Association between coffee or tea drinking and Barrett's esophagus or esophagitis: an Italian study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Only a few papers have treated of the relationship between Barrett's esophagus (BE) or erosive esophagitis (E) and coffee or tea intake. We evaluated the role of these beverages in BE and E occurrence. SUBJECTS/METHODS: Patients with BE (339), E (462) and controls (619) were recruited. Data on coffee and tea and other individual characteristics were collected using a structured questionnaire. RESULTS: BE risk was higher in former coffee drinkers, irrespective of levels of exposure (cup per day; ⩽1: OR=3.76, 95% CI 1.33-10.6; >1: OR=3.79, 95% CI 1.31-11.0; test for linear trend (TLT) P=0.006) and was higher with duration (>30 years: OR=4.18, 95% CI 1.43-12.3; TLT P=0.004) and for late quitters, respectively (⩽3 years from cessation: OR=5.95, 95% CI 2.19-16.2; TLT P<0.001). The risk of BE was also higher in subjects who started drinking coffee later (age >18 years: OR=6.10, 95% CI 2.15-17.3). No association was found in current drinkers, but for an increased risk of E in light drinkers (<1 cup per day OR =1.85, 95% CI 1.00-3.43).A discernible risk reduction of E (about 20%, not significant) and BE (about 30%, P<0.05) was observed in tea drinkers. CONCLUSIONS: Our data were suggestive of a reduced risk of BE and E with tea intake. An adverse effect of coffee was found among BE patients who had stopped drinking coffee. Coffee or tea intakes could be indicative of other lifestyle habits with protective or adverse impact on esophageal mucosa.

Esophageal stenting for benign and malignant disease: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), the European Society of Digestive Endoscopy (ESDO), and the European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations for malignant disease 1 ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for palliative treatment of malignant dysphagia over laser therapy, photodynamic therapy, and esophageal bypass (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 For patients with longer life expectancy, ESGE recommends brachytherapy as a valid alternative or in addition to stenting in esophageal cancer patients with malignant dysphagia. Brachytherapy may provide a survival advantage and possibly a better quality of life compared to SEMS placement alone. (Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.) 3 ESGE recommends esophageal SEMS placement as the preferred treatment for sealing malignant tracheoesophageal or bronchoesophageal fistula (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 ESGE does not recommend the use of concurrent external radiotherapy and esophageal stent treatment. SEMS placement is also not recommended as a bridge to surgery or prior to preoperative chemoradiotherapy. It is associated with a high incidence of adverse events and alternative satisfactory options such as placement of a feeding tube are available. (Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.) Main recommendations for benign disease 1 ESGE recommends against the use of self-expandable stents (SEMSs) as first-line therapy for the management of benign esophageal strictures because of the potential for adverse events, the availability of alternative therapies, and costs (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 2 ESGE suggests consideration of temporary placement of SEMSs as therapy for refractory benign esophageal strictures (weak recommendation, moderate evidence). Stents should usually be removed at a maximum of 3 months (strong recommendation, weak quality evidence). 3 ESGE suggests that fully covered SEMSs be preferred over partially covered SEMSs for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures, because of their lack of embedment and ease of removability (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). 4 For the removal of partially covered esophageal SEMSs that are embedded, ESGE recommends the stent-in-stent technique (strong recommendation, low quality evidence). 5 ESGE recommends that temporary stent placement can be considered for treating esophageal leaks, fistulas, and perforations. The optimal stenting duration remains unclear and should be individualized. (Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.) 6 ESGE recommends placement of a SEMS for the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding refractory to medical, endoscopic, and/or radiological therapy, or as initial therapy for patients with massive esophageal variceal bleeding (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).

Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system 1 2 was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main Recommendations: 1 ESGE recommends endoscopic en bloc resection for superficial esophageal squamous cell cancers (SCCs), excluding those with obvious submucosal involvement (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) may be considered in such lesions when they are smaller than 10 mm if en bloc resection can be assured. However, ESGE recommends endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) as the first option, mainly to provide an en bloc resection with accurate pathology staging and to avoid missing important histological features (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection with a curative intent for visible lesions in Barrett's esophagus (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). ESD has not been shown to be superior to EMR for excision of mucosal cancer, and for that reason EMR should be preferred. ESD may be considered in selected cases, such as lesions larger than 15 mm, poorly lifting tumors, and lesions at risk for submucosal invasion (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for the treatment of gastric superficial neoplastic lesions that possess a very low risk of lymph node metastasis (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). EMR is an acceptable option for lesions smaller than 10 - 15 mm with a very low probability of advanced histology (Paris 0-IIa). However, ESGE recommends ESD as treatment of choice for most gastric superficial neoplastic lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 4 ESGE states that the majority of colonic and rectal superficial lesions can be effectively removed in a curative way by standard polypectomy and/or by EMR (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). ESD can be considered for removal of colonic and rectal lesions with high suspicion of limited submucosal invasion that is based on two main criteria of depressed morphology and irregular or nongranular surface pattern, particularly if the lesions are larger than 20 mm; or ESD can be considered for colorectal lesions that otherwise cannot be optimally and radically removed by snare-based techniques (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence).(AU)

Barrett's esophagus, esophageal and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinomas: the role of diet.

