No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Ligne directrice sur le dépistage de l’adénocarcinome œsophagien chez les patients atteints de reflux gastro-œsophagien chronique
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Background:
Two reviews and an overview were produced for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline on screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) without alarm symptoms. The goal was to systematically review three key questions (KQs): (1) The effectiveness of screening for these conditions; (2) How adults with chronic GERD weigh the benefits and harms of screening, and what factors contribute to their preferences and decision to undergo screening; and (3) Treatment options for Barrett's esophagus (BE), dysplasia or stage 1 EAC (overview of reviews).
Methods:
Bibliographic databases (e.g. Ovid MEDLINE®) were searched for each review in October 2018. We also searched for unpublished literature (e.g. relevant websites). The liberal accelerated approach was used for title and abstract screening. Two reviewers independently screened full-text articles. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were completed by one reviewer and verified by another reviewer (KQ1 and 2). Quality assessments were completed by two reviewers independently in duplicate (KQ3). Disagreements were resolved through discussion. We used various risk of bias tools suitable for study design. The GRADE framework was used for rating the certainty of the evidence.
Results:
Ten studies evaluated the effectiveness of screening. One retrospective study reported no difference in long-term survival (approximately 6 to 12 years) between those who had a prior esophagogastroduodenoscopy and those who had not (adjusted HR 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58-1.50). Though there may be higher odds of a stage 1 diagnosis than a more advanced diagnosis (stage 2-4) if an EGD had been performed in the previous 5 years (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.00-7.67). Seven studies compared different screening modalities, and showed little difference between modalities. Three studies reported on patients' unwillingness to be screened (e.g. due to anxiety, fear of gagging). Eleven systematic reviews evaluated treatment modalities, providing some evidence of early treatment effect for some outcomes.
Conclusions:
Little evidence exists on the effectiveness of screening and values and preferences to screening. Many treatment modalities have been evaluated, but studies are small. Overall, there is uncertainty in understanding the effectiveness of screening and early treatments.
Systematic review registrations:
PROSPERO (CRD42017049993 [KQ1], CRD42017050014 [KQ2], CRD42018084825 [KQ3]).
Background:
Systematic reviews should specify all outcomes at the protocol stage. Pre-specification helps prevent outcome choice from being influenced by knowledge of included study results. Completely specified outcomes comprise five elements: (1) domain (title), (2) specific measurement (technique/instrument), (3) specific metric (data format for analysis), (4) method of aggregation (how group data are summarised), and (5) time points. This study aims to assess the completeness of outcome pre-specification in systematic reviews of interventions to improve food security, specifically food availability, in low- and middle-income countries, as well as to assess the comparability of outcome elements across reviews reporting the same outcome domains.
Methods:
We will examine systematic reviews from an ongoing overview of systematic reviews, which assessed the effects of interventions addressing food insecurity through improving food production, access, or utilisation compared with no intervention or a different intervention, on nutrition outcomes. We will examine the original protocols; if unavailable, we will examine the "Methods" section of the systematic reviews' most recent version. One investigator will identify and group all outcome domains that the authors of the included protocols intended to measure in the systematic review and a second investigator will verify the domains. For outcome domains reported in at least 25% of protocols, one author will extract data using a pre-specified form and a second author will verify the data. We will use descriptive statistics to report the number, types, and degree of specification of outcomes in included protocols. We will assess the extent of completeness of outcome pre-specification based on the number of outcome elements (out of five). We will assess comparability of outcome domains through examining how individual elements are described across SRs reporting the same outcome domains.
Discussion:
Our findings will contribute to understanding about the best approach to pre-specify outcomes for systematic reviews and primary research in the field of food security.
Background
Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is the premalignant lesion of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and is the target of early detection and prevention efforts for EAC.
Aims
We sought to evaluate what proportion and temporal trends of EAC patients had missed opportunities for screening and surveillance of BE.
Methods
Our study included 182 patients with EAC at the Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center in Houston, Texas, between 02/2005 and 09/2017. We conducted a retrospective audit of patients’ medical records for any previous upper endoscopies (EGDs) for screening or surveillance of BE prior to their EAC diagnosis.
Results
The mean age of the cohort was 67.3 years (SD = 9.5); 99.5% of patients were male, and 85.2% were white. Only 45 patients (24.7%) had EGD at any time prior to the cancer diagnosing EGD, of whom 29 (15.9% of all EAC cases) had an established BE diagnosis. In the 137 patients with no prior EGD, most (63.5%) had GERD or were obese or ever smokers. There were no changes in patterns over time. For the 29 patients with prior established BE, 22 (75.8%) were diagnosed with EAC as a result of surveillance EGD. Patients with prior established BE were more likely to be diagnosed at 0 or I stage (p < 0.001) and managed with endoscopic or surgical modalities (p < 0.001) than patients without prior BE.
Conclusions
Despite having established risk factors for BE, the majority of EAC patients had no prior EGD to screen for BE. BE screening may represent the largest missed opportunity to reduce EAC mortality.
Background
Efforts to reduce mortality from esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) have focused on screening and surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus (BE).
Aims
We sought to determine the frequency of prior diagnosis of BE in patients with EA and to evaluate the impact of a prior BE diagnosis on mortality in EA patients.
Methods
This was a retrospective cohort study of patients diagnosed with EA in the VA during 2002–2016. We compared the distributions of EA stage and receipt of treatment between EA patients with and without a prior BE diagnosis and used Cox proportional hazards models to compare mortality risk (all-cause and cancer specific) unadjusted and adjusted for stage and treatment to assess their impact on any survival differences.
