Rates of Recurrent Intestinal Metaplasia and Dysplasia After Successful Endoscopic Therapy of Barrett's Neoplasia by EMR vs ESD and Ablation: A Large North American Multicenter Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) combining endoscopic resection (ER) with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) followed by ablation is the standard of care for the treatment of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE). We have previously shown comparable rates of complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) with both approaches. However, data comparing recurrence after CRIM are lacking. We compared rates of recurrence after CRIM with both techniques in a multicenter cohort. METHODS: Patients undergoing EET achieving CRIM at 3 academic institutions were included. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted. Outcomes included rates and predictors of any BE and dysplastic BE recurrence in the two groups. Cox proportional hazards models and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis were utilized for analysis. RESULTS: 621 patients (514 EMR, 107 ESD) achieving CRIM were included in the recurrence analysis. The incidence of any BE (15.7, 5.7 per 100 patient years) and dysplastic BE recurrence (7.3, 5.3 per 100 patient-years) were comparable in the EMR and ESD groups, respectively. On multivariable analyses, the chances of BE recurrence were not influenced by ER technique (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.51-1.49; p= 0.62), which was also confirmed by IPTW analysis (ESD vs EMR: HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.56-1.73; p= 0.94). BE length, lesion size, and history of cigarette smoking were independent predictors of BE recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BE dysplasia/neoplasia achieving CRIM, initially treated with EMR/ablation had comparable recurrence rates to ESD/ablation. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these outcomes between the two ER techniques.

Algorithm Training and Testing for a Nonendoscopic Barrett's Esophagus Detection Test in Prospective Multicenter Cohorts.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) detection is invasive and expensive. Nonendoscopic BE/EAC detection tools are guideline-endorsed alternatives. We previously described a 5-methylated DNA marker (MDM) panel assayed on encapsulated sponge cell collection device (CCD) specimens. We aimed to train a new algorithm using a 3-MDM panel and test its performance in an independent cohort. METHODS: Algorithm training and test samples were from 2 prospective multicenter cohorts. All BE cases had esophageal intestinal metaplasia (with or without dysplasia/EAC); control subjects had no endoscopic evidence of BE. The CCD procedure was followed by endoscopy. From CCD cell lysates, DNA was extracted, bisulfite treated, and MDMs were blindly assayed. The algorithm was set and locked using cross-validated logistic regression (training set) and its performance was assessed in an independent test set. RESULTS: Training (N = 352) and test (N = 125) set clinical characteristics were comparable. The final panel included 3 MDMs (NDRG4, VAV3, ZNF682). Overall sensitivity was 82% (95% CI, 68%-94%) at 90% (79%-98%) specificity and 88% (78%-94%) sensitivity at 84% (70%-93%) specificity in training and test sets, respectively. Sensitivity was 90% and 68% for all long- and short-segment BE, respectively. Sensitivity for BE with high-grade dysplasia and EAC was 100% in training and test sets. Overall sensitivity for nondysplastic BE was 82%. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for BE detection were 0.92 and 0.94 in the training and test sets, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A locked 3-MDM panel algorithm for BE/EAC detection using a nonendoscopic CCD demonstrated excellent sensitivity for high-risk BE cases in independent validation samples. (Clinical trials.gov: NCT02560623, NCT03060642.).

SAFETY OF ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASONOGRAPHY LATEX BALLOON USE IN PATIENTS WITH A LATEX ALLERGY.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Balloons are used in endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) to improve visualization. However, data on the safety of latex balloons in patients with latex allergies is limited, and non-latex alternatives can be costly. We aimed to investigate the safety of latex balloon use during EUS. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted at a tertiary center between 2019-2022. Patients with reported latex allergies who underwent linear EUS were included. Baseline demographics, EUS characteristics, and adverse events were collected. The primary outcome was the rate of adverse events. RESULTS: 87 procedures were performed on 57 unique patients (mean age 65.3± 14.5 years). Latex balloons were used in 59 procedures (67.8%), with only 8 procedures (13.6%) using prophylactic medications. No adverse events occurred during or after procedures, regardless of medication use or history of anaphylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: The use of EUS latex balloons in patients with a latex allergy was associated with no adverse events.

