Adherence to Surveillance Guidelines in Nondysplastic Barrett's Esophagus.

INTRODUCTION: Surveillance patterns in Barrett's esophagus (BE) are not well characterized. Guidelines published between 2002 and 2008 recommended surveillance esophagogastroduodenoscopy (sEGD) at 3-year intervals for nondysplastic BE (NDBE). We assessed guideline adherence in incident NDBE in a Veterans Affairs (VA)-based study. METHODS: At a single VA center, we identified incident cases of biopsy-confirmed NDBE between January, 2006 and December, 2008. We excluded patients aged 76 years and above and those who developed BE-associated dysplasia or cancer during follow-up. All sEGDs through October, 2014 were documented. Our primary criteria classified cases as guideline adherent if a sEGD was performed within 6 months of each expected 3-year surveillance interval; in cases with ≥2 sEGDs, 1 sEGD >6 months, and ≤1 year outside an interval was allowed if the average interval was between 2.5 and 3.5 years. Comorbidity, primary care encounters, presence of long-segment BE (LSBE), endoscopist recommendations, and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) were assessed. RESULTS: We identified 110 patients (96.4% male, 93.6% white) with mean age 58.9±8.5 years at index EGD. Median follow-up was 6.7 years (range, 3.7 to 8.6). Thirty-three (30.0%) cases were guideline adherent; 77 (70.0%) cases were nonadherent, including 52 (47.3%) with irregular surveillance and 25 (22.7%) with no surveillance. Forty cases (14 adherent) had 1 sEGD, 36 (18 adherent) had 2, 8 (1 adherent) had 3, and 1 nonadherent case had 4. Adherent cases were significantly older (61.5 vs. 57.9 y, P=0.04), and tended to have more LSBE (33.3% vs. 20.8%, P=0.16). There were no differences between adherent and nonadherent cases in annual primary care encounters (72.7% vs. 66.2%, P=0.66), CCI≥4 (15.2% vs. 15.6%, P=0.95), biopsy-positive sEGDs (75.8% vs. 76.6%, P=0.92), and any recommendation for subsequent surveillance (81.8% vs. 77.9%, P=0.65). A logistic regression model using age, CCI, and LSBE showed an independent association between adherence and older age (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In a single-center VA cohort, sEGD of NDBE was mostly nonadherent to guidelines. Adherent cases were older at baseline with a trend toward more LSBE. A larger study is needed to identify medical and social factors associated with adherence or nonadherence to surveillance.

Endoscopic ultrasound characteristics of pancreatic lymphoepithelial cysts: A case series from a large referral center.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Lymphoepithelial cysts (LECs) of the pancreas are benign lesions that can mimic cystic neoplasms on imaging. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) features have not been well described. We aimed to describe the clinical and EUS characteristics of LECs and the present outcomes of management at a high-volume referral center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified patients who underwent EUS and were found to have LECs based on fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology or surgical pathology from existing databases. EUS features, imaging characteristics, and pathology results were described. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were found to have 17 LECs. The mean size was 33 mm ± 15 mm. Locations within the pancreas included 10 lesions in the tail, 3 in the body, 1 in the uncinate process; the remaining 3 were exophytic. Six lesions were anechoic, 6 were hypoechoic, and 5 had mixed echogenicity. Nine lesions had mixed solid/cystic components, 7 were purely cystic, and 1 was solid. Cyst fluid was thick or viscous in six cases and thin in three. Eleven patients had diagnostic cytopathology. Six patients ultimately underwent surgery due to symptoms, nondiagnostic FNA, or other clinical concerns for malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic LECs have variable morphology and echogenicity on EUS, but the appearance of a cyst with variable solid and cystic components combined with the appearance of thick, turbid, and viscous aspirate should raise suspicion for an LEC. The majority of patients with LECs at our center avoided surgery for LECs on the basis of diagnostic EUS-FNA.