Results
Among 8564 EA patients, only 4.9% had a prior BE diagnosis. The proportion with prior BE diagnosis increased from 3.2% in EA patients diagnosed during 2005–2007 to 7.0% in those diagnosed during 2014–2016. EA patients with a prior BE diagnosis were more likely to have stage 1 disease and receive any treatment. A prior BE diagnosis was associated with lower all-cause mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR] unadjusted for stage, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.61–0.80), which was largely explained by the earlier stage of EA at the time of diagnosis (HR adjusted for stage, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.75–0.99). There was no evidence of lead time bias or length time bias.
Conclusions
Prior diagnosis of BE was associated with better survival, largely due to earlier EA stage at diagnosis.
Background:
Early detection of oesophageal cancer improves outcomes; however, the optimal strategy for identifying patients at increased risk from the pre-cancerous lesion Barrett's oesophagus (BE) is not clear. The Cytosponge, a novel non-endoscopic sponge device, combined with the biomarker Trefoil Factor 3 (TFF3) has been tested in four clinical studies. It was found to be safe, accurate and acceptable to patients. The aim of the BEST3 trial is to evaluate if the offer of a Cytosponge-TFF3 test in primary care for patients on long term acid suppressants leads to an increase in the number of patients diagnosed with BE.
Methods:
The BEST3 trial is a pragmatic multi-site cluster-randomised controlled trial set in primary care in England. Approximately 120 practices will be randomised 1:1 to either the intervention arm, invitation to a Cytosponge-TFF3 test, or the control arm usual care. Inclusion criteria are men and women aged 50 or over with records of at least 6 months of prescriptions for acid-suppressants in the last year. Patients in the intervention arm will receive an invitation to have a Cytosponge-TFF3 test in their general practice. Patients with a positive TFF3 test will receive an invitation for an upper gastro-intestinal endoscopy at their local hospital-based endoscopy clinic to test for BE. The primary objective is to compare histologically confirmed BE diagnosis between the intervention and control arms to determine whether the offer of the Cytosponge-TFF3 test in primary care results in an increase in BE diagnosis within 12 months of study entry.
Discussion:
The BEST3 trial is a well-powered pragmatic trial testing the use of the Cytosponge-TFF3 test in the same population that we envisage it being used in clinical practice. The data generated from this trial will enable NICE and other clinical bodies to decide whether this test is suitable for routine clinical use.
Trial registration:
This trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN Registry on 19/01/2017, trial number ISRCTN68382401 .
Background:
Oesophageal adenocarcinoma is the sixth most common cause of cancer death worldwide and Barrett's oesophagus is the biggest risk factor. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of high-dose esomeprazole proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) and aspirin for improving outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus.
Methods:
The Aspirin and Esomeprazole Chemoprevention in Barrett's metaplasia Trial had a 2 × 2 factorial design and was done at 84 centres in the UK and one in Canada. Patients with Barrett's oesophagus of 1 cm or more were randomised 1:1:1:1 using a computer-generated schedule held in a central trials unit to receive high-dose (40 mg twice-daily) or low-dose (20 mg once-daily) PPI, with or without aspirin (300 mg per day in the UK, 325 mg per day in Canada) for at least 8 years, in an unblinded manner. Reporting pathologists were masked to treatment allocation. The primary composite endpoint was time to all-cause mortality, oesophageal adenocarcinoma, or high-grade dysplasia, which was analysed with accelerated failure time modelling adjusted for minimisation factors (age, Barrett's oesophagus length, intestinal metaplasia) in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2004-003836-77.
Findings:
Between March 10, 2005, and March 1, 2009, 2557 patients were recruited. 705 patients were assigned to low-dose PPI and no aspirin, 704 to high-dose PPI and no aspirin, 571 to low-dose PPI and aspirin, and 577 to high-dose PPI and aspirin. Median follow-up and treatment duration was 8·9 years (IQR 8·2-9·8), and we collected 20 095 follow-up years and 99·9% of planned data. 313 primary events occurred. High-dose PPI (139 events in 1270 patients) was superior to low-dose PPI (174 events in 1265 patients; time ratio [TR] 1·27, 95% CI 1·01-1·58, p=0·038). Aspirin (127 events in 1138 patients) was not significantly better than no aspirin (154 events in 1142 patients; TR 1·24, 0·98-1·57, p=0·068). If patients using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were censored at the time of first use, aspirin was significantly better than no aspirin (TR 1·29, 1·01-1·66, p=0·043; n=2236). Combining high-dose PPI with aspirin had the strongest effect compared with low-dose PPI without aspirin (TR 1·59, 1·14-2·23, p=0·0068). The numbers needed to treat were 34 for PPI and 43 for aspirin. Only 28 (1%) participants reported study-treatment-related serious adverse events.
Interpretation:
High-dose PPI and aspirin chemoprevention therapy, especially in combination, significantly and safely improved outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus.
Funding:
Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca, Wellcome Trust, and Health Technology Assessment.
