Diagnosis and management of Barrett esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline.

MR1 : ESGE recommends the following standards for Barrett esophagus (BE) surveillance:- a minimum of 1-minute inspection time per cm of BE length during a surveillance endoscopy- photodocumentation of landmarks, the BE segment including one picture per cm of BE length, and the esophagogastric junction in retroflexed position, and any visible lesions- use of the Prague and (for visible lesions) Paris classification- collection of biopsies from all visible abnormalities (if present), followed by random four-quadrant biopsies for every 2-cm BE length.Strong recommendation, weak quality of evidence. MR2: ESGE suggests varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance are advised.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR3: ESGE suggests that, if a patient has reached 75 years of age at the time of the last surveillance endoscopy and/or the patient's life expectancy is less than 5 years, the discontinuation of further surveillance endoscopies can be considered. Weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence. MR4: ESGE recommends offering endoscopic eradication therapy using ablation to patients with BE and low grade dysplasia (LGD) on at least two separate endoscopies, both confirmed by a second experienced pathologist.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR5: ESGE recommends endoscopic ablation treatment for BE with confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD) without visible lesions, to prevent progression to invasive cancer.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR6: ESGE recommends offering complete eradication of all remaining Barrett epithelium by ablation after endoscopic resection of visible abnormalities containing any degree of dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. MR7: ESGE recommends endoscopic resection as curative treatment for T1a Barrett's cancer with well/moderate differentiation and no signs of lymphovascular invasion.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR8: ESGE suggests that low risk submucosal (T1b) EAC (i. e. submucosal invasion depth ≤ 500 µm AND no [lympho]vascular invasion AND no poor tumor differentiation) can be treated by endoscopic resection, provided that adequate follow-up with gastroscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and computed tomography (CT)/positrion emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in expert centers.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR9: ESGE suggests that submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (tumor invasion > 500 µm into the submucosa), and/or (lympho)vascular invasion, and/or a poor tumor differentiation should be considered high risk. Complete staging and consideration of additional treatments (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and/or surgery) or strict endoscopic follow-up should be undertaken on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR10 A: ESGE recommends that the first endoscopic follow-up after successful endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) of BE is performed in an expert center.Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence. B: ESGE recommends careful inspection of the neo-squamocolumnar junction and neo-squamous epithelium with high definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy during post-EET surveillance, to detect recurrent dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. C: ESGE recommends against routine four-quadrant biopsies of neo-squamous epithelium after successful EET of BE.Strong recommendation, low level of evidence. D: ESGE suggests, after successful EET, obtaining four-quadrant random biopsies just distal to a normal-appearing neo-squamocolumnar junction to detect dysplasia in the absence of visible lesions.Weak recommendation, low level of evidence. E: ESGE recommends targeted biopsies are obtained where there is a suspicion of recurrent BE in the tubular esophagus, or where there are visible lesions suspicious for dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. MR11: After successful EET, ESGE recommends the following surveillance intervals:- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of HGD or EAC:at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of LGD:at 1, 3, and 5 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

Diagnosis and management of barrett esophagus: european society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) guideline

This Guideline is an official statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). It is an update of the previous (2017) Position Statement on the endoscopic management of Barrett esophagus.

Barrett's Oesophagus: Today's Mistake and Tomorrow's Wisdom in Screening and Prevention.

Background: Oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) is a lethal cancer with an overall 5-year survival of <20%. Given the presence of a pre-invasive disease stage, also known as Barrett's oesophagus (BO), and the availability of minimally invasive treatments for BO-related neoplasia, it is thought that early detection is the best strategy to improve patient outcomes. Clinical guidelines recommend endoscopic screening in patients with symptoms of acid reflux and additional risk factors. This strategy is flawed by the cost and invasiveness of endoscopy as well as by the fact that a significant proportion of OAC patients deny a history of reflux symptoms. Summary: New research on the use of epidemiologic and clinical data has allowed the creation of risk-prediction algorithms to identify the population at risk. In addition, newer less-invasive devices such as transnasal endoscopy, Cytosponge, volumetric laser endomicroscopy, and volatile organic compounds are emerging as promising options to allow screening in the primary care setting. Finally, there is an opportunity to intervene at the pre-invasive stage with pharmacological strategies to reduce the risk burden. Key Messages: In this review, we provide a critical appraisal of the different screening approaches and chemopreventive strategies and a guide to readers on how to implement research evidence in clinical practice.

