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.

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.

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.

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.

Effects of Central Obesity on Esophageal Epithelial Barrier Function.

INTRODUCTION: We assessed if obesity perturbs the esophageal epithelial barrier function independent of promotion of gastroesophageal reflux (GER). METHODS: Thirty-eight participants were divided into 4 groups: Obesity-/GER-, Obesity+/GER-, Obesity-/GER+, and Obesity+/GER+. Esophageal intercellular space and desmosome density (structural integrity) and fluorescein leak (functional integrity) were measured. RESULTS: The Obesity+/GER- group demonstrated increased intercellular space, reduced desmosome density, and increased fluorescein leak compared with control subjects. These changes were similar but not additive to findings seen in Obesity-/GER + and Obesity+/GER+ patients. DISCUSSION: Central obesity impairs structural and functional integrity of the esophageal barrier independent of GER, likely predisposing to esophageal injury.

Validation of a methylated DNA marker panel for the nonendoscopic detection of Barrett's esophagus in a multisite case-control study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We previously identified a 5 methylated DNA marker (MDM) panel for the detection of nonendoscopic Barrett's esophagus (BE). In this study, we aimed to recalibrate the performance of the 5 MDM panel using a simplified assay in a training cohort, validate the panel in an independent test cohort, and explore the accuracy of an MDM panel with only 3 markers. METHODS: Participants were recruited from 3 medical centers. The sponge on a string device (EsophaCap; CapNostics, Concord, NC, USA) was swallowed and withdrawn, followed by endoscopy, in BE cases and control subjects. A 5 MDM panel was blindly assayed using a simplified assay. Random forest modeling analysis was performed, in silico cross-validated in the training set, and then locked down, before test set analysis. RESULTS: The training set had 199 patients: 110 BE cases and 89 control subjects, and the test set had 89 patients: 60 BE cases and 29 control subjects. Sensitivity of the 5 MDM panel for BE diagnosis was 93% at 90% specificity in the training set and 93% at 93% specificity in the test set. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were .96 and .97 in the training and test sets, respectively. Model accuracy was not influenced by age, sex, or smoking history. Multiple 3 MDM panels achieved similar accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: A 5 MDM panel for BE is highly accurate in training and test sets in a blinded multisite case-control analysis using a simplified assay. This panel may be reduced to only 3 MDMs in the future. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02560623.).

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.

Outcomes of radiofrequency ablation by manual versus self-sizing circumferential balloon catheters for the treatment of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus: a multicenter comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is the preferred ablative modality for treating dysplastic Barrett's esophagus. The recently introduced self-sizing circumferential ablation catheter eliminates the need for a sizing balloon. Although it enhances efficiency, outcomes have not been compared with the previous manual-sizing catheter. We evaluated the comparative safety and efficacy of these 2 ablation systems in a large, multicenter cohort. METHODS: Patients undergoing RFA at 3 tertiary care centers from 2005 to 2018 were included. Circumferential RFA was performed in a standard fashion, followed by focal RFA as needed. Outcomes were compared between the self-sizing and manual-sizing groups. The primary outcome was the rate of adverse events, including strictures, perforation, and bleeding. Secondary outcomes were procedure time and treatment efficacy, as assessed by rates and time to complete eradication of dysplasia (CE-D) and intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM). RESULTS: Three hundred eighteen patients were included, 90 (28.3%) treated with the self-sizing catheter and 228 (71.7%) with the manual-sizing catheter. Twenty-one patients (6.6%) developed strictures (8 [8.9%] in the self-sizing group and 13 [5.7%] in the manual-sizing group, P = .32). Of the self-sizing strictures, 75% occurred at the 12J dose before widespread adoption of the current 10J treatment standard. One patient developed bleeding, and no perforations were encountered. Procedure time was significantly shorter in the self-sizing group. No significant differences were observed in rates of and time to CE-D and CE-IM. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that both systems are comparable in safety and efficacy. The use of the self-sizing system may enhance the efficiency of RFA for treating dysplastic Barrett's esophagus.

Accurate Nonendoscopic Detection of Barrett's Esophagus by Methylated DNA Markers: A Multisite Case Control Study.