We report a biomarker-based non-endoscopic method for detecting Barrett’s esophagus (BE) based on detecting methylated DNAs retrieved via a swallowable balloon-based esophageal sampling device. BE is the precursor of, and a major recognized risk factor for, developing esophageal adenocarcinoma. Endoscopy, the current standard for BE detection, is not cost-effective for population screening. We performed genome-wide screening to ascertain regions targeted for recurrent aberrant cytosine methylation in BE, identifying high-frequency methylation within the CCNA1 locus. We tested CCNA1 DNA methylation as a BE biomarker in cytology brushings of the distal esophagus from 173 individuals with or without BE. CCNA1 DNA methylation demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.95 for discriminating BE-related metaplasia and neoplasia cases versus normal individuals, performing identically to methylation of VIM DNA, an established BE biomarker. When combined, the resulting two biomarker panel was 95% sensitive and 91% specific. These results were replicated in an independent validation cohort of 149 individuals who were assayed using the same cutoff values for test positivity established in the training population. To progress toward non-endoscopic esophageal screening, we engineered a well-tolerated, swallowable, encapsulated balloon device able to selectively sample the distal esophagus within 5 min. In balloon samples from 86 individuals, tests of CCNA1 plus VIM DNA methylation detected BE metaplasia with 90.3% sensitivity and 91.7% specificity. Combining the balloon sampling device with molecular assays of CCNA1 plus VIM DNA methylation enables an efficient, well-tolerated, sensitive, and specific method of screening at-risk populations for BE.
We have updated both the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) guidelines on dyspepsia in a joint ACG/CAG dyspepsia guideline. We suggest that patients ≥60 years of age presenting with dyspepsia are investigated with upper gastrointestinal endoscopy to exclude organic pathology. This is a conditional recommendation and patients at higher risk of malignancy (such as spending their childhood in a high risk gastric cancer country or having a positive family history) could be offered an endoscopy at a younger age. Alarm features should not automatically precipitate endoscopy in younger patients but this should be considered on a case-by-case basis. We recommend patients <60 years of age have a non-invasive test Helicobacter pylori and treatment if positive. Those that are negative or do not respond to this approach should be given a trial of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. If these are ineffective tricyclic antidepressants (TCA) or prokinetic therapies can be tried. Patients that have an endoscopy where no pathology is found are defined as having functional dyspepsia (FD). H. pylori eradication should be offered in these patients if they are infected. We recommend PPI, TCA and prokinetic therapy (in that order) in those that fail therapy or are H. pylori negative. We do not recommend routine upper gastrointestinal (GI) motility testing but it may be useful in selected patients.Am J Gastroenterol advance online publication, 20 June 2017; doi:10.1038/ajg.2017.154.
The cost of medical procedures is often unknown, but is nevertheless crucial for setting reimbursement and health care policies. The cost of an upper gastroduodenal endoscopy was investigated in ambulatory adults in a large academic hospital in the province of Quebec, from the perspective of the hospital.
An activity-based costing methodology was used to break down the procedure into a number of priory tasks, to which resources used at the department level (labour, equipment, materials) were allocated. The direct cost of performing an endoscopy ranged from 89 for a sedated, biopsied patient. Not included in this amount were separate reimbursement fees of 50 professional fee for the performing physician, which are charged directly to the Ministry of Health.
Incorporating overall, general hospital fixed overhead costs raises the cost of the procedure substantially, by 63 to the total cost of the procedure.
Given the high proportion of overall, hospital-wide, overhead costs in the total cost of the procedure, allocation methods of these overhead costs in current hospital accounting systems should be improved to obtain a more precise estimate of the full cost of upper gastroduodenal endoscopy.
Historically, cancer has occurred at a lower rate in aboriginal populations; however, it is now dramatically increasing. Unless preventive measures are taken, cancer rates among aboriginal peoples are expected to soon surpass those in non-aboriginal populations. Because a large proportion of malignant disorders are preventable, primary prevention through socioeconomic interventions, environmental changes, and lifestyle modification might provide the best option for reducing the increasing burden of cancers. Such efforts can be further amplified by making use of effective cancer screening programs for early detection of cancers at their most treatable stage. However, compared with non-aboriginal Canadians, many aboriginal Canadians lack equal access to cancer screening and prevention programs. In this paper, we discuss disparities in cancer prevention and screening in aboriginal populations in Canada. We begin with the relevant definitions and a theoretical perspective of disparity in health care in aboriginal populations. A framework of health determinants is proposed to explain the pathways associated with an increased risk of cancer that are potentially avoidable. Major challenges and knowledge gaps in relation to cancer care for aboriginal populations are addressed, and we make recommendations to eliminate disparities in cancer control and prevention.
Objective Surveillance is recommended for Barrett's oesophagus (BO) to detect early oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of surveillance.
Design We included 714 patients with long-segment BO in a multicentre prospective cohort study and used a multistate Markov model to calculate progression rates from no dysplasia (ND) to low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and OAC. Progression rates were incorporated in a decision-analytic model, including costs and quality of life data. We evaluated different surveillance intervals for ND and LGD, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and oesophagectomy for HGD or early OAC and oesophagectomy for advanced OAC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated in costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY).
Results The annual progression rate was 2% for ND to LGD, 4% for LGD to HGD or early OAC and 25% for HGD or early OAC to advanced OAC. Surveillance every 5 or 4 years with RFA for HGD or early OAC and oesophagectomy for advanced OAC had ICERs of €5.283 and €62.619 per QALY for ND. Surveillance every five to one year had ICERs of €4.922, €30.067, €32.531, €41.499 and €75.601 per QALY for LGD. EMR prior to RFA was slightly more expensive, but important for tumour staging.
Conclusions Based on a Dutch healthcare perspective and assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €35.000 per QALY, surveillance with EMR and RFA for HGD or early OAC, and oesophagectomy for advanced OAC is cost-effective every 5 years for ND and every 3 years for LGD.
