British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (BSPGHAN) joint consensus guidelines on the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic oesophagitis in children and adults.

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is an increasingly common cause of dysphagia in both children and adults, as well as one of the most prevalent oesophageal diseases with a significant impact on physical health and quality of life. We have provided a single comprehensive guideline for both paediatric and adult gastroenterologists on current best practice for the evaluation and management of EoE. METHODS: The Oesophageal Section of the British Society of Gastroenterology was commissioned by the Clinical Standards Service Committee to develop these guidelines. The Guideline Development Group included adult and paediatric gastroenterologists, surgeons, dietitians, allergists, pathologists and patient representatives. The Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcomes process was used to generate questions for a systematic review of the evidence. Published evidence was reviewed and updated to June 2021. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to assess the evidence and make recommendations. Two rounds of voting were held to assess the level of agreement and the strength of recommendations, with 80% consensus required for acceptance. RESULTS: Fifty-seven statements on EoE presentation, diagnosis, investigation, management and complications were produced with further statements created on areas for future research. CONCLUSIONS: These comprehensive adult and paediatric guidelines of the British Society of Gastroenterology and British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition are based on evidence and expert consensus from a multidisciplinary group of healthcare professionals, including patient advocates and patient support groups, to help clinicians with the management patients with EoE and its complications.

Narrow-band imaging for the diagnosis of nonerosive reflux disease: an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We examined the accuracy of narrow-band imaging (NBI) findings in nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) patients compared with control subjects and the impact of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy on these mucosal changes in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. METHODS: NERD patients (typical symptoms using a validated GERD questionnaire, absence of erosive esophagitis, and abnormal 48-hour pH study) and control subjects underwent high-definition white-light endoscopy followed by NBI and biopsy sampling of the distal esophagus. Then, NERD patients were randomized to esomeprazole 40 mg/day or placebo for 8 weeks, followed by repeat endoscopy. The presence of distal esophageal mucosal changes on NBI were recorded at baseline and after treatment: intrapapillary capillary loops (IPCLs; number, dilation, and tortuosity), microerosions, increased vascularity, columnar islands, and ridge/villous pattern (RVP) above the squamocolumnar junction. RESULTS: Of 122 screened, 21 NERD and 21 control subjects were identified (mean age, 49.5 ± 14.6 years; 62% men; and 85% white). The combination of IPCL tortuosity, RVP, and microerosions (62% vs 19%, P < .05) had a high specificity (86%) and moderate sensitivity (60%) for NERD with an area under the curve of .74. In 10 NERD patients treated with PPIs, resolution of microerosions was most significant (P = .047) compared with placebo (n = 11). RVP resolved in all NERD patients after therapy (P = .02) and correlated with acid exposure time (P = .004). Papillary length (P = .02) and basal cell thickness (P = .02) significantly correlated with a combination of IPCL tortuosity, RVP, and microerosions. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized controlled trial, RVP on NBI demonstrated a high specificity, correlated with acid exposure time, and improved with PPI therapy, suggesting that it could be used as a surrogate marker for diagnosis of NERD. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02081404.).

Comparative Cost Effectiveness of Reflux-Based and Reflux-Independent Strategies for Barrett's Esophagus Screening.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive tests for Barrett's esophagus (BE) detection have raised the prospect of broader nonreflux-based testing. Cost-effectiveness studies have largely studied men aged 50 years with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. We evaluated the comparative cost effectiveness of BE screening tests in GERD-based and GERD-independent testing scenarios. METHODS: Markov modeling was performed in 3 scenarios in 50 years old individuals: (i) White men with chronic GERD (GERD-based); (ii) GERD-independent (all races, men and women), BE prevalence 1.6%; and (iii) GERD-independent, BE prevalence 5%. The simulation compared multiple screening strategies with no screening: sedated endoscopy (sEGD), transnasal endoscopy, swallowable esophageal cell collection devices with biomarkers, and exhaled volatile organic compounds. A hypothetical cohort of 500,000 individuals followed for 40 years using a willingness to pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was simulated. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing each strategy with no screening and comparing screening strategies with each other were calculated. RESULTS: In both GERD-independent scenarios, most non-sEGD BE screening tests were cost effective. Swallowable esophageal cell collection devices with biomarkers were cost effective (<$35,000/QALY) and were the optimal screening tests in all scenarios. Exhaled volatile organic compounds had the highest ICERs in all scenarios. ICERs were low (<$25,000/QALY) for all tests in the GERD-based scenario, and all non-sEGD tests dominated no screening. ICERs were sensitive to BE prevalence and test costs. DISCUSSION: Minimally invasive nonendoscopic tests may make GERD-independent BE screening cost effective. Participation rates for these strategies need to be studied.

