Identification of visible lesions during surveillance endoscopy for Barrett's esophagus: a video-based survey study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Visible lesion (VL) detection is essential in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). We sought to assess the rate of VL detection by academic and community endoscopists using high-definition white-light endoscopy (HD-WLE) and narrow-band imaging (NBI) during surveillance endoscopy. METHODS: Fifty endoscopists were invited to participate in a prospective video survey study. Participants viewed 25 standardized clips of patients referred for endoscopic therapy. Participants noted identification of anatomic landmarks and VLs using HD-WLE and NBI and reported practice-level data. The criterion standard of VL identification was established by consensus of 5 BE experts. Our primary outcome was the rate of VL identification using HD-WLE and NBI. RESULTS: Forty-four of 50 participants completed the study (22 academic and 22 community). Compared with the criterion standard, participants did not identify 28% (HD-WLE) and 31% (NBI) of VLs. Community endoscopists had more experience (>5 years in practice: community 85% vs academic 54.5%, P = .041; >5 surveillance endoscopies a month: community 85% vs academic 31.8%, P = .046). Across all participants, VL detection using NBI improved significantly with a minimum of 5 surveillance endoscopies per month (area under the curve = .72; 95% confidence interval, .56-.85; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Despite improved endoscope resolution and availability of virtual chromoendoscopy, the overall rate of VL detection remains low. Identification of VLs using NBI may be volume dependent. Further education and training efforts focused on VL detection during BE surveillance endoscopy are needed.

Magnetic sphincter augmentation: considerations for use in Barrett's esophagus.

Barrett's esophagus (BE) occurs in 5-15% of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). While acid suppressive therapy is a critical component of BE management to minimize the risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma, surgical control of mechanical reflux is sometimes necessary. Magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) is an increasingly utilized anti-reflux surgical therapy for GERD. While the use of MSA is listed as a precaution by the United States Food and Drug Administration, there are limited data showing effective BE regression with MSA. MSA offers several advantages in BE including effective reflux control, anti-reflux barrier restoration and reduced hiatal hernia recurrence. However, careful patient selection for MSA is necessary.

Novel histologic score predicts recurrent intestinal metaplasia after successful endoscopic eradication therapy.

Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is an effective treatment for Barrett's esophagus (BE); however, disease recurrence remains problematic requiring surveillance post-treatment. While data regarding predictors of recurrence are limited, uncontrolled reflux may play a significant role. Our aim was to develop a scoring system based on histopathologic reflux in surveillance biopsies following EET to identify patients at high risk for recurrence of BE. Patients were identified from two centers in the treatment with resection and endoscopic ablation techniques for BE consortium. Hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides of surveillance biopsies post-EET were assessed for histologic changes associated with reflux from a cohort of patients who also underwent pH-metry (derivation cohort). We developed a novel scoring system (Recurrent Epithelial Changes from Uncontrolled Reflux [RECUR]) composed of dilated intercellular spaces, epithelial ballooning, basal cell hyperplasia, and parakeratosis, to identify patients with abnormal esophageal acid exposure. This scoring system was then used to grade surveillance biopsies from patients with or without recurrence of BE following EET (validation cohort). Of 41 patients in the derivation cohort, 19.5% had abnormal acid exposure times (AET) while on proton pump inhibitor therapy. The mean (SD) RECUR score for patients with AET <4% was 4.0 (1.6), compared with 5.5 (0.9) for AET ≥4% (P = 0.015). In the validation cohort consisting of 72 patients without recurrence and 64 patients with recurrence following EET, the RECUR score was the only significant predictor of recurrence (odds ratio: 1.36, 95% confidence interval: 1.10-1.69, P = 0.005). Histologic grading of surveillance biopsies using the RECUR scoring system correlates with BE recurrence following EET.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on New Technology and Innovation for Surveillance and Screening in Barrett's Esophagus: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this best practice advice (BPA) article from the Clinical Practice Update Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association is to provide an update on advances and innovation regarding the screening and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus. METHODS: The BPA statements presented here were developed from expert review of existing literature combined with discussion and expert opinion to provide practical advice. Formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of BPAs was not the intent of this clinical practice update. This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Screening with standard upper endoscopy may be considered in individuals with at least 3 established risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma, including individuals who are male, non-Hispanic white, age >50 years, have a history of smoking, chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease, obesity, or a family history of BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Nonendoscopic cell-collection devices may be considered as an option to screen for BE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Screening and surveillance endoscopic examination should be performed using high-definition white light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy, with endoscopists spending adequate time inspecting the Barrett's segment. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Screening and surveillance exams should define the extent of BE using a standardized grading system documenting the circumferential and maximal extent of the columnar lined esophagus (Prague classification) with a clear description of landmarks and the location and characteristics of visible lesions (nodularity, ulceration), when present. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Advanced imaging technologies such as endomicroscopy may be used as adjunctive techniques to identify dysplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Sampling during screening and surveillance exams should be performed using the Seattle biopsy protocol (4-quadrant biopsies every 1-2 cm and target biopsies from any visible lesion). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Wide-area transepithelial sampling may be used as an adjunctive technique to sample the suspected or established Barrett's segment (in addition to the Seattle biopsy protocol). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Patients with erosive esophagitis should be biopsied when concern of dysplasia or malignancy exists. A repeat endoscopy should be performed after 8 weeks of twice a day proton pump inhibitor therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Tissue systems pathology-based prediction assay may be utilized for risk stratification of patients with nondysplastic BE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Risk stratification models may be utilized to selectively identify individuals at risk for Barrett's associated neoplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Given the significant interobserver variability among pathologists, the diagnosis of BE-related neoplasia should be confirmed by an expert pathology review. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Patients with BE-related neoplasia should be referred to endoscopists with expertise in advanced imaging, resection, and ablation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: All patients with BE should be placed on at least daily proton pump inhibitor therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Patients with nondysplastic BE should undergo surveillance endoscopy in 3 to 5 years. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: In patients undergoing surveillance after endoscopic eradication therapy, random biopsies should be taken of the esophagogastric junction, gastric cardia, and the distal 2 cm of the neosquamous epithelium as well as from all visible lesions, independent of the length of the original BE segment.