Objectives:
Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a common premalignant lesion for which surveillance is recommended. This strategy is limited by considerable variations in clinical practice. We conducted an international, multidisciplinary, systematic search and evidence-based review of BE and provided consensus recommendations for clinical use in patients with nondysplastic, indefinite, and low-grade dysplasia (LGD).
Methods:
We defined the scope, proposed statements, and searched electronic databases, yielding 20,558 publications that were screened, selected online, and formed the evidence base. We used a Delphi consensus process, with an 80% agreement threshold, using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to categorize the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.
Results:
In total, 80% of respondents agreed with 55 of 127 statements in the final voting rounds. Population endoscopic screening is not recommended and screening should target only very high-risk cases of males aged over 60 years with chronic uncontrolled reflux. A new international definition of BE was agreed upon. For any degree of dysplasia, at least two specialist gastrointestinal (GI) pathologists are required. Risk factors for cancer include male gender, length of BE, and central obesity. Endoscopic resection should be used for visible, nodular areas. Surveillance is not recommended for <5 years of life expectancy. Management strategies for indefinite dysplasia (IND) and LGD were identified, including a de-escalation strategy for lower-risk patients and escalation to intervention with follow-up for higher-risk patients.
Conclusions:
In this uniquely large consensus process in gastroenterology, we made key clinical recommendations for the escalation/de-escalation of BE in clinical practice. We made strong recommendations for the prioritization of future research.
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.
These guidelines provide a practical and evidence-based resource for the management of patients with Barrett's oesophagus and related early neoplasia. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument was followed to provide a methodological strategy for the guideline development. A systematic review of the literature was performed for English language articles published up until December 2012 in order to address controversial issues in Barrett's oesophagus including definition, screening and diagnosis, surveillance, pathological grading for dysplasia, management of dysplasia, and early cancer including training requirements. The rigour and quality of the studies was evaluated using the SIGN checklist system. Recommendations on each topic were scored by each author using a five-tier system (A+, strong agreement, to D+, strongly disagree). Statements that failed to reach substantial agreement among authors, defined as >80% agreement (A or A+), were revisited and modified until substantial agreement (>80%) was reached. In formulating these guidelines, we took into consideration benefits and risks for the population and national health system, as well as patient perspectives. For the first time, we have suggested stratification of patients according to their estimated cancer risk based on clinical and histopathological criteria. In order to improve communication between clinicians, we recommend the use of minimum datasets for reporting endoscopic and pathological findings. We advocate endoscopic therapy for high-grade dysplasia and early cancer, which should be performed in high-volume centres. We hope that these guidelines will standardise and improve management for patients with Barrett's oesophagus and related neoplasia.
In the GRADE approach, the strength of a recommendation reflects the extent to which we can be confident that the composite desirable effects of a management strategy outweigh the composite undesirable effects. This article addresses GRADE's approach to determining the direction and strength of a recommendation. The GRADE describes the balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes of interest among alternative management strategies depending on four domains, namely estimates of effect for desirable and undesirable outcomes of interest, confidence in the estimates of effect, estimates of values and preferences, and resource use. Ultimately, guideline panels must use judgment in integrating these factors to make a strong or weak recommendation for or against an intervention.
BACKGROUOND: Periodically surveying wait times for specialist health services in Canada captures current data and enables comparisons with previous surveys to identify changes over time.
During one week in April 2012, Canadian gastroenterologists were asked to complete a questionnaire (online or by fax) recording demographics, reason for referral, and dates of referral and specialist visits for at least 10 consecutive new patients (five consultations and five procedures) who had not been seen previously for the same indication. Wait times were determined for 18 indications and compared with those from similar surveys conducted in 2008 and 2005.
Data regarding adult patients were provided by 173 gastroenterologists for 1374 consultations, 540 procedures and 293 same-day consultations and procedures. Nationally, the median wait times were 92 days (95% CI 85 days to 100 days) from referral to consultation, 55 days (95% CI 50 days to 61 days) from consultation to procedure and 155 days (95% CI 142 days to 175 days) (total) from referral to procedure. Overall, wait times were longer in 2012 than in 2005 (P<0.05); the wait time to same-day consultation and procedure was shorter in 2012 than in 2008 (78 days versus 101 days; P<0.05), but continued to be longer than in 2005 (P<0.05). The total wait time remained longest for screening colonoscopy, increasing from 201 days in 2008 to 279 days in 2012 (P<0.05).
Wait times for gastroenterology services continue to exceed recommended targets, remain unchanged since 2008 and exceed wait times reported in 2005.
Background:
Upper endoscopy is commonly used in the diagnosis and management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Evidence demonstrates that it is indicated only in certain situations, and inappropriate use generates unnecessary costs and exposes patients to harms without improving outcomes.
Methods:
The Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians reviewed evidence regarding the indications for, and yield of, upper endoscopy in the setting of GERD, and to highlight how clinicians can increase the delivery of high-value health care. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Upper endoscopy is indicated in men and women with heartburn and alarm symptoms (dysphagia, bleeding, anemia, weight loss, and recurrent vomiting). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Upper endoscopy is indicated in men and women with: Typical GERD symptoms that persist despite a therapeutic trial of 4 to 8 weeks of twice-daily proton-pump inhibitor therapy. Severe erosive esophagitis after a 2-month course of proton-pump inhibitor therapy to assess healing and rule out Barrett esophagus. Recurrent endoscopy after this follow-up examination is not indicated in the absence of Barrett esophagus. History of esophageal stricture who have recurrent symptoms of dysphagia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Upper endoscopy may be indicated: In men older than 50 years with chronic GERD symptoms (symptoms for more than 5 years) and additional risk factors (nocturnal reflux symptoms, hiatal hernia, elevated body mass index, tobacco use, and intra-abdominal distribution of fat) to detect esophageal adenocarcinoma and Barrett esophagus. For surveillance evaluation in men and women with a history of Barrett esophagus. In men and women with Barrett esophagus and no dysplasia, surveillance examinations should occur at intervals no more frequently than 3 to 5 years. More frequent intervals are indicated in patients with Barrett esophagus and dysplasia.
