Prevalence and Predictors of Barrett's Esophagus After Negative Initial Endoscopy: Analysis From Two National Databases.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines suggest a single screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in patients with multiple risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aimed to determine BE prevalence and predictors on repeat EGD after a negative initial EGD, using 2 large national databases (GI Quality Improvement Consortium [GIQuIC] and TriNetX). METHODS: Patients who underwent at least 2 EGDs were included and those with BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma detected at initial EGD were excluded. Patient demographics and prevalence of BE on repeat EGD were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess for independent risk factors for BE detected on the repeat EGD. RESULTS: In 214,318 and 153,445 patients undergoing at least 2 EGDs over a median follow-up of 28-35 months, the prevalence of BE on repeat EGD was 1.7% in GIQuIC and 3.4% in TriNetX, respectively (26%-45% of baseline BE prevalence). Most (89%) patients had nondysplastic BE. The prevalence of BE remained stable over time (from 1 to >5 years from negative initial EGD) but increased with increasing number of risk factors. BE prevalence in a high-risk population (gastroesophageal reflux disease plus ≥1 risk factor for BE) was 3%-4%. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of >350,000 patients, rates of BE on repeat EGD ranged from 1.7%-3.4%, and were higher in those with multiple risk factors. Most were likely missed at initial evaluation, underscoring the importance of a high-quality initial endoscopic examination. Although routine repeat endoscopic BE screening after a negative initial examination is not recommended, repeat screening may be considered in carefully selected patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and ≥2 risk factors for BE, potentially using nonendoscopic tools.

Population Based Time Trends in the Epidemiology and Mortality of Gastroesophageal Junction and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on the epidemiology of gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEJAC), particularly in comparison to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). With the advent of molecular non-endoscopic Barrett's esophagus (BE) detection tests which sample the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction, early detection of EAC and GEJAC has become a possibility and their epidemiology has gained importance. AIMS: We sought to evaluate time trends in the epidemiology and survival of patients with EAC and GEJAC in a population-based cohort. METHODS: EAC and GEJAC patients from 1976 to 2019 were identified using ICD 9 and 10 diagnostic codes from the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP). Clinical data and survival status were abstracted. Poisson regression was used to calculate incidence rate ratios (IRR). Survival analysis and Cox proportional models were used to assess predictors of survival. RESULTS: We included 443 patients (287 EAC,156 GEJAC). The incidence of EAC and GEJAC during 1976-2019 was 1.40 (CI 1.1-1.74) and 0.83 (CI 0.61-1.11) per 100,000 people, respectively. There was an increase in the incidence of EAC (IRR = 2.45, p = 0.011) and GEJAC (IRR = 3.17, p = 0.08) from 2000 to 2004 compared to 1995-1999, plateauing in later time periods. Most patients had associated BE and presented at advanced stages, leading to high 5-year mortality rates (66% in EAC and 59% in GEJAC). Age and stage at diagnosis were predictors of mortality. CONCLUSION: The rising incidence of EAC/GEJAC appears to have plateaued somewhat in the last decade. However, both cancers present at advanced stages with persistently poor survival, underscoring the need for early detection.

Therapeutic Plasma Exchange in Severe Rhabdomyolysis: A Case-Control Study.

INTRODUCTION:  Rhabdomyolysis is a serious condition that can cause acute kidney injury (AKI), compartment syndrome, severe metabolic and electrolyte derangement leading to arrhythmias, and even death. Total plasma exchange (TPE) has been used as a treatment modality to clear myoglobin, but the evidence is limited. In this study, we aim to investigate the use of TPE in critically ill rhabdomyolysis patients. METHODS:  We retrospectively chart reviewed adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with a diagnosis of rhabdomyolysis between 2012 and 2021. We dichotomized patients into two groups based on whether TPE was used or not in addition to standard care. PRISMA machines with TPE2000 filters and either 5% albumin or fresh frozen plasma were used in the TPE group. RESULTS:  The patients' age ranged from 23 years to 87 years (mean 49.4, SD 18.1), and 51% were male. Initial creatinine ranged from 0.6 to 16mg/dL (mean 3.4, SD 2.7), creatinine phosphokinase (CPK) from 403-93,232 U/L, and myoglobin from 934 to >20,000. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA)scores on admission ranged from 6 to 17 (mean 7.23, SD 3.40). Overall, 28.78% (N=19) of the patients received therapeutic plasma exchange. The overall mortality in our study was 31.9%, with the length of ICU stay ranging from 1-25 days (mean 7.10, SD 5.91) among survivors. Older age and the presence of shock were predictive of mortality in univariate and multivariate analyses. There was no statistically significant association in mortality between the TPE and non-TPE groups (36.84% in TPE vs. 36.17% in the non-TPE group, OR 0.7209, p=0.959). Only two patients in the non-TPE group developed CKD/ESRD on long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that TPE administration in critically ill patients with rhabdomyolysis did not improve mortality or length of ICU stay. Further studies are required to elucidate its indication and effect on long-term renal outcomes.