AGA White Paper: Challenges and Gaps in Innovation for the Performance of Colonoscopy for Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer.

In 2018, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for GI Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference, entitled "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The conference participants, which included more than 60 experts in colorectal cancer, considered recent improvements in colorectal cancer screening rates and polyp detection, persistent barriers to colonoscopy uptake, and opportunities for performance improvement and innovation. This white paper originates from that conference. It aims to summarize current patient- and physician-centered gaps and challenges in colonoscopy, diagnostic and therapeutic challenges affecting colonoscopy uptake, and the potential use of emerging technologies and quality metrics to improve patient outcomes.

Threshold evaluation for optimal number of endoscopic treatment sessions to achieve complete eradication of Barrett's metaplasia.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is the standard of care for Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated neoplasia. Previous data suggest the mean number of EET sessions required to achieve complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) is 3. This study aimed to define the threshold of EET sessions required to achieve CE-IM. METHODS: The TREAT-BE Consortium is a multicenter outcomes cohort including prospectively enrolled patients with BE undergoing EET. All patients achieving CE-IM were included. Demographic, endoscopic, and histologic data were recorded at treatment onset along with treatment details and surveillance data. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to define a threshold of EET sessions, with 95 %CI, required to achieve CE-IM. A secondary analysis examined predictors of incomplete response to EET using multiple logistic regression and recurrence rates. RESULTS: 623 patients (mean age 65.2 [SD 11.6], 79.6 % male, 86.5 % Caucasian) achieved CE-IM in a mean of 2.9 (SD 1.7) EET sessions (median 2) and a median total observation period of 2.7 years (interquartile range 1.4-5.0). After three sessions, 73 % of patients achieved CE-IM (95 %CI 70 %-77 %). Age (odds ratio [OR] 1.25, 95 %CI 1.05-1.50) and length of BE (OR 1.24, 95 %CI 1.17-1.31) were significant predictors of incomplete response. CONCLUSION: The current study found that a threshold of three EET sessions would achieve CE-IM in the majority of patients. Alternative therapies and further diagnostic testing should be considered for patients who do not have significant response to EET after three sessions.