Quantification of TFF3 expression from a non-endoscopic device predicts clinically relevant Barrett's oesophagus by machine learning.

BACKGROUND: Intestinal metaplasia (IM) is pre-neoplastic with variable cancer risk. Cytosponge-TFF3 test can detect IM. We aimed to 1) assess whether quantitative TFF3 scores can distinguish clinically relevant Barrett's oesophagus (BO) (C≥1 or M≥3) from focal IM pathologies (C<1, M<3 or IM of gastro-oesophageal junction); 2) whether TFF3 counts can be automated to inform clinical practice. METHODS: Patients from the Barett's oEsophagus Screening Trial 2 (BEST2) case-control and BEST3 randomised trials were used. For aim 1, TFF3-positive glands were scored manually and correlated with clinical diagnosis. For aim 2, machine learning approach was used to obtain TFF3 count and logistic regression with cross-validation was trained on the BEST2 dataset (n = 529) and tested in the BEST3 dataset (n = 158). FINDINGS: Patients with clinically relevant BO had higher mean TFF3 gland count compared to focal IM pathologies (mean difference 4.14; 95% confidence interval, CI 2.76-5.52, p < 0.001). The mean class-balanced validation accuracy was 0.84 (95% CI 0.77-0.90), and precision of 0.95 (95% CI 0.87-1.00) for detecting clinically relevant BO. Applying this model on BEST3 showed precision of 0.91 (95% CI 0.85-0.97) for focal IM pathologies with a class-balanced accuracy of 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.84). Using this model, 55% of patients (87/158) in BEST3 would fall below the threshold for clinically relevant BO and could avoid gastroscopy, while only missing 5.1% of patients (8/158). INTERPRETATION: Automated Cytosponge-TFF3 gland quantification may enable thresholds to be set to trigger confirmatory gastroscopy to minimize overdiagnosis of focal IM pathologies with very low cancer-associated risk. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK (12088/16893 and C14478/A21047).

Optimized Surveillance Intervals Following Endoscopic Eradication of Dysplastic Barrett's Esophagus: An International Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Recommended surveillance intervals after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) after endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) are largely not evidence-based. Using recurrence rates in a multicenter international Barrett's esophagus (BE) CE-IM cohort, we aimed to generate optimal intervals for surveillance. METHODS: Patients with dysplastic BE undergoing EET and achieving CE-IM from prospectively maintained databases at 5 tertiary-care centers in the United States and the United Kingdom were included. The cumulative incidence of recurrence was estimated, accounting for the unknown date of actual recurrence that lies between the dates of current and previous endoscopy. This cumulative incidence of recurrence subsequently was used to estimate the proportion of patients with undetected recurrence for various surveillance intervals over 5 years. Intervals were selected that minimized recurrences remaining undetected for more than 6 months. Actual patterns of post-CE-IM follow-up evaluation are described. RESULTS: A total of 498 patients (with baseline low-grade dysplasia, 115 patients; high-grade dysplasia [HGD], 288 patients; and intramucosal adenocarcinoma [IMCa], 95 patients) were included. Any recurrence occurred in 27.1% and dysplastic recurrence occurred in 8.4% over a median of 2.6 years of follow-up evaluation. For pre-ablation HGD/IMCa, intervals of 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, and then annually, resulted in no patients with dysplastic recurrence undetected for more than 6 months, comparable with current guideline recommendations despite a 33% reduction in the number of surveillance endoscopies. For pre-ablation low-grade dysplasia, intervals of 1, 2, and 4 years balanced endoscopic burden and undetected recurrence risk. CONCLUSIONS: Lengthening post-CE-IM surveillance intervals would reduce the endoscopic burden after CE-IM with comparable rates of recurrent HGD/IMCa. Future guidelines should consider reduced surveillance frequency.