Advances in Screening for Barrett Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), the primary form of esophageal cancer in the United States, is a lethal cancer with exponentially increasing incidence. Screening for Barrett esophagus (BE), the only known precursor to EAC, followed by endoscopic surveillance to detect dysplasia and early-stage EAC and subsequent endoscopic treatment (to prevent progression of dysplasia to EAC and to treat early-stage EAC effectively) is recommended by several society guidelines. Sedated endoscopy (the primary current tool for BE screening) is both invasive and expensive, limiting its widespread use. In this review, we aim to provide a comprehensive review of recent innovations in the nonendoscopic detection of BE and EAC. These include swallowable cell sampling devices combined with protein and epigenetic biomarkers (which are now guideline endorsed as alternatives to sedated endoscopy), tethered capsule endomicroscopy, emerging peripheral blood-sampled molecular biomarkers, and exhaled volatile organic compounds. We also summarize progress and challenges in assessing BE and EAC risk, which is an important complementary component of the process for the clinical implementation of these innovative nonendoscopic tools, and propose a new paradigm for the strategy to reduce EAC incidence and mortality.

A Delphi Method for Development of a Barrett's Esophagus Question Prompt List as a Communication Tool for Optimal Patient-physician Communication.

BACKGROUND METHODS: The question prompt list content was derived through a modified Delphi process consisting of 3 rounds. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts "What general questions should patients ask when given a new diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus" and "What questions do I not hear patients asking, but given my expertise, I believe they should be asking?" Questions were reviewed and categorized into themes. In round 2, experts rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale. In round 3, experts rerated questions modified or reduced after the previous rounds. Only questions rated as "essential" or "important" were included in Barrett's esophagus question prompt list (BE-QPL). To improve usability, questions were reduced to minimize redundancy and simplified to use language at an eighth-grade level (Fig. 1). RESULTS: Twenty-one esophageal medical and surgical experts participated in both rounds (91% males; median age 52 years). The expert panel comprised of 33% esophagologists, 24% foregut surgeons, and 24% advanced endoscopists, with a median of 15 years in clinical practice. Most (81%), worked in an academic tertiary referral hospital. In this 3-round Delphi technique, 220 questions were proposed in round 1, 122 (55.5%) were accepted into the BE-QPL and reduced down to 76 questions (round 2), and 67 questions (round 3). These 67 questions reached a Flesch Reading Ease of 68.8, interpreted as easily understood by 13 to 15 years olds. CONCLUSIONS: With multidisciplinary input, we have developed a physician-derived BE-QPL to optimize patient-physician communication. Future directions will seek patient feedback to distill the questions further to a smaller number and then assess their usability.

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.

Significant Reduction in the Diagnosis of Barrett's Esophagus and Related Dysplasia During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted endoscopy practices, creating unprecedented decreases in cancer screening and surveillance services. We aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on the proportion of patients diagnosed with Barrett's esophagus (BE) and BE-related dysplasia and adherence to established quality indicators. METHODS: Data from all esophagogastroduodenoscopies in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium, a national repository of matched endoscopy and pathology data, were analyzed from January 2018 to December 2022. Four cohorts were created based on procedure date and COVID-19 data: pre-pandemic (January 2018 to February 2020), pandemic-phase I (March 2020 to July 2020), pandemic-phase II (August 2020 to May 2021), and pandemic-phase III (June 2021 to December 2022). Observed and expected number of BE and BE-related dysplasia cases per month and adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol and recommended surveillance intervals for nondysplastic BE (NDBE) were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 2,446,857 esophagogastroduodenoscopies performed during the study period, 104,124 (4.3%) had pathology-confirmed BE. The histologic distribution was 87.4% NDBE, 1.8% low-grade dysplasia, 2.4% indefinite for dysplasia, and 1.4% high-grade dysplasia. The number of monthly BE (-47.9% pandemic-phase I, -21.5% pandemic-phase II, and -19.0% pandemic-phase III) and BE-related dysplasia (high-grade dysplasia: 41.2%, -27.7%, and -19.0%; low-grade dysplasia: 49.1%, -35.3%, and -26.5%; any dysplasia: 46.7%, -32.3%, and -27.9%) diagnoses were significantly reduced during the pandemic phases compared with pre-pandemic data. Adherence rates to the Seattle protocol and recommended surveillance intervals for NDBE did not decline during the pandemic. DISCUSSION: There was a significant decline in the number of BE and BE-related dysplasia diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an approximately 50% reduction in the number of cases of dysplasia diagnosed in the early pandemic. The absence of a compensatory increase in diagnoses in the pandemic-phase II and III periods may result in deleterious downstream effects on esophageal adenocarcinoma morbidity and mortality.