Acceptability and Adequacy of a Non-endoscopic Cell Collection Device for Diagnosis of Barrett's Esophagus: Lessons Learned.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) is common, costly, and underperformed in at-risk people. A non-endoscopic cell collection device can be used to collect esophageal cells, enabling BE screening. AIMS: This study assessed the acceptability and adequacy of a commercial non-endoscopic cell collection device in a US population. METHODS: Six sites enrolled patients with confirmed BE or heartburn/regurgitation for ≥ 6 months. Patients underwent administration of the device, consisting of a sponge encapsulated in a capsule. The capsule dwelled in the stomach for 7.5 min and was retracted via an attached suture. An adequate sample was ≥ 1 columnar cell by H&E staining. Sample quality was rated using a 0-5 scale, with 0 = no columnar cells and 5 = plentiful groups. Trefoil Factor 3 (TFF3) staining was performed. Accuracy was assessed using esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)/biopsy as the gold standard. RESULTS: Of 191 patients, 99.5% successfully swallowed the device. Overall sample adequacy was 91% (171/188), with 84% (158/188) high quality. The detachment rate was 2/190 (1%). Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the assay with TFF3 staining were 76%, 77%, and 76%. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for ≥ 3 cm BE were 86%, 77%, and 82%. Asked if willing to repeat the procedure, 93% would, and 65% indicated a preference for the device over EGD. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a high rate of sample adequacy and promising acceptability of this non-endoscopic sampling device in a US population. Diagnostic characteristics suggest that non-endoscopic assessment of BE deserves further development as an alternative to endoscopy.

Racial Disparities in Adherence to Quality Indicators in Barrett's Esophagus: An Analysis Using the GIQuIC National Benchmarking Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Racial disparities in outcomes in esophageal adenocarcinoma are well established. Using a nationwide registry, we aimed to compare clinical and endoscopic characteristics of blacks and whites with Barrett's esophagus (BE) and adherence to defined quality indicators. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Gastrointestinal Quality Improvement Consortium Registry between January 2012 and December 2019. Patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with an indication of BE screening or surveillance, or an endoscopic finding of BE, were included. Adherence to recommended endoscopic surveillance intervals of 3-5 years for nondysplastic BE and adherence to Seattle biopsy protocol were assessed. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to assess variables associated with adherence. RESULTS: A total of 100,848 esophagogastroduodenoscopies in 84,789 patients met inclusion criteria (blacks-3,957 and whites-96,891). Blacks were less likely to have histologically confirmed BE (34.3% vs 51.7%, P < 0.01), had shorter BE lengths (1.61 vs 2.35 cm, P < 0.01), and were less likely to have any dysplasia (4.3% vs 7.1%, P < 0.01). Although whites were predominantly male (62.2%), about half of blacks with BE were female (53.0%). Blacks with nondysplastic BE were less likely to be recommended appropriate surveillance intervals (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.68-0.89). Adherence rates to the Seattle protocol were modestly higher among blacks overall (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04-1.20), although significantly lower among blacks with BE segments >6 cm. DISCUSSION: The use of sex as a risk factor for BE screening may be inappropriate among blacks. Fewer blacks were recommended appropriate surveillance intervals, and blacks with longer segment BE were less likely to undergo Seattle biopsy protocol.

Adoption of Multi-society Guidelines Facilitates Value-Based Reduction in Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy Volume During COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has caused a backlog of endoscopic procedures; colonoscopy must now be prioritized to those who would benefit most. We determined the proportion of screening and surveillance colonoscopies appropriate for rescheduling to a future year through strict adoption of US Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a single-center observational study of patients scheduled for "open-access colonoscopy"-ordered by a primary care provider without being seen in gastroenterology clinic-over a 6-week period during the COVID-19 pandemic. Each chart was reviewed to appropriately assign a surveillance year per USMSTF guidelines including demographics, colonoscopy history and family history. When guidelines recommended a range of colonoscopy intervals, both a "conservative" and "liberal" guideline adherence were assessed. RESULTS: We delayed 769 "open-access" screening or surveillance colonoscopies due to COVID-19. Between 14.8% (conservative) and 20.7% (liberal), colonoscopies were appropriate for rescheduling to a future year. Conversely, 415 (54.0%) patients were overdue for colonoscopy. Family history of CRC was associated with being scheduled too early for both screening (OR 3.9; CI 1.9-8.2) and surveillance colonoscopy (OR 2.6, CI 1.0-6.5). The most common reasons a colonoscopy was inappropriately scheduled this year were failure to use new surveillance colonoscopy intervals (28.9%), incorrectly applied family history guidelines (27.2%) and recommending early surveillance colonoscopy after recent normal colonoscopy (19.3%). CONCLUSION: Up to one-fifth of patients scheduled for "open-access" colonoscopy can be rescheduled into a future year based on USMSTF guidelines. Rigorously applying guidelines could judiciously allocate colonoscopy resources as we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic.

AGA White Paper: Roadmap for the Future of Colorectal Cancer Screening in the United States.