Long-term outcomes following successful endoscopic treatment of T1 esophageal adenocarcinoma: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is guideline endorsed for management of early-stage (T1) esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Patients with baseline high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and EAC are at highest risk of recurrence after successful EET, but limited data exist on long-term (>5 year) recurrence outcomes. Our aim was to assess the incidence and predictors of long-term recurrence in a multicenter cohort of patients with T1 EAC treated with EET. METHODS: Patients with T1 EAC achieving successful endoscopic cancer eradication with a minimum of 5 years' clinical follow-up were included. The primary outcome was neoplastic recurrence, defined as dysplasia or EAC, and it was characterized as early (<2 years), intermediate (2-5 years), or late (>5 years). Predictors of recurrence were assessed by time to event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 84 T1 EAC patients (75 T1a, 9 T1b) with a median 9.1 years (range, 5.1-18.3 years) of follow-up were included. The overall incidence of neoplastic recurrence was 2.0 per 100 person-years of follow-up. Seven recurrences (3 dysplasia, 4 EAC) occurred after 5 years of EAC remission. Overall, 88% of recurrences were treated successfully endoscopically. EAC recurrence-related mortality occurred in 3 patients at a median of 5.2 years from EAC remission. Complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia was independently associated with reduced recurrence (hazard ratio, .13). CONCLUSIONS: Following successful EET of T1 EAC, neoplastic recurrence occurred after 5 years in 8.3% of cases. Careful long-term surveillance should be continued in this patient population. Complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia should be the therapeutic end point for EET.

Development of a deep learning model for the histologic diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The risk of progression in Barrett's esophagus (BE) increases with development of dysplasia. There is a critical need to improve the diagnosis of BE dysplasia, given substantial interobserver disagreement among expert pathologists and overdiagnosis of dysplasia by community pathologists. We developed a deep learning model to predict dysplasia grade on whole-slide imaging. METHODS: We digitized nondysplastic BE (NDBE), low-grade dysplasia (LGD), and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) histology slides. Two expert pathologists confirmed all histology and digitally annotated areas of dysplasia. Training, validation, and test sets were created (by a random 70/20/10 split). We used an ensemble approach combining a "you only look once" model to identify regions of interest and histology class (NDBE, LGD, or HGD) followed by a ResNet101 model pretrained on ImageNet applied to the regions of interest. Diagnostic performance was determined for the whole slide. RESULTS: We included slides from 542 patients (164 NDBE, 226 LGD, and 152 HGD) yielding 8596 bounding boxes in the training set, 1946 bounding boxes in the validation set, and 840 boxes in the test set. When the ensemble model was used, sensitivity and specificity for LGD was 81.3% and 100%, respectively, and >90% for NDBE and HGD. The overall positive predictive value and sensitivity metric (calculated as F1 score) was .91 for NDBE, .90 for LGD, and 1.0 for HGD. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully trained and validated a deep learning model to accurately identify dysplasia on whole-slide images. This model can potentially help improve the histologic diagnosis of BE dysplasia and the appropriate application of endoscopic therapy.