Identification of modifiable risk factors is an attractive approach to primary prevention of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma (EGJAC). We conducted a review of the literature to investigate the association between specific dietary components and the risk of Barrett's esophagus (BE), EAC and EGJAC, supposing diet might be a risk factor for these tumors. Consumption of meat and high-fat meals has been found positively associated with EAC and EGJAC. An inverse association with increased intake of fruit, vegetables and antioxidants has been reported but this association was not consistent across all studies reviewed. Few studies have examined the association between diet and BE. Additional research is needed to confirm the aforementioned association and clarify the mechanisms by which dietary components affect the risk of developing EAC and EGJAC. Future studies could advance our knowledge by emphasizing prospective designs to reduce recall bias, by using validated dietary intake questionnaires and biological measures and by considering important confounders such as gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms, tobacco and alcohol use, biometrics, physical activity, and socioeconomic factors.

Cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection of large polyps involving the ileocecal valve.

Standard endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is limited with regard to lesions below or involving the ileocecal valve. We describe the treatment and outcomes when using cap-assisted EMR (EMR-C) to remove large laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) with ileal infiltration in seven patients (median age 74 years). Each LST (median size 40 mm) was successfully resected in one session (median procedure time 50 minutes). Intraprocedural and early bleeding occurred in two patients, and delayed hemorrhage in one. Circumferential resection of the ileum caused asymptomatic strictures in six patients, with regression during follow-up for five. We conclude that the novel EMR-C method is a potentially effective treatment for cecal LST involving the distal ileum. Serious complications such as perforation or symptomatic strictures of the ileocecal valve were not observed and any procedure-related bleeding was easily controlled.

Our perspective on endoscopic resection for colorectal neoplasms.

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is a minimally invasive technique for effective treatment of early stage colorectal lesions with no invasive potential. However, the high frequency of local recurrence after piecemeal EMR for large lesions is considered a serious problem. In contrast, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows en-bloc resection, irrespective of the lesion's size. ESD has been established as a standard method for the endoscopic removal of early cancers in the upper gastrointestinal tract in Japan. Although the use of ESD for colorectal lesions has been studied clinically, ESD is not yet established as a standard therapeutic method. We define the indications for en-bloc resection, based on extensive clinicopathological analyses, as a laterally spreading tumor (LST) non-granular type (LST-NG) lesion greater than 20 mm and an LST granular (LST-G) type lesion greater than 40 mm. Both of these lesions had a high submucosal invasion rate. Especially, LST-NG type lesions greater than 20 mm are technically difficult to remove completely even by piecemeal EMR and are considered a "definite indication for en-bloc resection". The ESD procedure is undoubtedly an ideal method to achieve en-bloc resection, however, the prevalences of suitable lesions among all neoplastic lesions and among all early cancers were not high (1.0% and 5.0%, respectively). Therefore, it is crucial to master more fundamental therapeutic techniques and have knowledge of surveillance strategy after endoscopic treatment.

Self-expanding plastic stent to palliate symptomatic tissue in/overgrowth after self-expanding metal stent placement for esophageal cancer.

Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are used to treat obstructive malignancies of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction; however, a potential complication is recurrent dysphagia because of tissue in/overgrowth. The placement of a second SEMS is one strategy to re-establish patency of the esophageal lumen. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of an alternative and likely less costly approach: placing a self-expanding plastic stent (SEPS) to manage relapsing dysphagia in patients previously treated with a partially covered SEMS. From December 2007 to January 2009, 13 patients previously treated with a SEMS for malignant dysphagia underwent treatment by inserting a SEPS to palliate relapsing dysphagia, as a result of tissue in/overgrowth. Stenosis was located in the upper esophagus in one patient, in the middle in four patients, and in the lower esophagus in eight patients. Clinical evaluation was performed at the time of stent placement, after 1 week, and then, monthly until death. The SEPS was successfully placed in a single treatment session for all patients. No preliminary dilation was required, and no further treatment was necessary for any patient. Before stenting, the median dysphagia score was 4 (range 3-4), and 1 week later the score was 0 for all patients. The resolution of dysphagia persisted until patient death (from tumor progression). The mean survival after the SEPS insertion was 4 months (range 3-8). This case series supports the use of a SEPS to palliate dysphagia from tissue in/overgrowth of a SEMS. Future clinical trials with larger patient samples are warranted.