The American Gastroenterological Association's Center for Gastrointestinal Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference in December 2018, entitled, "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The goal of the conference, which attracted more than 60 experts in screening and related disciplines, including the authors, was to envision a future in which colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance are optimized, and to identify barriers to achieving that future. This White Paper originates from that meeting and delineates the priorities and steps needed to improve CRC outcomes, with the goal of minimizing CRC morbidity and mortality. A one-size-fits-all approach to CRC screening has not and is unlikely to result in increased screening uptake or desired outcomes owing to barriers stemming from behavioral, cultural, and socioeconomic causes, especially when combined with inefficiencies in deployment of screening technologies. Overcoming these barriers will require the following: efficient utilization of multiple screening modalities to achieve increased uptake; continued development of noninvasive screening tests, with iterative reassessments of how best to integrate new technologies; and improved personal risk assessment to better risk-stratify patients for appropriate screening testing paradigms.

Recurrence Is Rare Following Complete Eradication of Intestinal Metaplasia in Patients With Barrett's Esophagus and Peaks at 18 Months.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There have been few studies describing the long-term durability of complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE)-related neoplasia who received endoscopic eradication therapy (EET). Data are needed to guide surveillance interval protocols and identify patients at risk for recurrence. We assessed the rate of recurrence of intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia, histologic features, and outcomes after recurrence of CE-IM, and identified factors associated with recurrence. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 807 patients with BE who underwent EET, which produced CE-IM, at 4 tertiary-care referral centers, from January 2013 to October 2018. Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative incidence rates (IR) of recurrence were calculated for up to 5 years following CE-IM and were stratified by baseline level of histology. Density estimates of recurrence were used to determine the change in the rate of recurrence over time. We conducted logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with recurrence. RESULTS: Intestinal metaplasia recurred in 121 patients (15%; IR, 5.2/100 person-years), and dysplasia recurred in 41 patients (5.1%; IR, 1.8/100 person-years), after a median follow-up time of 2317 person-years. The rate of recurrence was not constant and the time to any recurrence converged to a normal distribution; recurrences peaked at 1.6 y after patients had CE-IM. Baseline high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal cancer (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.19), presence of reflux symptoms (aOR, 12.1) or hiatal hernia (aOR, 13.8), and number of sessions required to achieve CE-IM (aOR, 1.8) were associated with recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study of a large cohort of patients with BE undergoing EET, we found a low rate of recurrence after CE-IM. The rate of recurrence peaked at 1-2 y after CE-IM. These findings indicate that aggressive surveillance might not be necessary more than 1 y after CE-IM and should be considered in surveillance guidelines. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT02634645.

An Analysis of the GIQuIC Nationwide Quality Registry Reveals Unnecessary Surveillance Endoscopies in Patients With Normal and Irregular Z-Lines.

INTRODUCTION: Population-based estimates of adherence to Barrett's esophagus (BE) guidelines are not available. Using a national registry, we assessed surveillance intervals for patients with normal and irregular Z-lines based on the presence or absence of intestinal metaplasia (IM) and among patients with suspected or confirmed BE. METHODS: We analyzed data from the GI Quality Improvement Consortium Registry. Endoscopy data, including procedure indication, demographics, endoscopy and histology findings, and recommendations for further endoscopy, were assessed from January 2013 through December 2019. Patients with an indication of BE screening or surveillance or an endoscopic finding of BE were included. Biopsy and surveillance practices were assessed based on the length of columnar epithelium (0 cm, <1 cm, 1-3 cm, and >3 cm) and diagnosis based on histology findings. RESULTS: A total of 1,907,801 endoscopies were assessed; 135,704 endoscopies (7.1%) performed in 114,894 patients met the inclusion criteria (men 61.4%, Whites 91%, and mean age of 61.7 years [SD 12.5]). Among patients with normal Z-lines, surveillance endoscopy was recommended for 81% of patients with IM and 20% of individuals without IM. Among patients with irregular Z-lines, surveillance endoscopy was recommended for 81% with IM and 24% without IM. Approximately 30% of patients with confirmed nondysplastic BE (lengths 1-3 and >3 cm) had recommended surveillance intervals of <3 years. DISCUSSION: An analysis of data from a nationwide quality registry demonstrated that patients without BE are receiving recommendations for surveillance endoscopies and many patients with nondysplastic BE are reexamined too soon.