Esophageal adenocarcinoma has one of the fastest rising incidence rates and one of the lowest survival rates of any cancer type in the Western world. However, in many countries, trends in esophageal cancer differ according to tumour morphology and anatomical location. In Canada, incidence and survival trends for esophageal cancer subtypes are poorly known.
Cancer incidence and mortality rates were obtained from the Canadian Cancer Registry, the National Cancer Incidence Reporting System and the Canadian Vital Statistics Death databases for the period from 1986 to 2006. Observed trends (annual per cent change) and five-year relative survival ratios were estimated separately for esophageal adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, and according to location (upper, middle, or lower one-third of the esophagus). Incidence rates were projected up to the year 2026.
Annual age-standardized incidence rates for esophageal cancer in 2004 to 2006 were 6.1 and 1.7 per 100,000 for males and females, respectively. Esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence rose by 3.9% (males) and 3.6% (females) per year for the period 1986 to 2006, with the steepest increase in the lower one-third of the esophagus (4.8% and 5.0% per year among males and females, respectively). In contrast, squamous cell carcinoma incidence declined by 3.3% (males) and 3.2% (females) per year since the early 1990s. The five-year relative survival ratio for esophageal cancer was 13% between 2004 and 2006, approximately a 3% increase since the period from 1992 to 1994. Projected incidence rates showed increases of 40% to 50% for esophageal adenocarcinoma and decreases of 30% for squamous cell carcinoma by 2026.
Although esophageal cancer is rare in Canada, the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma has doubled in the past 20 years, which may reflect the increasing prevalence of obesity and gastroesophageal reflux disease. Declines in squamous cell carcinoma may be the result of the decreases in the prevalence of smoking in Canada. Given the low survival rates and the potential for further increases in incidence, esophageal adenocarcinoma warrants close attention.
Gastro-oesphageal is one of the most common cancers worldwide. Evidence suggested that increased awareness of symptoms and earlier diagnosis could help improve treatment options and improve survival.
To derive and validate an algorithm to estimate the absolute risk of having gastro-oesophageal cancer in patients in primary care with and without symptoms.
Cohort study of 375 UK QResearch® general practices for development, and 189 for validation.
Included patients were aged 30-84 years, free at baseline of a diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal cancer, and without dysphagia, haematemesis, abdominal pain, appetite loss, or weight loss recorded in previous 12 months. The primary outcome was incident diagnosis of gastro-oesophageal cancer recorded in the next 2 years. Risk factors examined were age, body mass index, alcohol status, smoking status, deprivation, family history of gastrointestinal cancer, dysphagia, previous diagnosis of cancer apart from gastro-oesophageal cancer, haematemesis, abdominal pain, appetite loss, weight loss, tiredness, and anaemia. Cox proportional hazards models were used to develop risk equations. Measures of calibration and discrimination assessed performance in the validation cohort.
There were 2527 incident cases of gastro-oesophageal cancer from 4.1 million person-years in the derivation cohort. Independent predictors were age, smoking, dysphagia, haematemesis, abdominal pain, appetite loss, weight loss, and anaemia. On validation, the algorithms explained 71% of the variation in females and 73% in males. The receiver operating curve statistics were 0.89 (females) and 0.92 (males). The D statistic was 3.2 (females) and 3.3 (males). The 10% of patients with the highest predicted risks included 77% of all gastro-oesophageal cancers diagnosed over the next 2 years.
The algorithm has good performance and could potentially be used to help identify those at highest risk of gastro-oesophageal cancer, to facilitate early referral and investigation.
Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and its sequela, Barrett's oesophagus, are the major recognized risk factors for oesophageal adenocarcinoma, a tumour whose frequency has increased dramatically in Western countries over the past few decades. Barrett's oesophagus develops through the process of metaplasia in which one adult cell type replaces another. The metaplastic, intestinal-type cells of Barrett's oesophagus are predisposed to develop genetic changes that eventuate in cancer. This report reviews the recent controversy regarding diagnostic criteria for Barrett's oesophagus, and provides practical guidelines for identifying the condition. The risks and benefits of the proposed medical, surgical and endoscopic therapies for Barrett's oesophagus are discussed in detail, and the approach to management recently endorsed by the American College of Gastroenterology is summarized.
The Canadian Digestive Health Foundation initiated a scientific program to assess the incidence, prevalence, mortality and economic impact of digestive disorders across Canada. The current article presents the updated findings from the study concerning gastroesophageal reflux disease - a condition that develops when the reflux of stomach contents causes troublesome symptoms and/or complications (Montreal definition).