Systematic review: the role of self-expanding plastic stents for benign oesophageal strictures.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of refractory or recurrent benign oesophageal strictures is demanding and surgery may be the only available option. The role of self-expanding plastic stents (SEPS) in the treatment of these strictures is still controversial because of the conflicting results of various studies. AIM: To analyse with regard to SEPS: technical and clinical success, factors associated with outcome, and safety. METHODS: Pooled-data analysis of a systematic review of the literature. Clinical success was defined as no need for further endoscopic or surgical treatment after SEPS removal. RESULTS: Data of 10 studies with 130 treated patients were included. SEPS insertion was technically successful in 128 of 130 patients (98%, 95% CI = 96-100%). Clinical success was achieved in 68 patients (52%, 95% CI = 44-61%) and this was found to be lower in those with a cervical localization of the stricture (33% vs. 54%; P < 0.05). Early (<4 weeks) migration of the stent was reported in 19 (24%, 95% CI = 14-32%) cases, while post-insertion endoscopic re-intervention was required in 25 (21%, 95% CI = 14-28%). Major clinical complications occurred in 12 patients (9%, 95% CI = 4-14%), resulting in death of one (0.8%) patient. CONCLUSIONS: Our pooled-data analysis showed a favourable risk/benefit ratio when SEPS are applied in patients with recurrent or refractory benign oesophageal strictures. This supports the use of SEPS before referring patients to surgery, and they are a valuable alternative to repeat endoscopic dilation.

Pretreatment endoscopy--pro & contra: endoscopy is needed before treatment in all patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Most current endoscopic guidelines do not recommend the use of routine esophagoscopy in the evaluation of patients with typical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), unless alarm features are present. In patients with known reflux esophagitis, esophagoscopy is considered to have no role either in the further management or follow-up. Screening of reflux patients for Barrett's esophagus is not considered to be cost-effective. On the basis of a critical review of the available literature, and of some recent papers in particular, we disagree with these suggestions. We would argue, on the contrary, that a negative esophagoscopy can provide the GERD patient with reassurance, and that esophagoscopy allows targeted therapy to be offered if it is positive for esophagitis. When Barrett's esophagus is diagnosed, it usually leads to a surveillance program being initiated. The potential benefits of endoscopy for the patient's quality of life are probably underestimated when financial issues alone are taken into account. Even if it is true that a large percentage of GERD patients do not have endoscopic abnormalities (those with nonerosive reflux disease), surrogate tests such as the proton-pump inhibitor test or symptom questionnaires do not provide a more accurate diagnosis. We would therefore suggest that, at least in the specialist setting, all patients with suspected GERD should undergo accurate symptom analysis as well as endoscopic evaluation before treatment is started.

Comparison of the main oesophageal pathophysiological characteristics between short- and long-segment Barrett's oesophagus.

AIM: To assess the oesophageal manometric characteristics and 24-h pH profiles of patients with both short-segment and long-segment Barrett's oesophagus and compare them with those of patients with reflux oesophagitis and controls. METHODS: Seventy-nine patients who had undergone upper digestive endoscopy were recruited: 16 had short-segment Barrett's oesophagus, 13 had long-segment Barrett's oesophagus, 25 had grade III oesophagitis according to the Savary-Miller classification and 25 were used as controls. The diagnosis of Barrett's oesophagus was based on the histological detection of specialized intestinal metaplasia, which extended < 3 cm into the oesophagus in patients with short-segment disease and > 3 cm in patients with long-segment disease. All subjects underwent oesophageal manometry and basal 24-h oesophageal pH monitoring. RESULTS: The lower oesophageal sphincter pressure was significantly lower in patients with reflux oesophagitis and short-segment and long-segment Barrett's oesophagus than in controls (P=0.0004-0.0001), but there was no difference among the three reflux groups. The peristaltic wave amplitude of patients with long-segment Barrett's oesophagus was significantly lower than that of controls (P=0.002) and patients with short-segment Barrett's oesophagus (P=0.02), but was no different from that of patients with reflux oesophagitis. The percentage of non-propagated wet swallows was significantly higher in patients with reflux oesophagitis and short-segment and long-segment Barrett's oesophagus when compared with that of controls (P=0.0004-0.0001). The total percentage of time the oesophagus was exposed to pH < 4.0 was significantly higher in patients with reflux oesophagitis and short-segment and long-segment Barrett's oesophagus (P=0.0001) than in controls, and was higher in patients with long-segment disease than in those with short-segment disease (P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Long-segment Barrett's oesophagus is characterized by a greater impairment of peristaltic wave amplitude and a higher oesophageal acid exposure than is short-segment Barrett's oesophagus. However, both forms are linked to increased acid reflux.