The Clinical Relevance of Manometric Esophagogastric Junction Outflow Obstruction Can Be Determined Using Rapid Drink Challenge and Solid Swallows.

INTRODUCTION: Esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO) defined on high-resolution esophageal manometry (HRM) poses a management dilemma given marked variability in clinical manifestations. We hypothesized that findings from provocative testing (rapid drink challenge and solid swallows) could determine the clinical relevance of EGJOO. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, we included consecutive subjects between May 2016 and January 2020 with EGJOO. Standard HRM with 5-mL water swallows was followed by provocative testing. Barium esophagography findings were obtained. Cases with structural obstruction were separated from functional EGJOO, with the latter categorized as symptom-positive or symptom-negative. Only symptom-positive subjects were considered for achalasia-type therapies. Sensitivity and specificity for clinically relevant EGJOO during 5-mL water swallows, provocative testing, and barium were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 121 EGJOO cases, 76% had dysphagia and 25% had holdup on barium. Ninety-seven cases (84%) were defined as functional EGJOO. Symptom-positive EGJOO subjects were more likely to demonstrate abnormal motility and pressurization patterns and to reproduce symptoms during provocative testing, but not with 5-mL water swallows. Twenty-nine (30%) functional EGJOO subjects underwent achalasia-type therapy, with symptomatic response in 26 (90%). Forty-eight (49%) functional EGJOO cases were managed conservatively, with symptom remission in 78%. Although specificity was similar, provocative testing demonstrated superior sensitivity in identifying treatment responders from spontaneously remitting EGJOO (85%) compared with both 5-mL water swallows (54%; P < 0.01) and barium esophagography (54%; P = 0.02). DISCUSSION: Provocative testing during HRM is highly accurate in identifying clinically relevant EGJOO that benefits from therapy and should be routinely performed as part of the manometric protocol.

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.

Accuracy of clinical staging for T2N0 oesophageal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Oesophageal cancer is the sixth commonest cause of overall cancer mortality. Clinical staging utilizes multiple imaging modalities to guide treatment and prognostication. T2N0 oesophageal cancer is a treatment threshold for neoadjuvant therapy. Data on accuracy of current clinical staging tests for this disease subgroup are conflicting. We performed a meta-analysis of all primary studies comparing clinical staging accuracy using multiple imaging modalities (index test) to histopathological staging following oesophagectomy (reference standard) in T2N0 oesophageal cancer. Patients that underwent neoadjuvant therapy were excluded. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library) were searched up to September 2019. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of combined T&N clinical staging. Publication date, first recruitment date, number of centers, sample size and geographical location main histological subtype were evaluated as potential sources of heterogeneity. The search strategy identified 1,199 studies. Twenty studies containing 5,213 patients met the inclusion criteria. Combined T&N staging accuracy was 19% (95% CI, 15-24); T staging accuracy was 29% (95% CI, 24-35); percentage of patients with T downstaging was 41% (95% CI, 33-50); percentage of patients with T upstaging was 28% (95% CI, 24-32) and percentage of patients with N upstaging was 34% (95% CI, 30-39). Significant sources of heterogeneity included the number of centers, sample size and study region. T2N0 oesophageal cancer staging remains inaccurate. A significant proportion of patients were downstaged (could have received endotherapy) or upstaged (should have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy). These findings were largely unchanged over the past two decades highlighting an urgent need for more accurate staging tests for this subgroup of patients.

