall, 74 patients had poor squamous regeneration (5 %). Compared with patients with normal regeneration, patients with poor squamous regeneration had a higher risk for treatment failure (64 % vs. 2 %, relative risk [RR] 27 [95 % confidence interval [CI] 18-40]) and progression to advanced disease (15 % vs. < 1 %, RR 30 [95 %CI 12-81]). Higher body mass index, longer BE segment, reflux esophagitis, and < 50 % squamous regeneration after baseline endoscopic resection were independently associated with poor squamous regeneration in multivariable logistic regression. CONCLUSIONS: In half of the patients with poor healing, additional time and acid suppression led to normal squamous regeneration and excellent treatment outcomes. In patients with poor squamous regeneration, however, the risk for treatment failure and progression to advanced disease was significantly increased.

Extending treatment criteria for Barrett's neoplasia: results of a nationwide cohort of 138 endoscopic submucosal dissection procedures.

BACKGROUND: The use of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is gradually expanding for treatment of neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aimed to report outcomes of all ESDs for BE neoplasia performed in the Netherlands. METHODS: Retrospective assessment of outcomes, using treatment and follow-up data from a joint database. RESULTS: 130/138 patients had complete ESDs, with 126/130 (97 %) en bloc resections. Median (interquartile range (IQR)) procedure time was 121 minutes (90-180). Pathology findings were high grade dysplasia (HGD) (5 %) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) T1a (43 %) or T1b (52 %; 19 % sm1, 33 % ≥ sm2). Among resections of HGD or T1a EAC lesions, 87 % (95 %CI 75 %-92 %) were both en bloc and R0; the corresponding value for T1b EAC lesions was 49 % (36 %-60 %). Among R1 resections, 10/34 (29 %) showed residual cancer, all detected at first endoscopic follow-up. The remaining 24 patients (71 %) showed no residual neoplasia. Six of these patients underwent surgery with no residual tumor; the remaining 18 underwent endoscopic follow-up during median 31 months with 1 local recurrence (annual recurrence rate 2 %). Among R0 resections, annual local recurrence rate during median 27 months was 0.5 %. CONCLUSION: In expert hands, ESD allows safe removal of bulky intraluminal neoplasia and submucosal cancer. ESD of the latter showed R1 resection margins in 50 %, yet only one third had persisting neoplasia at follow-up. To better stratify R1 patients with an indication for additional surgery, repeat endoscopy after healing of the ESD might be a helpful possible prognostic factor for residual cancer.

Role of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the Management of Barrett's Related Neoplasia.

Endoscopic resection has been proven to be safe and highly effective for removing early neoplastic lesions in Barrett esophagus. It enables accurate histopathological assessment and is therefore considered as the cornerstone in the endoscopic work-up for patients with Barrett neoplasia. Various techniques are available to perform endoscopic resection. Multiband mucosectomy is the most commonly used resection technique. However, endoscopic submucosal dissection is gaining ground in the Western world. Endoscopic resection for low-risk submucosal lesions already is fully justified. Future studies have to point out whether endoscopic resection and subsequent follow-up are also justified in selected patients with high-risk submucosal tumors.