The Evolving Role of Artificial Intelligence in Gastrointestinal Histopathology: An Update.

Significant advances in artificial intelligence (AI) over the past decade potentially may lead to dramatic effects on clinical practice. Digitized histology represents an area ripe for AI implementation. We describe several current needs within the world of gastrointestinal histopathology, and outline, using currently studied models, how AI potentially can address them. We also highlight pitfalls as AI makes inroads into clinical practice.

Patients With Esophageal Adenocarcinoma With Prior Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Symptoms Are Similar to Those Without Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: A substantial proportion of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) do not report gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. This study aimed to compare the risk factor profiles and cancer stage at presentation of patients with EAC with and without prior GERD. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, patients with EAC were divided into 2 cohorts: (i) EAC with prior GERD: patients who reported typical GERD symptoms (heartburn or regurgitation) ≥1 year before cancer diagnosis and (ii) EAC without prior GERD: patients who did not report prior GERD symptoms or reported symptoms within 1 year of their cancer diagnosis. Baseline demographics, risk factors, and cancer stage at presentation were compared between the 2 cohorts. In addition, the distribution of patients based on numbers of BE/EAC-associated risk factors (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 or more) was examined in the symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts. RESULTS: Over 13 years, 388 patients with EAC with prior GERD and 245 patients with EAC without prior GERD were recruited. Both groups had similar baseline demographics and risk factors, but patients with EAC with prior GERD were more likely to have a history of BE. Asymptomatic patients had more advanced disease. Patients with 3 or more BE/EAC-related risk factors formed the largest proportion of patients in both the symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts. DISCUSSION: Patients with EAC with and without prior GERD symptoms are phenotypically similar, suggesting that BE screening efforts to prevent or detect early EAC should not be restricted to just those with GERD.

Prevalence of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma With and Without Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms are an essential criterion for Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening in most gastroenterology society guidelines, a significant proportion of BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) cases do not endorse them. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to study the prevalence of BE/EAC in those with and without GERD. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted through 5 major databases for studies reporting prevalence of BE/EAC in patients with and without GERD. Pooled proportions and odds ratios (ORs) of BE, long-segment BE, short-segment BE, dysplasia, and EAC in patients with and without GERD were synthesized. RESULTS: Forty-three articles (12,883 patients with GERD; 51,350 patients without GERD) were included in the final analysis. BE prevalence was 7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.8%-8.5%) and 2.2% (95% CI, 1.6%-3%) among individuals with and without GERD, respectively. EAC prevalence was 0.6% (95% CI, 0.4%-1%) and 0.1% (95% CI, 0%-0.2%) in those with and without GERD, respectively. The overall risks for BE (OR, 2.91; 95% CI, 2.06-4.11) and long-segment BE (OR,4.17; 95% CI, 1.78-9.77) were higher in patients with GERD, but the risk for short-segment BE (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.89-3.52) did not differ between the two groups. In 9 population-based high-quality studies (2244 patients with GERD; 3724 patients without GERD), BE prevalence in patients without GERD was 4.9% (95% CI, 2.6%-9%). BE prevalence was highest in North American studies (10.6% [GERD] and 4.8% [non-GERD]). CONCLUSIONS: BE prevalence in those without GERD is substantial, particularly in large high-quality population-based studies. These data are important to factor in future BE/EAC early detection guidelines.

Clinical Outcomes After Endoscopic Management of Low-Risk and High-Risk T1a Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is standard of care for T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, data on outcomes in high-risk T1a EAC are limited. We assessed and compared outcomes after EET of low-risk and high-risk T1a EAC, including intraluminal EAC recurrence, extraesophageal metastases, and overall survival. METHODS: Patients who underwent EET for T1a EAC at 3 referral Barrett's esophagus endotherapy units between 1996 and 2022 were included. Patients with submucosal invasion, positive deep margins, or metastases at initial diagnosis were excluded. High-risk T1a EAC was defined as T1a EAC with poor differentiation and/or lymphovascular invasion, with low-risk disease being defined without these features. All pathology was systematically assessed by expert gastrointestinal pathologists. Baseline and follow-up endoscopy and pathology data were abstracted. Time-to-event analyses were performed to compare outcomes between groups. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-eight patients with T1a EAC were included (high risk, n = 45; low risk, n = 143) with a median age of 70 years, and 84% were men. Groups were comparable for age, sex, Barrett's esophagus length, lesion size, and EET technique. Rates of delayed extraesophageal metastases (11.1% vs 1.4%) were significantly higher in the high-risk group ( P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the rates of intraluminal EAC recurrence ( P = 0.79) and overall survival ( P = 0.73) between the 2 groups. DISCUSSION: Patients with high-risk T1a EAC undergoing successful EET had a substantially higher rate of extraesophageal metastases compared with those with low-risk T1a EAC on long-term follow-up. These data should be factored into discussions with patients while selecting treatment approaches. Additional prospective data in this area are critical.