Reduced Esophageal Contractility Is Associated with Dysplasia Progression in Barrett's Esophagus: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) continues to rise, and risk stratification of patients with BE is needed. Impaired esophageal motility is associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease; however, whether esophageal dysmotility is a risk factor for dysplasia progression in BE is incompletely understood. This study aimed to characterize esophageal motility patterns in patients with BE and identify physiologic factors associated with dysplasia progression in BE. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study assessed data from adult patients with histologically confirmed BE who underwent high-resolution esophageal manometry from 1/2014 to 1/2018 at four tertiary care centers. Longitudinal data were collected when available among patients with non-dysplastic BE (NDBE) and separated as: no dysplastic progression or positive dysplastic progression. Multivariable logistic regression assessed for independent predictors of dysplasia progression. RESULTS: Among 193 patients, histology at index endoscopy identified 152 (79%) NDBE, 23 (12%) low-grade dysplasia, 14 (7%) high-grade dysplasia, and 4 (2%) EAC. Ninety-eight (51%) had abnormal esophageal motor function on manometry. Longitudinal data were available for 84 of 152 patients with initial NDBE. Twelve (14%) exhibited dysplastic progression to low-grade (6) or high-grade (6) dysplasia. Mean esophageal distal contractile integral was lower for patients that progressed [455 mmHg s cm (SD 515)] compared with patients who did not progress [987 mmHg s cm (SD 953); aOR 1.21 (95% CI 1.01, 1.44)]. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study of 193 BE patients, the majority exhibited abnormal esophageal motor function. Reduced esophageal contractility was independently associated with dysplastic progression in BE. Characterizing esophageal physiology in BE may help to risk stratify patients.

Controversies in Endoscopic Eradication Therapy for Barrett's Esophagus.

Advances in endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett's Esophagus-associated neoplasia have resulted in a significant paradigm shift in the diagnosis and management of this complex disease. A robust body of literature critically evaluating outcomes of resection and ablative strategies has allowed gastroenterologists to make quality, evidence-based decisions for their patients. Despite this progress, there are still many unanswered questions and challenges that remain. Ultimately, identification of a cost-effective screening modality, biomarkers for risk stratification, and strides to eliminate post surveillance endoscopy after endoscopic eradication therapy are essential to reach our long-term goal for eradication of esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Competence in Endoscopic Ultrasound and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography, From Training Through Independent Practice.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: It is unclear whether participation in competency-based fellowship programs for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) results in high-quality care in independent practice. We measured quality indicator (QI) adherence during the first year of independent practice among physicians who completed endoscopic training with a systematic assessment of competence. METHODS: We performed a prospective multicenter cohort study of invited participants from 62 training programs. In phase 1, 24 advanced endoscopy trainees (AETs), from 20 programs, were assessed using a validated competence assessment tool. We used a comprehensive data collection and reporting system to create learning curves using cumulative sum analysis that were shared with AETs and trainers quarterly. In phase 2, participating AETs entered data into a database pertaining to every EUS and ERCP examination during their first year of independent practice, anchored by key QIs. RESULTS: By the end of training, most AETs had achieved overall technical competence (EUS 91.7%, ERCP 73.9%) and cognitive competence (EUS 91.7%, ERCP 94.1%). In phase 2 of the study, 22 AETs (91.6%) participated and completed a median of 136 EUS examinations per AET and 116 ERCP examinations per AET. Most AETs met the performance thresholds for QIs in EUS (including 94.4% diagnostic rate of adequate samples and 83.8% diagnostic yield of malignancy in pancreatic masses) and ERCP (94.9% overall cannulation rate). CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective multicenter study, we found that although competence cannot be confirmed for all AETs at the end of training, most meet QI thresholds for EUS and ERCP at the end of their first year of independent practice. This finding affirms the effectiveness of training programs. Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT02509416.