INTRODUCTION: Nonendoscopic Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening may help improve esophageal adenocarcinoma outcomes. We previously demonstrated promising accuracy of methylated DNA markers (MDMs) for the nonendoscopic diagnosis of BE using samples obtained from a capsule sponge-on-string (SOS) device. We aimed to assess the accuracy of these MDMs in an independent cohort using a commercial grade assay. METHODS: BE cases had ≥ 1 cm of circumferential BE with intestinal metaplasia; controls had no endoscopic evidence of BE. The SOS device was withdrawn 8 minutes after swallowing, followed by endoscopy (the criterion standard). Highest performing MDMs from a previous study were blindly assessed on extracted bisulfite-converted DNA by target enrichment long-probe quantitative amplified signal (TELQAS) assays. Optimal MDM combinations were selected and analyzed using random forest modeling with in silico cross-validation. RESULTS: Of 295 patients consented, 268 (91%) swallowed the SOS device; 112 cases and 89 controls met the pre-established inclusion criteria. The median BE length was 6 cm (interquartile range 4-9), and 50% had no dysplasia. The cross-validated sensitivity and specificity of a 5 MDM random forest model were 92% (95% confidence interval 85%-96%) and 94% (95% confidence interval 87%-98%), respectively. Model performance was not affected by age, gender, or smoking history but was influenced by the BE segment length. SOS administration was well tolerated (median [interquartile range] tolerability 2 [0, 4] on 10 scale grading), and 95% preferred SOS over endoscopy. DISCUSSION: Using a minimally invasive molecular approach, MDMs assayed from SOS samples show promise as a safe and accurate nonendoscopic test for BE prediction.

Timeline and location of recurrence following successful ablation in Barrett's oesophagus: an international multicentre study.

OBJECTIVE: Surveillance interval protocols after complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) post radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in Barrett's oesophagus (BE) are currently empiric and not based on substantial evidence. We aimed to assess the timeline, location and patterns of recurrence following CRIM to inform these guidelines. DESIGN: Data on patients undergoing RFA for BE were obtained from prospectively maintained databases of five (three USA and two UK) tertiary referral centres. RFA was performed until CRIM was confirmed on two consecutive endoscopies. RESULTS: 594 patients achieved CRIM as of 1 May 2017. 151 subjects developed recurrent BE over a median (IQR) follow-up of 2.8 (1.4-4.4) years. There was 19% cumulative recurrence risk of any BE within 2 years and an additional 49% risk over the next 8.6 years. There was no evidence of a clinically meaningful change in the recurrence hazard rate of any BE, dysplastic BE or high-grade dysplasia/cancer over the duration of follow-up, with an estimated 2% (95% CI -7% to 12%) change in recurrence rate of any BE in a doubling of follow-up time. 74% of BE recurrences developed at the gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) (24.1% were dysplastic) and 26% in the tubular oesophagus. The yield of random biopsies from the tubular oesophagus, in the absence of visible lesions, was 1% (BE) and 0.2% (dysplasia). CONCLUSIONS: BE recurrence risk following CRIM remained constant over time, suggesting that lengthening of follow-up intervals, at least in the first 5 years after CRIM, may not be advisable. Sampling the GOJ is critical to detecting recurrence. The requirement for random biopsies of the neosquamous epithelium in the absence of visible lesions may need to be re-evaluated.

Highly Discriminant Methylated DNA Markers for the Non-endoscopic Detection of Barrett's Esophagus.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive methods have been described to detect Barrett's esophagus (BE), but are limited by subjectivity and suboptimal accuracy. We identified methylated DNA markers (MDMs) for BE in tissue and assessed their accuracy on whole esophagus brushings and capsule sponge samples. METHODS: Step 1: Unbiased whole methylome sequencing was performed on DNA from BE and normal squamous esophagus (SE) tissue. Discriminant MDM candidates were validated on an independent patient cohort (62 BE cases, 30 controls) by quantitative methylation specific PCR (qMSP). Step 2: Selected MDMs were further evaluated on whole esophageal brushings (49 BE cases, 36 controls). 35 previously sequenced esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) MDMs were also evaluated. Step 3: 20 BE cases and 20 controls were randomized to swallow capsules sponges (25 mm, 10 pores or 20 pores per inch (ppi)) followed endoscopy. DNA yield, tolerability, and mucosal injury were compared. Best MDM assays were performed on this cohort. RESULTS: Step 1: 19 MDMs with areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) >0.85 were carried forward. Step 2: On whole esophageal brushings, 80% of individual MDM candidates showed high accuracy for BE (AUCs 0.84-0.94). Step 3: The capsule sponge was swallowed and withdrawn in 98% of subjects. Tolerability was superior with the 10 ppi sponge with minimal mucosal injury and abundant DNA yield. A 2-marker panel (VAV3 + ZNF682) yielded excellent BE discrimination (AUC = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Identified MDMs discriminate BE with high accuracy. BE detection appears safe and feasible with a capsule sponge. Corroboration in larger studies is warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02560623.

Providing holistic care to bariatric patients.

Bariatric patients often encounter challenging physical environments and sometimes encounter negative attitudes from health professionals when seeking care. Most facilities have the basic equipment needed to care for these patients. Using ceiling lifts or limb slings to facilitate repositioning or transfer has benefits for patients and staff. Environment, equipment, education, and resources are important to providing sensitive, respectful, safe, and high-quality patient care. This column describes strategies to promote holistic care for the bariatric population.