Development of Electronic Health Record-Based Machine Learning Models to Predict Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Risk.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) is suggested in those with risk factors, but remains underutilized. BE/esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) risk prediction tools integrating multiple risk factors have been described. However, accuracy remains modest (area under the receiver-operating curve [AUROC] ≤0.7), and clinical implementation has been challenging. We aimed to develop machine learning (ML) BE/EAC risk prediction models from an electronic health record (EHR) database. METHODS: The Clinical Data Analytics Platform, a deidentified EHR database of 6 million Mayo Clinic patients, was used to predict BE and EAC risk. BE and EAC cases and controls were identified using International Classification of Diseases codes and augmented curation (natural language processing) techniques applied to clinical, endoscopy, laboratory, and pathology notes. Cases were propensity score matched to 5 independent randomly selected control groups. An ensemble transformer-based ML model architecture was used to develop predictive models. RESULTS: We identified 8,476 BE cases, 1,539 EAC cases, and 252,276 controls. The BE ML transformer model had an overall sensitivity, specificity, and AUROC of 76%, 76%, and 0.84, respectively. The EAC ML transformer model had an overall sensitivity, specificity, and AUROC of 84%, 70%, and 0.84, respectively. Predictors of BE and EAC included conventional risk factors and additional novel factors, such as coronary artery disease, serum triglycerides, and electrolytes. DISCUSSION: ML models developed on an EHR database can predict incident BE and EAC risk with improved accuracy compared with conventional risk factor-based risk scores. Such a model may enable effective implementation of a minimally invasive screening technology.

NON-ENDOSCOPIC ESOPHAGEAL SAMPLING DEVICE AND BIOMARKER PANEL FOR DETECTION OF BARRETT'S ESOPHAGUS (BE) AND ESOPHAGEAL ADENOCARCINOMA (EAC).

BACKGROUND: We previously reported an encapsulated balloon (EsoCheck TM , EC), which selectively samples the distal esophagus, that coupled with a two methylated DNA biomarker panel (EsoGuard TM , EG), detected Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), with a sensitivity and specificity of 90.3% and 91.7%, respectively. This previous study utilized frozen EC samples. AIM: To assess a next generation EC sampling device and EG assay that utilizes a room temperature sample preservative to enable office-based testing. METHODS: Cases with nondysplastic (ND) and dysplastic (indefinite=IND, low grade dysplasia = LGD, high grade dysplasia = HGD) BE, EAC, junctional adenocarcinoma (JAC) and controls with no intestinal metaplasia (IM) were included. Nurses or physician assistants at six institutions, who were trained in EC administration, delivered the encapsulated balloon per orally and inflated it in the stomach. The inflated balloon was pulled back to sample 5 cm of the distal esophagus, then deflated and retracted into the EC capsule to prevent sample contamination from proximal esophagus. Nextgen EG sequencing assays performed on bisulfite-treated DNA extracted from EC samples determined levels of methylated Vimentin (mVIM) and methylated Cyclin A1 (mCCNA1) in a CLIA-certified laboratory, blinded to patients' phenotypes. RESULTS: A total of 243 evaluable patients - 88 cases (median age 68 years, 78% men, 92% white) and 155 controls (median age 57 years, 41% men, 88% white) - underwent adequate EC sampling. Mean time for EC sampling was just over 3 minutes. The cases included 31 NDBE, 16 IND/LGD, 23 HGD, and 18 EAC/JAC. Thirty-seven (53%) of the non-dysplastic and dysplastic BE cases were short-segment BE (SSBE; < 3 cm). Overall sensitivity for detecting all cases was 85% (95% CI= 0.78-0.93) and specificity was 85% (95% CI=0.79-0.90). Sensitivity for NDBE was 84% (n=37). The EC/EG test detected 100% of cancers. CONCLUSION: The next-generation EC/EG technology has been both successfully updated to incorporate a room temperature sample collection preservative and successfully implemented in a CLIA certified laboratory. When performed by trained personnel, EC/EG detects non-dysplastic BE, dysplastic BE, and cancer with high sensitivity and specificity, replicating the operating characteristics of the initial pilot study of this technology. Future applications utilizing EC/EG to screen broader populations at risk for developing cancer are proposed. SIGNIFICANCE: This multi-center study demonstrates the successful performance of a commercially available clinically implementable non-endoscopic screening test for BE in the U.S., as recommended in the most recent ACG Guideline and AGA Clinical Update. It transitions and validates a prior academic laboratory-based study of frozen research samples over to a CLIA laboratory, one that also integrates a clinically practical room temperature method for sample acquisition and storage, enabling office-based screening.