Comparative Outcomes of Cap Assisted Endoscopic Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Dysplastic Barrett's Esophagus.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic resection is an important component of the endoscopic treatment of Barrett's esophagus (BE) with dysplasia and intramucosal adenocarcinoma. Endoscopic resection can be performed by cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (cEMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We compared the histologic outcomes of ESD vs cEMR, followed by ablation. METHODS: We queried a prospectively maintained database of all patients undergoing cEMR and ESD followed by ablation at our institution from January 2006 to March 2020 and abstracted relevant demographic and clinical data. Our primary outcomes included the rate of complete remission of dysplasia (CRD): absence of dysplasia on surveillance histology, and complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM): absence of intestinal metaplasia. Our secondary outcome included complication rates. RESULTS: We included 537 patients in the study: 456 underwent cEMR and 81 underwent ESD. The cumulative probabilities of CRD at 2 years were 75.8% and 85.6% in the cEMR and ESD groups, respectively (P < .01). Independent predictors of CRD were as follows: ESD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.38; P < .01) and shorter BE segment length (HR, 1.11; P < .01). The cumulative probabilities of CRIM at 2 years were 59.3% and 50.6% in the cEMR and ESD groups, respectively (P > .05). The only independent predictor of CRIM was a shorter BE segment (HR, 1.16; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: BE patients with dysplasia or intramucosal adenocarcinoma undergoing ESD reach CRD at higher rates than those treated with cEMR, although CRIM rates at 2 years and complication rates were similar between the 2 groups.

Comparative outcomes of radiofrequency ablation and cryoballoon ablation in dysplastic Barrett's esophagus: a propensity score-matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Strong evidence supports the use of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in the management of dysplastic/neoplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE). Recently, the efficacy of the cryoballoon ablation (CBA) system was demonstrated in multicenter cohort studies. We aimed to assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of these 2 ablation modalities for endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) in a cohort study. METHODS: Data were abstracted on patients with dysplastic BE or intramucosal carcinoma undergoing EET using RFA or CBA as the primary ablation modality at 2 referral centers. The primary outcome was the rate of complete remission intestinal metaplasia (CRIM). Secondary outcomes were rates of complete remission of dysplasia (CRD) and adverse events. Cox proportional hazards models and propensity scored-matched analyses were conducted to compare outcomes. RESULTS: Three hundred eleven patients (CBA, 85 patients; RFA, 226 patients) with a median follow-up of 1.5 years (interquartile range, .8, 2.5) in the RFA group and 2.0 years (interquartile range, 1.3, 2.5) in the CBA group were studied. On multivariable analyses, the chances of reaching CRD and CRIM were not influenced by ablation modality. Propensity score-matched analysis revealed a comparable chance of achieving CRIM (CBA vs RFA: hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, .79-1.96; P = .35) and CRD (CBA vs RFA: hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, .82-1.73; P = .36). The CBA group had a higher stricture rate compared with the RFA group (10.4% vs 4.4%, P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Histologic outcomes of EET using CBA and RFA for dysplastic BE appear to be comparable. A randomized trial is needed to definitively compare outcomes between these 2 modalities.

Risk Factor Profiles Can Distinguish Esophageal Adenocarcinoma From Barrett's Esophagus.

INTRODUCTION: It is assumed that screening risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (BE) and prevalent esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) are the same. METHODS: A matched case-control study comparing risk factors between EAC and BE was performed. RESULTS: In 1,356 patients (678 with EAC and 678 with BE), heartburn (52.7%), diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, and metabolic syndrome were less common in EAC (52.7, 29.2, 45.7, 48.2, 12, and 28.5%, resp.) compared with BE (84.5, 37.6, 82.2, 64.6, 18.4, and 44.1%, P < 0.01). Mean alanine aminotransferase and HgA1c levels were also significantly lower in EAC compared with BE. DISCUSSION: Optimal strategies for screening for prevalent EAC may be different than that for BE.

Neoplasia Detection Rate in Barrett's Esophagus and Its Impact on Missed Dysplasia: Results from a Large Population-Based Database.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is a challenge to detect dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinomas (EACs) are missed in 25%-33% of cases. The neoplasia detection rate (NDR), defined as the rate of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or EAC detection during initial surveillance endoscopy, has been proposed as a quality metric for endoscopic evaluation of patients with BE. However, current estimates are from referral center cohorts, which might overestimate NDR. Effects on rates of missed dysplasia are also unknown. We analyzed data from a large cohort of patients with BE to estimate the NDR and factors associated with it, and assess the effects of the NDR on the rate of missed dysplasia. METHODS: We analyzed data from 1066 patients in the Rochester Epidemiology Project-linked medical record system, a population-based cohort of patients with BE (confirmed by review of the endoscopic and histologic reports) from 11 southeastern Minnesota counties from 1991 through 2019. Biopsies reported to contain dysplasia were confirmed by expert gastrointestinal pathologists. The NDR was calculated as the rate of HGD or EAC detected by histologic analyses of biopsies collected during the first surveillance endoscopy. Patients without HGD or EAC at their initial endoscopy (n = 391) underwent repeat endoscopy within 12 months; HGD or EAC detected at the repeat endoscopy were considered to be missed on index endoscopy. Factors associated with NDR and missed dysplasia were identified using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: The NDR was 4.9% (95% CI, 3.8-6.4); 3.1% of patients had HGD, 1.8% had EAC, and 10.6% had low-grade dysplasia. Factors associated with higher rates of detection of neoplasia included older age, male sex, smoking, increasing length of BE, and surveillance endoscopies by gastroenterologists. This NDR was associated with a substantially lower rate of missed dysplasia (13%). CONCLUSIONS: In an analysis of 1066 patients with BE in a population-based cohort, we found a lower NDR and lower rate of missed dysplasia than previously reported. NDR may have value as a quality metric in BE surveillance if validated in other cohorts.