Use of a Cytosponge biomarker panel to prioritise endoscopic Barrett's oesophagus surveillance: a cross-sectional study followed by a real-world prospective pilot.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic surveillance is recommended for patients with Barrett's oesophagus because, although the progression risk is low, endoscopic intervention is highly effective for high-grade dysplasia and cancer. However, repeated endoscopy has associated harms and access has been limited during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the role of a non-endoscopic device (Cytosponge) coupled with laboratory biomarkers and clinical factors to prioritise endoscopy for Barrett's oesophagus. METHODS: We first conducted a retrospective, multicentre, cross-sectional study in patients older than 18 years who were having endoscopic surveillance for Barrett's oesophagus (with intestinal metaplasia confirmed by TFF3 and a minimum Barrett's segment length of 1 cm [circumferential or tongues by the Prague C and M criteria]). All patients had received the Cytosponge and confirmatory endoscopy during the BEST2 (ISRCTN12730505) and BEST3 (ISRCTN68382401) clinical trials, from July 7, 2011, to April 1, 2019 (UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio 9461). Participants were divided into training (n=557) and validation (n=334) cohorts to identify optimal risk groups. The biomarkers evaluated were overexpression of p53, cellular atypia, and 17 clinical demographic variables. Endoscopic biopsy diagnosis of high-grade dysplasia or cancer was the primary endpoint. Clinical feasibility of a decision tree for Cytosponge triage was evaluated in a real-world prospective cohort from Aug 27, 2020 (DELTA; ISRCTN91655550; n=223), in response to COVID-19 and the need to provide an alternative to endoscopic surveillance. FINDINGS: The prevalence of high-grade dysplasia or cancer determined by the current gold standard of endoscopic biopsy was 17% (92 of 557 patients) in the training cohort and 10% (35 of 344) in the validation cohort. From the new biomarker analysis, three risk groups were identified: high risk, defined as atypia or p53 overexpression or both on Cytosponge; moderate risk, defined by the presence of a clinical risk factor (age, sex, and segment length); and low risk, defined as Cytosponge-negative and no clinical risk factors. The risk of high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal cancer in the high-risk group was 52% (68 of 132 patients) in the training cohort and 41% (31 of 75) in the validation cohort, compared with 2% (five of 210) and 1% (two of 185) in the low-risk group, respectively. In the real-world setting, Cytosponge results prospectively identified 39 (17%) of 223 patients as high risk (atypia or p53 overexpression, or both) requiring endoscopy, among whom the positive predictive value was 31% (12 of 39 patients) for high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal cancer and 44% (17 of 39) for any grade of dysplasia. INTERPRETATION: Cytosponge atypia, p53 overexpression, and clinical risk factors (age, sex, and segment length) could be used to prioritise patients for endoscopy. Further investigation could validate their use in clinical practice and lead to a substantial reduction in endoscopy procedures compared with current surveillance pathways. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Innovate UK.

Russell Body Lesions of the Colon: Case Report and Literature Review.

Russell bodies (RB) are rare manifestations within the lower gastrointestinal tract. To date, there are only three other reported cases of RB lesions of the colon; two were polyps, and the third was a case of a multifocal RB lesion of the gastrointestinal tract. This paper reports a case of a tubulovillous adenoma with RB of the sigmoid colon in a patient diagnosed incidentally as part of the UK National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. A thorough hematological investigation is required to exclude hematological malignancies because of its association with plasma cell neoplasm. These lesions should undergo clonality analysis to exclude the monoclonal proliferation of plasma cells. Ideally, a bone marrow aspirate and investigations for amyloidosis should be performed to exclude underlying hematological malignancies.