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.

Surveillance in Barrett's Esophagus: Challenges, Progress, and Possibilities.

Endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus, aiming to detect prevalent dysplasia and adenocarcinoma, followed by effective endoscopic treatment, is an integral part of the esophageal adenocarcinoma prevention paradigm. However, several limitations, such as the subtle appearance of dysplasia, sampling error (inherent in current surveillance protocols), and noncompliance with surveillance recommendations, lead to missed dysplasia and neoplasia, reducing the effectiveness of surveillance as currently practiced. Careful endoscopic assessment with high-resolution white-light endoscopy, dye-based or electronic chromoendoscopy, and comprehensive sampling of the BE mucosa, remains the cornerstone of endoscopic surveillance. Emerging innovations in this area span the gamut of more efficient sampling methods, advanced imaging tools, artificial intelligence, and molecular marker-powered approaches as adjuncts, to identify prevalent and predict incident dysplasia or adenocarcinoma. Development and implementation of validated quality indicators will allow additional advancement of this critical field. These approaches will hopefully enable efficient and effective cancer prevention and treatment.

State-of-the-art management of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus.

Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) has become a standard of care for treatment of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE) and early Barrett's neoplasia. EET mainly consists of removal of any visible lesions via endoscopic resection and eradication of all remaining Barrett's mucosa using endoscopic ablation. Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection are the two available resection techniques. After complete resection of all visible lesions, it is crucial to perform endoscopic ablation to ensure complete eradication of the remaining Barrett's segment. Endoscopic ablation can be done either with thermal techniques, including radiofrequency ablation and argon plasma coagulation, or cryotherapy techniques. The primary end point of EET is achieving complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) to decrease the risk of dysplastic recurrence after successful EET. After CRIM is achieved, a standardized endoscopic surveillance protocol needs to be implemented for early detection of BE recurrence.

Artificial intelligence-enhanced volumetric laser endomicroscopy improves dysplasia detection in Barrett's esophagus in a randomized cross-over study.

Volumetric laser endomicroscopy (VLE) is an advanced endoscopic imaging tool that can improve dysplasia detection in Barrett's esophagus (BE). However, VLE scans generate 1200 cross-sectional images that can make interpretation difficult. The impact of a new VLE artificial intelligence algorithm called Intelligent Real-time Image Segmentation (IRIS) is not well-characterized. This is a randomized prospective cross-over study of BE patients undergoing endoscopy who were randomized to IRIS-enhanced or unenhanced VLE first followed by the other (IRIS-VLE vs. VLE-IRIS, respectively) at expert BE centers. The primary outcome was image interpretation time, which served as a surrogate measure for ease of interpretation. The secondary outcome was diagnostic yield of dysplasia for each imaging modality. 133 patients were enrolled. 67 patients were randomized to VLE-IRIS and 66 to IRIS-VLE. Total interpretation time did not differ significantly between groups (7.8 min VLE-IRIS vs. 7 min IRIS-VLE, P = 0.1), however unenhanced VLE interpretation time was significantly shorter in the IRIS-VLE group (2.4 min vs. 3.8 min, P < 0.01). When IRIS was used first, 100% of dysplastic areas were identified, compared with 76.9% when VLE was the first interpretation modality (P = 0.06). IRIS-enhanced VLE reduced the time of subsequent unenhanced VLE interpretation, suggesting heightened efficiency and improved dysplasia detection. It was also able to identify all endoscopically non-visible dysplastic areas.