Epidemiology and Outcomes of Young-Onset Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: An Analysis from a Population-Based Database.

BACKGROUND: Esophageal adenocarcinoma is a lethal cancer with rising incidence. There are limited data in younger (<50 years) patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma. We aimed to assess time trends in the incidence and outcomes of "young-onset" esophageal adenocarcinoma using a population-based database. METHODS: We queried the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 9 database to identify patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma between 1975 and 2015. Patients were stratified into three age strata: <50, 50 to 69, and ≥70 years. Staging was stratified as localized, regional, and distant. Trends in incidence, disease stage, and survival were assessed in three periods (1975-89, 1990-99, and 2000-2015). Univariate and multivariate models were created to identify predictors of mortality. RESULTS: Esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence has increased in patients <50 years of age, with an annual percentage change of 2.9% (95% confidence interval, 1.4%-4.4%) from 1975 to 2015. Young-onset esophageal adenocarcinoma presented at more advanced stages (regional + distant) compared with older patients (84.9% vs. 67.3%; P < 0.01), with increasing proportion of advanced stages over the study period. These patients also experienced poorer 5-year esophageal adenocarcinoma-free survival compared with older patients (22.9%% vs. 29.6%; P < 0.01), although this finding was attenuated on stage-stratified analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Young-onset esophageal adenocarcinoma, while uncommon, is rising in incidence. Concerningly, the proportion of advanced disease continues to increase. Young-onset esophageal adenocarcinoma also presents at more advanced stages, resulting in poorer esophageal adenocarcinoma-free survival. IMPACT: Patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma younger than 50 years present at more advanced stages with higher esophageal adenocarcinoma-specific mortality compared with older peers. Current diagnostic and management strategies for young-onset esophageal adenocarcinoma may need to be reevaluated.

Clinical significance of recurrent gastroesophageal junction intestinal metaplasia after endoscopic eradication of Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: After endoscopic eradication of Barrett's esophagus (BE), recurrence of intestinal metaplasia at the gastroesophageal junction (GEJIM) is common. The clinical significance of this finding is unclear. We assessed whether recurrent GEJIM is associated with increased risk of subsequent dysplasia and whether endoscopic treatment lowers this risk. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter, cohort study was performed of treated BE patients who achieved complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (IM). Postablation follow-up was performed at standard intervals. Recurrent GEJIM was defined as nondysplastic IM on gastroesophageal junction biopsy specimens without endoscopic evidence of BE. Patients were categorized as "never-GEJIM," "GEJIM-observed," or "GEJIM-treated." Endoscopic treatment for recurrent GEJIM was at the endoscopists' discretion. The primary outcome was dysplasia recurrence. Analyses were performed using log-rank tests and Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-three patients were analyzed; median follow-up was 47 months (interquartile range, 24-69). Most patients (81%) had high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal adenocarcinoma before treatment. Dysplasia recurrence was 2.2% per year. GEJIM-observed patients had the lowest rate of recurrence (.6%/y) followed by GEJIM-treated (2.2%/y) and never-GEJIM (2.6%/y) (log-rank P = .07). In multivariate analyses, compared with never-GEJIM, the risk of dysplasia recurrence was significantly lower in GEJIM-observed patients (adjusted hazard ratio, .19; 95% confidence interval, .05-.81) and not different in GEJIM-treated patients (adjusted hazard ratio, .81; 95% confidence interval, .39-1.67). Older age and longer initial BE length were independently associated with recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Recurrent GEJIM after endoscopic eradication of BE was not associated with an increased risk of subsequent dysplasia. Future studies are warranted to determine if observation is appropriate for this finding.