Long wait times for health care have become a significant issue in Canada. As part of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology's Human Resource initiative, a questionnaire was developed to survey patients regarding wait times for initial gastroenterology consultation and its impact. A total of 916 patients in six cities from across Canada completed the questionnaire at the time of initial consultation. Self-reported wait times varied widely, with 26.8% of respondents reporting waiting less than two weeks, 52.4% less than one month, 77.1% less than three months, 12.5% reported waiting longer than six months and 3.6% longer than one year. One-third of patients believed their wait time was too long, with 9% rating their wait time as 'far too long'; 96.4% believed that maximal wait time should be less than three months, 78.9% believed it should be less than one month and 40.3% believed it should be less than two weeks. Of those working or attending school, 22.6% reported missing at least one day of work or school because of their symptoms in the month before their appointment, and 9.0% reported missing five or more days in the preceding month. A total of 20.2% of respondents reported being very worried about having a serious disease (ie, scored 6 or higher on 7-point Likert scale), and 17.6% and 14.8%, respectively, reported that their symptoms caused major impairment of social functioning and with the activities of daily living. These data suggest that a significant proportion of Canadians with digestive problems are not satisfied with their wait time for gastroenterology consultation. Furthermore, while awaiting consultation, many patients experience an impaired quality of life because of their gastrointestinal symptoms.
Background & aims:
Guidelines recommend endoscopic surveillance of patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) to identify those with dysplasia (a precursor of carcinoma) or early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), who can be treated endoscopically. However, it is unclear whether surveillance increases survival times of patients with BE. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to qualitatively and quantitatively examine evidence for the association of endoscopic surveillance in patients with BE with survival and other outcomes.
Methods:
We searched publication databases for studies reporting the effects of endoscopic surveillance on mortality and other EAC-related outcomes. We reviewed randomized controlled trials, case-control studies, studies comparing patients with BE who received regular surveillance to those who did not receive regular surveillance, as well as studies comparing outcomes of patients with surveillance-detected EAC vs. symptom-detected EACs. We performed a meta-analysis of surveillance studies to generate summary estimates using a random effects model. The primary aim was to examine the association of BE surveillance on EAC-related mortality. Secondary aims were to examine the association of BE surveillance with all-cause mortality and EAC stage at time of diagnosis.
Results:
A single case-control study did not reveal any association between surveillance and EAC-related mortality. A meta-analysis of 4 cohort studies found lower EAC-related and all-cause mortality associated with regular surveillance (relative risk, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.50-0.71 and hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.94). Meta-analysis of 12 cohort studies demonstrated lower EAC-related and all-cause mortality among patients with surveillance-detected EAC vs. symptom-detected EAC (relative risk, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94 and hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.45-0.76). Lead- and length-time bias adjustment substantially attenuated/eliminated the observed benefits. Surveillance was associated with detection of EAC at earlier stages. A randomized trial is underway to evaluate the effects of endoscopic surveillance on mortality in patients with BE.
Conclusions:
In a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of surveillance in patients with BE, surveillance as currently performed was associated with detection of earlier stage EAC and may provide a small survival benefit. However, the effects of confounding biases on these estimates are not fully defined, and may completely or partially explain the observed differences between surveyed and unsurveyed patients.
The American Journal of Gastroenterology is published by Springer Nature on behalf of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). Ranked the #1 clinical journal covering gastroenterology and hepatology*, The American Journal of Gastroenterology (AJG) provides practical and professional support for clinicians dealing with the gastroenterological disorders seen most often in patients. Published with practicing clinicians in mind, the journal aims to be easily accessible, organizing its content by topic, both online and in print. www.amjgastro.com, *2007 Journal Citation Report (Thomson Reuters, 2008)
Objectives:
Endoscopic surveillance of patients with Barrett's Esophagus (BE) is recommended to detect esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and its dysplasia precursors, but survival benefits are unclear. Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) and linked Medicare data, we sought to determine the impact of a prior BE diagnosis on survival in patients with EAC.
Methods:
Our analysis focused on patients over age 65 with primary EAC diagnosed in a SEER region from 2000-2011 and enrolled in Medicare. We identified patients with preexisting BE prior to EAC diagnosis and compared this group to EAC patients without a prior BE diagnosis. A Cox Proportional Hazards model compared survival and included variables such as age, sex, cancer stage, treatment, and medical comorbidities.
Results:
Among 4,978 SEER-Medicare patients identified with EAC, 577 (12%) had preexisting BE; 4,401 (88%) did not. BE patients had overall lower stage (28.5% stage I vs. 12.8% stage IV) than those without preexisting BE (16.4% stage I vs. 30.6% stage IV). Overall survival was better among patients in the BE group (hazard ratio (HR), 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.50-0.61); this benefit persisted in the adjusted model (HR, 0.72; 95%, 0.65-0.80). After adjusting for lead-time bias, the HRs attenuated to the null, with an unadjusted HR of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.86-1.05, P=0.39) and adjusted HR of 0.99 (CI: 0.89-1.10, P=0.92).
Conclusions:
Survival outcomes in patients with a BE diagnosis prior to EAC were statistically better in both the unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards model. However, this benefit appears to be predominantly lead-time and length-time bias.Am J Gastroenterol advance online publication, 4 April 2017; doi:10.1038/ajg.2017.82.
The purpose of this clinical practice update expert review is to define the key principles in the diagnosis and management of low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett’s esophagus patients.
The best practices outlined in this review are based on relevant publications, including systematic reviews and expert opinion (when applicable).
Practice Advice 1: The extent of Barrett’s esophagus should be defined 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 visible lesions (nodularity, ulceration) when present.
Practice Advice 2: Given the significant interobserver variability among pathologists, the diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus with LGD should be confirmed by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist (defined as a pathologist with a special interest in Barrett’s esophagus–related neoplasia who is recognized as an expert in this field by his/her peers).
Practice Advice 3: Expert pathologists should report audits of their diagnosed cases of LGD, such as the frequency of LGD diagnosed among surveillance patients and/or the difference in incidence of neoplastic progression among patients diagnosed with LGD vs nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus.