Over-Utilization of Repeat Upper Endoscopy in Patients with Non-dysplastic Barrett's Esophagus: A Quality Registry Study.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines recommend that patients with non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE) undergo surveillance endoscopy every 3-5 years. Using a national registry, we assessed compliance to recommended surveillance intervals in patients with NDBE and identified factors associated with compliance. METHODS: We analyzed data from the GI Quality Improvement Consortium registry. Data abstracted include procedure indication, demographics, endoscopy/pathology results, and recommendations for future endoscopy. Patients with an indication of Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening or surveillance, or an endoscopic finding of BE, with non-dysplastic intestinal metaplasia on pathological examination, were included. Compliance was defined as a recommendation to undergo subsequent endoscopy between 3 and 5 years. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to assess variables associated with compliance. RESULTS: Of 786,712 endoscopies assessed, 58,709 (7.5%) endoscopies in 53,541 patients met inclusion criteria (mean age 61.3 years, 60.4% men, 90.2% white, mean BE length was 2.3 cm). Most cases were performed by Gastroenterologists (92.3%) with propofol (78.7%). A total of 29,978 procedures (55.8%) resulted in pathology-confirmed BE. Among procedures with NDBE (n = 25,945), 29.9% were noncompliant with the 3-year threshold; most (26.9%) recommended surveillance at 1- to 2-year intervals. Patient factors such as extremes of age, black race, geographic region, type of sedation, and increasing BE length were associated with noncompliance. DISCUSSION: Approximately 30% of patients with NDBE are recommended to undergo surveillance endoscopy too soon. Patient factors associated with inappropriate utilization include extremes of age, black race, and increasing BE length. Compliance with appropriate endoscopic follow-up as a quality measure in BE is poor.

Endoscopists systematically undersample patients with long-segment Barrett's esophagus: an analysis of biopsy sampling practices from a quality improvement registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Guidelines recommend systematic biopsy sampling in Barrett's esophagus (BE) to reduce sampling error. Adherence to this biopsy sampling protocol has been suggested as a quality indicator; however, estimates of adherence are not available. Using a national registry, we assessed adherence and identified predictors of adherence to biopsy sampling protocols. METHODS: We analyzed data from the GI Quality Improvement Consortium Registry that included procedure indication, demographics, endoscopy, and pathology results. Patients with an indication of BE screening/surveillance or an endoscopic finding of BE were included. Adherence to the Seattle protocol was assessed by dividing BE length by number of pathology jars, with a ratio ≤2.0 with rounding down (lenient definition) or rounding up (stringent definition) for odd BE lengths considered adherent. Variables associated with adherence were assessed using generalized estimating equations to control for clustering within individual physicians. RESULTS: Of 786,712 EGDs assessed, 58,709 (7.5%) EGDs in 53,541 patients met inclusion criteria (mean age, 61.3 years; 60.4% men; 90.2% white; mean BE length, 2.3 cm). When the lenient and stringent definitions for adherence were used, 87.8% and 82.7% of EGDs were adherent, respectively. Increasing BE length was the most significant predictor of nonadherence (odds ratio, .69; 95% confidence interval, .67-.71). Other predictors were increasing age, male gender, increasing American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and practice location. Performance of EGD by nongastroenterologist physicians was associated with nonadherence (odds ratio, .07; 95% confidence interval, .06-.10). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 20% of endoscopies performed in BE patients were not adherent to the Seattle protocol. As BE length increases, endoscopists become less compliant with odds of nonadherence increasing by 31% with every 1-cm increase in length.

Anatomic location of Barrett's esophagus recurrence after endoscopic eradication therapy: development of a simplified surveillance biopsy strategy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Surveillance endoscopy is recommended after endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) for Barrett's esophagus (BE) because of the risk of recurrence. Currently recommended biopsy protocols are based on expert opinion and consist of sampling visible lesions followed by random 4-quadrant biopsy sampling throughout the length of the original BE segment. Despite this protocol, some recurrences are not visibly identified. We aimed to identify the anatomic location and histology of recurrences after successful EET with the goal of developing a more efficient and evidence-based surveillance biopsy protocol. METHODS: We performed an analysis of a large multicenter database of 443 patients who underwent EET and achieved complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) from 2005 to 2015. The endoscopic location of recurrence relative to the squamocolumnar junction (SCJ), visible recurrence identified during surveillance endoscopy, and time to recurrence after CE-IM were assessed. RESULTS: Fifty patients with BE recurrence were studied in the final analysis. Seventeen patients (34%) had nonvisible recurrences. In this group, biopsy specimens demonstrating recurrence were taken from within 2 cm of the SCJ in 16 of these 17 patients (94%). Overall, 49 of 50 recurrences (98%) occurred either within 2 cm of the SCJ or at the site of a visible lesion. Late recurrences (>1 year) were more likely to be visible than early (<1 year) recurrences (P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Recurrence after EET detected by random biopsy sampling is identified predominately in the distal esophagus and occurs earlier than visible recurrences. As such, we suggest a modified biopsy protocol with targeted sampling of visible lesions followed by random biopsy sampling within 2 cm of the SCJ to optimize detection of recurrence after EET. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02634645.).