Validation of the AASLD recommendations for classification of oesophageal varices in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases recommends the use of a 2-grade classification system (small and large) to describe the size of oesophageal varices (OV). Data on observer agreement (OA) on this system are currently lacking. We aimed to evaluate this classification and compare it to the widely used 3-grade classification (grade 1 'small', grade 2 'medium', grade 3 'large') among operators of variable experience. METHODS: High-definition video recordings of 100 patients with cirrhosis were prospectively collected using standardised criteria. Nine observers of variable experience performed independent evaluations of the videos in random order. OV were scored using both systems. All assessments were repeated a year later by the same observers to assess intra-observer agreement. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement (all observers) using the 2-grade and the 3-grade system was k = 0.71 (95% CI: 0.64-0.78) and k = 0.73 (95% CI: 0.66-0.79) respectively. When using the 2-grade system, intra-observer agreement between hepatologists (n = 3), luminal gastroenterologists (n = 3) and trainee gastroenterologists (n = 3) was k = 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.91), k = 0.72 (95% CI: 0.67-0.77), and k = 0.74 (95% CI: 0.67-0.8) respectively. With the 3-grade system; intra-observer agreement between the same three subgroups were k = 0.9 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92), k = 0.73 (95% CI: 0.68-0.78), k = 0.77 (95% CI: 0.71-0.82) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in OA between the 2-grade and 3-grade classification systems. Hepatologists had significantly higher levels of consistency in grading OV. This may have implications to create alternative training models for residents and fellows in the recognition and grading of OV.

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.

Acceptability, Accuracy, and Safety of Disposable Transnasal Capsule Endoscopy for Barrett's Esophagus Screening.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) with conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy (C-EGD) is expensive. We assessed the performance of a clinic-based, single use transnasal capsule endoscope (EG Scan II) for the detection of BE, compared to C-EGD as the reference standard. METHODS: We performed a prospective multicenter cohort study of patients with and without BE recruited from 3 referral centers (1 in the United States and 2 in the United Kingdom). Of 200 consenting participants, 178 (89%) completed both procedures (11% failed EG Scan due to the inability to intubate the nasopharynx). The mean age of participants was 57.9 years and 67% were male. The prevalence of BE was 53%. All subjects underwent the 2 procedures on the same day, performed by blinded endoscopists. Patients completed preference and validated tolerability (10-point visual analogue scale [VAS]) questionnaires within 14 days of the procedures. RESULTS: A higher proportion of patients preferred the EG Scan (54.2%) vs the C-EGD (16.7%) (P < .001) and the EG Scan had a higher VAS score (7.2) vs the C-EGD (6.4) (P = .0004). No serious adverse events occurred. The EG Scan identified any length BE with a sensitivity value of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.96) and a specificity value of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82-0.96). The EG Scan identified long segment BE with a sensitivity value of 0.95 and short segment BE with a sensitivity values of 0.87. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study, we found the EG Scan to be safe and to detect BE with higher than 90% sensitivity and specificity. A higher proportion of patients preferred the EG Scan to C-EGD. This device might be used as a clinic-based tool to screen populations at risk for BE. ISRCTN registry identifier: 70595405; ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02066233.

UK guidelines on oesophageal dilatation in clinical practice.