Practice Advice 4: Patients in whom the diagnosis of LGD is downgraded to nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus should be managed as nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus.
Practice Advice 5: In Barrett’s esophagus patients with confirmed LGD (based on expert gastrointestinal pathology review), repeat upper endoscopy using high-definition/high-resolution white-light endoscopy should be performed under maximal acid suppression (twice daily dosing of proton pump inhibitor therapy) in 8–12 weeks.
Practice Advice 6: Under ideal circumstances, surveillance biopsies should not be performed in the presence of active inflammation (erosive esophagitis, Los Angeles grade C and D). Pathologists should be informed if biopsies are obtained in the setting of erosive esophagitis and if pathology findings suggest LGD, or if no biopsies are obtained, surveillance biopsies should be repeated after the anti-reflux regimen has been further intensified.
Practice Advice 7: Surveillance biopsies should be performed in a four-quadrant fashion every 1–2 cm with target biopsies obtained from visible lesions taken first.
Practice Advice 8: Patients with a confirmed histologic diagnosis of LGD should be referred to an endoscopist with expertise in managing Barrett’s esophagus–related neoplasia practicing at centers equipped with high-definition endoscopy and capable of performing endoscopic resection and ablation.
Practice Advice 9: Endoscopic resection should be performed in Barrett’s esophagus patients with LGD with endoscopically visible abnormalities (no matter how subtle) in order to accurately assess the grade of dysplasia.
Practice Advice 10: In patients with confirmed Barrett’s esophagus with LGD by expert GI pathology review that persists on a second endoscopy, despite intensification of acid-suppressive therapy, risks and benefits of management options of endoscopic eradication therapy (specifically adverse events associated with endoscopic resection and ablation), and ongoing surveillance should be discussed and documented.
Practice Advice 11: Endoscopic eradication therapy should be considered in patients with confirmed and persistent LGD with the goal of achieving complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia.
Practice Advice 12: Patients with LGD undergoing surveillance rather than endoscopic eradication therapy should undergo surveillance every 6 months times 2, then annually unless there is reversion to nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus. Biopsies should be obtained in 4-quadrants every 1–2 cm and of any visible lesions.
Practice Advice 13: In patients with Barrett’s esophagus–related LGD undergoing ablative therapy, radiofrequency ablation should be used.
Practice Advice 14: Patients completing endoscopic eradication therapy should be enrolled in an endoscopic surveillance program. Patients who have achieved complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia should undergo surveillance every year for 2 years and then every 3 years thereafter to detect recurrent intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia. Patients who have not achieved complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia should undergo surveillance every 6 months for 1 year after the last endoscopy, then annually for 2 years, then every 3 years thereafter.
Practice Advice 15: Following endoscopic eradication therapy, the biopsy protocol of obtaining biopsies in 4 quadrants every 2 cm throughout the length of the original Barrett’s esophagus segment and any visible columnar mucosa is suggested.
Practice Advice 16: Endoscopists performing endoscopic eradication therapy should report audits of their rates of complete eradication of dysplasia and intestinal metaplasia and adverse events in clinical practice.
Objective:
To investigate overall colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates, patterns in the use of types of CRC screening, and sociodemographic characteristics associated with CRC screening; and to gain insight into physicians' perceptions about and use of fecal occult blood testing [FOBT] and colonoscopy for patients at average risk of CRC.
Design:
Mixed-methods study using cross-sectional administrative data on patient sociodemographic characteristics and semistructured telephone interviews with physicians.
Setting:
Toronto, Ont.
Participants:
Patients aged 50 to 74 years and physicians in family health teams in the Toronto Central Local Health Integration Network.
Main outcome measures:
Rates of CRC screening by type; sociodemographic characteristics associated with CRC screening; thematic analysis using constant comparative method for semistructured interviews.
Main findings:
Ontario administrative data on CRC screening showed lower overall screening rates among those who were younger, male patients, those who had lower income, and recent immigrants. Colonoscopy rates were especially low among those with lower income and those who were recent immigrants. Semistructured interviews revealed that physician opinions about CRC screening for average-risk patients were divided: one group of physicians accepted the evidence and recommendations for FOBT and the other group of physicians strongly supported colonoscopy for these patients, believing that the FOBT was an inferior screening method. Physicians identified specialist recommendations and patient expectations as factors that influenced their decisions regarding CRC screening type.
Conclusion:
There was considerable variation in CRC screening by sociodemographic characteristics. A key theme that emerged from the interviews was that physicians were divided in their preference for FOBT or colonoscopy; factors that influenced physician preference included the health care system, recommendations by other specialists, and patient characteristics. Providing an informed choice of screening method to patients might result in higher screening rates and fewer disparities. Changes in policy and physician attitudes might be needed in order for this to occur.
Barrett's esophagus (BE) is among the most common conditions encountered by the gastroenterologist. In this document, the American College of Gastroenterology updates its guidance for the best practices in caring for these patients. These guidelines continue to endorse screening of high-risk patients for BE; however, routine screening is limited to men with reflux symptoms and multiple other risk factors. Acknowledging recent data on the low risk of malignant progression in patients with nondysplastic BE, endoscopic surveillance intervals are attenuated in this population; patients with nondysplastic BE should undergo endoscopic surveillance no more frequently than every 3-5 years. Neither routine use of biomarker panels nor advanced endoscopic imaging techniques (beyond high-definition endoscopy) is recommended at this time. Endoscopic ablative therapy is recommended for patients with BE and high-grade dysplasia, as well as T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma. Based on recent level 1 evidence, endoscopic ablative therapy is also recommended for patients with BE and low-grade dysplasia, although endoscopic surveillance continues to be an acceptable alternative. Given the relatively common recurrence of BE after ablation, we suggest postablation endoscopic surveillance intervals. Although many of the recommendations provided are based on weak evidence or expert opinion, this document provides a pragmatic framework for the care of the patient with BE.Am J Gastroenterol advance online publication, 3 November 2015; doi:10.1038/ajg.2015.322.