Endoscopic circumferential esophageal mucosectomy in a porcine model: an assessment of technical feasibility, safety, and outcome.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic mucosectomy has been performed for early cancers and dysplastic lesions < or = 2 cm in diameter. The feasibility and safety of mucosectomy for circumferential lesions of the esophagus is uncertain. The aim of this study was to determine the technical feasibility, as well as the short and long-term complication rates, with circumferential endoscopic mucosectomy of the distal esophagus in the pig. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Circumferential endoscopic mucosectomy of the distal 3 cm of the esophagus was performed in four pigs, using a cap mucosectomy device. The animals were sacrificed after 30, 50, 70, and 90 days to assess mucosal regeneration and stricture formation. RESULTS: The procedure time for circumferential endoscopic mucosectomy was 15-30 min. Circumferential endoscopic mucosectomy was technically feasible and without short-term complications. Videotapes of all resections were reviewed to ensure that complete removal of the mucosa was achieved. All mucosectomy specimens underwent histological evaluation. The specimens included the mucosa alone in three of the pigs. Some of the specimens in the fourth pig included a superficial layer of muscularis propria. This pig failed to thrive. Macroscopic examination of the dissected esophageal specimens from the healthy pigs revealed a well-healed, normal-appearing esophagus, whereas a stenosis of 4 x 10 mm was observed in the distal esophagus of the pig that failed to thrive. CONCLUSIONS: Circumferential endoscopic mucosectomy of the porcine distal esophagus is feasible and safe. An adequate submucosal saline cushion is essential to prevent stenosis due to deep injury.

Endoscopic treatment of pancreatico-biliary malignancies.

Biliary obstructions, due to pancreatic cancer and cholangiocarcinoma, have an ominous prognosis. At the time of diagnosis, most patients are beyond any curative treatment. Palliative therapies, such as transhepatic biliary drainage, bypass surgery, and endoscopy, have an established role in the management of such patients. Endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) plays a key role, allowing diagnosis, collection of cytologic and bioptic specimens, and insertion of large-bore biliary stents. The major drawback of plastic stents is the high rate of clogging, requiring frequent stent exchange. In the 1990s, self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) were developed and randomized studies have shown their superiority over plastic stents. SEMS can be successfully used in patients with hilar tumors. Duodenal obstruction due to biliopancreatic neoplasms can also be managed endoscopically. ERCP can be performed on an outpatient basis in selected patients, reducing costs related to hospitalization. A team approach is mandatory to obtain the best results.

Secular trends in the epidemiology and outcome of Barrett's oesophagus in Olmsted County, Minnesota.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma has increased greatly. Barrett's oesophagus is a known risk factor. AIMS: To identify changes in the incidence, prevalence, and outcome of Barrett's oesophagus in a defined population. SUBJECTS: Residents of Olmsted County, Minnesota, with clinically diagnosed Barrett's oesophagus, or oesophageal or oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Cases were identified using the Rochester Epidemiology Project medical records linkage system. Records were reviewed with follow up to 1 January 1998. RESULTS: The incidence of clinically diagnosed Barrett's oesophagus (>3 cm) increased 28-fold from 0.37/100 000 person years in 1965-69 to 10.5/100 000 in 1995-97. Of note, gastroscopic examinations increased 22-fold in this same time period. The prevalence of diagnosed Barrett's oesophagus increased from 22.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 11.7-33.6) per 100 000 in 1987 to 82.6/100 000 in 1998. The prevalence of short segment Barrett's oesophagus (<3 cm) in 1998 was 33.4/ 100 000. Patients with Barrett's oesophagus had shorter than expected survival but only one patient with Barrett's oesophagus died from adenocarcinoma. Only four of 64 adenocarcinomas occurred in patients with previously known Barrett's oesophagus. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence and prevalence of clinically diagnosed Barrett's oesophagus have increased in parallel with the increased use of endoscopy. We infer that the true population prevalence of Barrett's oesophagus has not changed greatly, although the incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma increased 10-fold. Many adenocarcinomas occurred in patients without a previous diagnosis of Barrett's oesophagus, suggesting that many people with this condition remain undiagnosed in the community.

Carditis, intestinal metaplasia and adenocarcinoma of oesophagogastric junction.

Barrett's oesophagus is a precancerous condition in which the normal squamous epithelium is replaced by intestinal metaplasia (IM). IM can then progress through increasingly severe dysplasia to oesophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). In the gastric cardia the normal gastric mucosa, when inflamed (carditis), can be replaced by IM and can then progress to gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). The same histopathological sequence can take place on either side of the oesophagogastric junction. Since the location of that junction can be uncertain this can result in confused diagnosis between EAC and GAC. In this review, the diagnostic criteria, incidence and risk factors for Barrett's oesophagus and carditis are discussed, together with the factors determining the risk of progression to adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus or cardia. The risk factors include familial/genetic, environmental and dietary characteristics. Finally, these risk factors are discussed within the context of cancer prevention.