These are updated guidelines which supersede the original version published in 2004. This work has been endorsed by the Clinical Services and Standards Committee of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) under the auspices of the oesophageal section of the BSG. The original guidelines have undergone extensive revision by the 16 members of the Guideline Development Group with representation from individuals across all relevant disciplines, including the Heartburn Cancer UK charity, a nursing representative and a patient representative. The methodological rigour and transparency of the guideline development processes were appraised using the revised Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool.Dilatation of the oesophagus is a relatively high-risk intervention, and is required by an increasing range of disease states. Moreover, there is scarcity of evidence in the literature to guide clinicians on how to safely perform this procedure. These guidelines deal specifically with the dilatation procedure using balloon or bougie devices as a primary treatment strategy for non-malignant narrowing of the oesophagus. The use of stents is outside the remit of this paper; however, for cases of dilatation failure, alternative techniques-including stents-will be listed. The guideline is divided into the following subheadings: (1) patient preparation; (2) the dilatation procedure; (3) aftercare and (4) disease-specific considerations. A systematic literature search was performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Develop-ment and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and decide on the strength of recommendations made.

Narrow band imaging and serology in the assessment of premalignant gastric pathology.

BACKGROUND: Patient outcomes in gastric adenocarcinoma are poor due to late diagnosis. Detecting and treating at the premalignant stage has the potential to improve this. Helicobacter pylori is also a strong risk factor for this disease. AIMS: Primary aims were to assess the diagnostic accuracy of magnified narrow band imaging (NBI-Z) endoscopy and serology in detecting normal mucosa, H. pylori gastritis and gastric atrophy. Secondary aims were to compare the diagnostic accuracies of two classification systems using both NBI-Z and white light endoscopy with magnification (WLE-Z) and evaluate the inter-observer agreement. METHODS: Patients were prospectively recruited. Images of gastric mucosa were stored with histology and serum for IgG H. pylori and Pepsinogen (PG) I/II ELISAs. Blinded expert endoscopists agreed on mucosal pattern. Mucosal images and serological markers were compared with histology. Kappa statistics determined inter-observer variability for randomly allocated images among four experts and four non-experts. RESULTS: 116 patients were prospectively recruited. Diagnostic accuracy of NBI-Z for determining normal gastric mucosa was 0.87(95%CI 0.82-0.92), H. pylori gastritis 0.65(95%CI 0.55-0.75) and gastric atrophy 0.88(95%CI 0.81-0.94). NBI-Z was superior to serology at detecting gastric atrophy: NBI-Z gastric atrophy 0.88(95%CI 0.81-0.94) vs PGI/II ratio < 3 0.74(95%CI 0.62-0.85) p<.0001. Overall NBI-Z was superior to WLE-Z in detecting disease using two validated classifications. Inter-observer agreement was 0.63(95%CI 0.51-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: NBI-Z accurately detects changes in the GI mucosa which currently depend on histology. NBI-Z is useful in the detection of precancerous conditions, potentially improving patient outcomes with early intervention to prevent gastric cancer.

Acetic acid chromoendoscopy for the diagnosis of early neoplasia and specialized intestinal metaplasia in Barrett's esophagus: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Barrett's esophagus (BE) surveillance with random biopsies is time-consuming, invasive, and can lead to sampling error. Acetic acid chromoendoscopy (AAC) with targeted biopsies has been proposed as an effective alternative. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of AAC for the detection of early neoplasia (high-grade dysplasia [HGD] or early cancer [EC]) and specialized intestinal metaplasia (SIM) in patients with BE. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of all primary studies that compared AAC-based diagnoses (index test) with histopathology as the reference standard. The data were extracted on a per-patient, per-area, and per-procedure basis whenever available. RESULTS: Thirteen prospective studies met the inclusion criteria. For the diagnosis of HGD/EC, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) for all included studies (9 studies, 1379 patients) were 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.97), 0.96 (95% CI, 0.85-0.99), 25.0 (95% CI, 5.9-105.3), and 0.08 (95% CI, 0.04-0.18), respectively. Results were not significantly different when considering only studies with a per-patient analysis. For the characterization of SIM, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+, and LR- for all the included studies (8 studies, 516 patients) were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.83-0.99), 0.69 (95% CI, 0.54-0.81), 3.0 (95% CI, 2.0-4.7), and 0.06 (95% CI, 0.01-0.26), respectively. No significant sources of heterogeneity were identified on subgroup analysis. CONCLUSION: AAC has an overall high diagnostic accuracy for detecting HGD/EC in patients with BE. For SIM characterization, AAC sensitivity is very high but has poor specificity, suggesting that histological confirmation is necessary when AAC is positive.

The detection of oesophageal varices using a novel, disposable, probe-based transnasal endoscope: a prospective diagnostic pilot study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Screening for oesophageal varices (OV) using conventional oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (C-OGD) is invasive and requires costly monitoring, recovery, and decontamination facilities. We aimed to evaluate the technical feasibility, acceptability and accuracy of a novel, portable and disposable office-based transnasal endoscope (EG Scan™ ) compared to C-OGD as the reference standard. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study. Consecutive adult patients with cirrhosis were invited to participate. All subjects underwent the two procedures on the same day performed by two endoscopists in a blinded design. Patients completed preference and validated tolerability (10-point visual analogue scale (VAS)) questionnaires on day 0 and day 14 post procedures. RESULTS: Forty-five of 50 patients (90%) completed both interventions. Mean age was 59 years and OV prevalence was 49%. Patients reported higher preference (percentage) and better experience (mean VAS) with EG Scan compared to C-OGD on day 0 (76.5% vs. 23.5%, P < 0.001; 7.8 vs. 6.8, P = 0.058, respectively) and day 14 (77.8% vs. 22.2%, P < 0.001; 7.0 vs. 5.5, P = 0.0013 respectively). Sensitivity and specificity of the EG Scan for the diagnosis of any size OV were 0.82 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60-0.95), and 0.78 (95% CI 0.56-0.93) respectively. Corresponding values for the diagnosis of clinically significant (medium/large) OV were 0.92 (95% CI 0.62-1.0), 0.97 (95% CI 0.84-1.0) respectively. No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: EG Scan accuracy was higher for the diagnosis of medium/large OV compared to any size OV. Patients' preference and overall experience of the EG Scan was favourable compared to C-OGD 14 days after procedures.

Evaluation of a minimally invasive cell sampling device coupled with assessment of trefoil factor 3 expression for diagnosing Barrett's esophagus: a multi-center case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a commonly undiagnosed condition that predisposes to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Routine endoscopic screening for BE is not recommended because of the burden this would impose on the health care system. The objective of this study was to determine whether a novel approach using a minimally invasive cell sampling device, the Cytosponge, coupled with immunohistochemical staining for the biomarker Trefoil Factor 3 (TFF3), could be used to identify patients who warrant endoscopy to diagnose BE. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A case-control study was performed across 11 UK hospitals between July 2011 and December 2013. In total, 1,110 individuals comprising 463 controls with dyspepsia and reflux symptoms and 647 BE cases swallowed a Cytosponge prior to endoscopy. The primary outcome measures were to evaluate the safety, acceptability, and accuracy of the Cytosponge-TFF3 test compared with endoscopy and biopsy. In all, 1,042 (93.9%) patients successfully swallowed the Cytosponge, and no serious adverse events were attributed to the device. The Cytosponge was rated favorably, using a visual analogue scale, compared with endoscopy (p < 0.001), and patients who were not sedated for endoscopy were more likely to rate the Cytosponge higher than endoscopy (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.001). The overall sensitivity of the test was 79.9% (95% CI 76.4%-83.0%), increasing to 87.2% (95% CI 83.0%-90.6%) for patients with ≥3 cm of circumferential BE, known to confer a higher cancer risk. The sensitivity increased to 89.7% (95% CI 82.3%-94.8%) in 107 patients who swallowed the device twice during the study course. There was no loss of sensitivity in patients with dysplasia. The specificity for diagnosing BE was 92.4% (95% CI 89.5%-94.7%). The case-control design of the study means that the results are not generalizable to a primary care population. Another limitation is that the acceptability data were limited to a single measure. CONCLUSIONS: The Cytosponge-TFF3 test is safe and acceptable, and has accuracy comparable to other screening tests. This test may be a simple and inexpensive approach to identify patients with reflux symptoms who warrant endoscopy to diagnose BE.

Screening for Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma: rationale, recent progress, challenges, and future directions.

As the incidence and mortality of esophageal adenocarcinoma continue to increase, strategies to counter this need to be explored. Screening for Barrett's esophagus, which is the known precursor of a large majority of adenocarcinomas, has been debated without a firm consensus. Given evidence for and against perceived benefits of screening, the multitude of challenges in the implementation of such a strategy and in the downstream management of subjects with Barrett's esophagus who could be diagnosed by screening, support for screening has been modest. Recent advances in the form of development and initial accuracy of noninvasive tools for screening, risk assessment tools, and biomarker panels to risk stratify subjects with BE, have spurred renewed interest in the early detection of Barrett's esophagus and related neoplasia, particularly with the advent of effective endoscopic therapy. In this review, we explore in depth the potential rationale for screening for Barrett's esophagus, recent advances that have the potential of making screening feasible, and also highlight some of the challenges that will have to be overcome to develop an effective approach to improve the outcomes of subjects with esophageal adenocarcinoma.

A randomized comparative effectiveness trial of novel endoscopic techniques and approaches for Barrett's esophagus screening in the community.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare participation rates and clinical effectiveness of sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (sEGD) and unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) for esophageal assessment and Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening in a population-based cohort. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, controlled trial in a community population. Subjects ≥50 years of age who previously completed validated gastrointestinal symptom questionnaires were randomized (stratified by age, sex, and reflux symptoms) to one of three screening techniques (either sEGD or uTNE in a mobile research van (muTNE) or uTNE in a hospital outpatient endoscopy suite (huTNE)) and invited to participate. RESULTS: Of the 459 subjects, 209 (46%) agreed to participate (muTNE n=76, huTNE n=72, and sEGD n=61). Participation rates were numerically higher in the unsedated arms of muTNE (47.5%) and huTNE (45.7%) compared with the sEGD arm (40.7%), but were not statistically different (P=0.27). Complete evaluation of the esophagus was similar using muTNE (99%), huTNE (96%), and sEGD (100%) techniques (P=0.08). Mean recovery times (min) were longer for sEGD (67.3) compared with muTNE (15.5) and huTNE (18.5) (P<0.001). Approximately 80% of uTNE subjects were willing to undergo the procedure again in future. Respectively, 29% and 7.8% of participating subjects had esophagitis and BE. CONCLUSIONS: Mobile van and clinic uTNE screening had comparable clinical effectiveness with similar participation rates and safety profile to sEGD. Evaluation time with uTNE was significantly shorter. Prevalence of BE and esophagitis in community subjects ≥50 years of age was substantial. Mobile and outpatient unsedated techniques may provide an effective alternative strategy to sEGD for esophageal assessment and BE screening.

Performance characteristics of unsedated ultrathin video endoscopy in the assessment of the upper GI tract: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Reports on the performance of unsedated ultrathin endoscopy via the transnasal (uTNE) and transoral (uTOE) routes are conflicting. We aimed to estimate the technical success rate, patient preference, and acceptability of uTNE and uTOE alone and in comparison with conventional EGD (cEGD; with or without sedation). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed on all primary studies reporting the outcomes of interest. Electronic databases (Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE) were searched on February 1, 2014. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies met the inclusion criteria with 6659 patients in total. The pooled technical success rate was 94.0% for uTNE (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.6-95.8; 30 studies) and 97.8% for uTOE (95% CI, 95.6-98.9; 16 studies). The difference in proportion of success for uTNE compared with cEGD was -2.0% (95% CI, -4.0 to -1.0; 18 studies), but that difference was not significant when uTNE < 5.9 mm in diameter was used (-1.0%; 95% CI, -3.0 to .0; 9 studies). There was no significant difference in success rate between uTOE and cEGD (.0%; 95% CI, -1.0 to 2.0; 10 studies). The pooled difference in proportion of patients who preferred uTNE over cEGD was 63.0% (95% CI, 49.0-76.0; 10 studies), whereas preference for uTOE versus cEGD was not significantly different (38.0%; 95% CI, -4.0 to 80.0; 2 studies). Acceptability was high for both uTNE (85.2%; 95% CI, 79.1-89.9; 16 studies) and uTOE (88.7%; 95% CI, 82.4-92.9; 10 studies). CONCLUSIONS: Technical success rate for uTNE < 5.9 mm is equivalent to cEGD. uTNE has high patient acceptability, with better patient preference, and therefore could be a useful alternative to cEGD for screening purposes. uTOE had a similar technical success rate but an equivocal preference to cEGD.

Cryoballoon ablation for treatment of patients with refractory esophageal neoplasia after first line endoscopic eradication therapy.

Background and study aims Cryoablation with the Cryoballoon device is a novel ablative therapy that uses cycles of freezing and thawing to induce cell death. This single-center prospective study evaluated the feasibility of the focal cryoablation device for the treatment of areas of refractory esophageal neoplasia in patients who had undergone first line endoscopic eradication therapy (EET). Complete remission of dysplasia (CR-D) and complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM) at first follow-up endoscopy, durability of disease reversal, rates of stenosis and adverse events were studied. Patients and methods Eighteen cases were treated. At baseline, nine patients had low-grade dysplasia (LGD), six had high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and three had intramucosal carcinoma (IMC). Median length of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE) treated was 3 cm. The median number of ablations per patient was 11. Each selected area of visible dysplasia received 10 seconds of ablation. One session of cryoablation was performed per patient. Biopsies were performed at around 3 months post-ablation. Results CR-D was achieved in 78 % and CR-IM in 39 % of patients. There were no device malfunction or adverse events. Stenosis was noted in 11 % of cases. At a median follow up of 19-months, CR-D was maintained in 72 % of patients and CR-IM in 33 %. Conclusions Cryoablation appears to be a viable rescue strategy in patients with refractory neoplasia. It is well tolerated and successful in obtaining CR-D and CR-IM in patients with treatment-refractory BE. Further trials of dosimetry, efficacy and safety in treatment-naïve patients are underway.

Development and validation of a risk prediction model to diagnose Barrett's oesophagus (MARK-BE): a case-control machine learning approach.

Background: Screening for Barrett's Oesophagus (BE) relies on endoscopy which is invasive and has a low yield. This study aimed to develop and externally validate a simple symptom and risk-factor questionnaire to screen for patients with BE. Methods: Questionnaires from 1299 patients in the BEST2 case-controlled study were analysed: 880 had BE including 40 with invasive oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) and 419 were controls. This was randomly split into a training cohort of 776 patients and an internal validation cohort of 523 patients. External validation included 398 patients from the BOOST case-controlled study: 198 with BE (23 with OAC) and 200 controls. Identification of independently important diagnostic features was undertaken using machine learning techniques information gain (IG) and correlation based feature selection (CFS). Multiple classification tools were assessed to create a multi-variable risk prediction model. Internal validation was followed by external validation in the independent dataset. Findings: The BEST2 study included 40 features. Of these, 24 added IG but following CFS, only 8 demonstrated independent diagnostic value including age, gender, smoking, waist circumference, frequency of stomach pain, duration of heartburn and acid taste and taking of acid suppression medicines. Logistic regression offered the highest prediction quality with AUC (area under the receiver operator curve) of 0.87. In the internal validation set, AUC was 0.86. In the BOOST external validation set, AUC was 0.81. Interpretation: The diagnostic model offers valid predictions of diagnosis of BE in patients with symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux, assisting in identifying who should go forward to invasive testing. Overweight men who have been taking stomach medicines for a long time may merit particular consideration for further testing. The risk prediction tool is quick and simple to administer but will need further calibration and validation in a prospective study in primary care. Funding: Charles Wolfson Trust and Guts UK.