We recommend that uncomplicated GERD be diagnosed on the basis of typical symptoms without the use of diagnostic testing, including EGD. We recommend EGD for patients who have symptoms suggesting complicated GERD or alarm symptoms. We recommend that EGD not be routinely performed solely for the assessment of extraesophageal GERD symptoms. We recommend that endoscopic findings of reflux esophagitis be classified according to an accepted grading scale or described in detail. We suggest that repeat EGD be performed in patients with severe erosive esophagitis after at least an 8-week course of PPI therapy to exclude underlying BE or dysplasia. We recommend against obtaining tissue samples from endoscopically normal tissue to diagnose GERD or exclude BE in adults. We suggest that endoscopy be considered in patients with multiple risk factors for Barrett's esophagus. We recommend that tissue samples be obtained to confirm endoscopically suspected Barrett's esophagus. We suggest that endoscopic antireflux therapy be considered for selected patients with uncomplicated GERD after careful discussion with the patient regarding potential adverse effects, benefits, and other available therapeutic options. Copyright
Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), a disease with increasing burden in the Western world, especially in white men. Risk factors for BE include obesity, tobacco smoking, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). EAC is the most common form of esophageal cancer in the United States. Risk factors include GERD, tobacco smoking, and obesity, whereas nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and statins may be protective. Factors predicting progression from nondysplastic BE to EAC include dysplastic changes on esophageal histology and length of the involved BE segment. Biomarkers have shown promise, but none are approved for clinical use.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Barrett's esophagus (BE), a common condition, is the only known precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). There is uncertainty about the best way to manage BE, since most people with BE never develop EAC and most patients diagnosed with EAC have no preceding diagnosis of BE. Moreover, there have been recent advances in knowledge and practice about the management of BE and early EAC. To aid clinical decision-making in this rapidly moving field, Cancer Council Australia convened an expert working party to identify pertinent clinical questions. The questions covered a wide range of topics including endoscopic and histologic definitions of BE and early EAC; prevalence, incidence, natural history and risk factors for BE; and methods for managing BE and early EAC. The latter considered modification of lifestyle factors; screening and surveillance strategies; and medical, endoscopic and surgical interventions. To answer each question, the working party systematically reviewed the literature and developed a set of recommendations through consensus. Evidence underpinning each recommendation was rated according to quality and applicability.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
The incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma has risen rapidly over the past four decades. Unfortunately, treatments have not kept pace; unless their cancer is identified at a very early stage, most patients will not survive a year after diagnosis. The beginnings of this widespread problem were first recognized over 25 years ago, yet rates have continued to rise against a backdrop of much improved understanding and management of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. We estimate that only ∼7% of the 10,000 cases of oesophageal adenocarcinoma diagnosed annually in the USA are identified through current approaches to cancer control, and trace pathways by which the remaining 93% are 'lost'. On the basis of emerging data on aetiology and predictive factors, together with new diagnostic tools, we suggest a five-tier strategy for prevention and control that begins with a wide population base and triages individuals into progressively higher risk strata, each with risk-appropriate prevention, screening and treatment options.
The authors provide a state-of-the-art review of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and natural history of Barrett's esophagus and management options for the disorder.
Objectives:
Barrett's esophagus (BE) is associated with an increased risk of developing esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Patients with a known diagnosis of BE are usually advised to participate in an endoscopic surveillance program, but its clinical value is unproven. Our objective was to compare patients participating in a surveillance program for BE before EAC diagnosis with those not participating in such a program, and to determine predictive factors for mortality from EAC.
Methods:
All patients diagnosed with EAC between 1999 and 2009 were identified in the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry. These data were linked to Pathologisch-Anatomisch Landelijk Geautomatiseerd Archief, the Dutch Pathology Registry. Prior surveillance was evaluated, and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was performed to identify predictors for all-cause mortality at 2-year and 5-year follow-up.
Results:
In total, 9,780 EAC patients were included. Of these, 791 (8%) patients were known with a prior diagnosis of BE, of which 452 (57%) patients participated in an adequate endoscopic surveillance program, 120 (15%) patients in an inadequate program, and 219 (28%) patients had a prior BE diagnosis without participating. Two-year (and five-year) mortality rates were lower in patients undergoing adequate surveillance (adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.64-0.92) when compared with patients with a prior BE diagnosis who were not participating. Other factors associated with lower mortality from EAC were lower tumor stage (stage I vs. IV, HR=0.19, 95% CI=0.16-0.23) and combining surgery with neoadjuvant chemo/radiotherapy (HR=0.66, 95% CI=0.58-0.76).
Conclusions:
Participation in a surveillance program for BE, but only if adequately performed, reduces mortality from EAC. Nevertheless, it remains to be determined whether such a program is cost-effective, as more than 90% of all EAC patients were not known to have BE before diagnosis.
Background:
EGD screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) is costly, with insufficient evidence to support its effectiveness.
Objective:
To compare acceptance and tolerability of 2 novel, office-based, endoscopic screening techniques done on nonsedated patients.
Design:
Randomized block study design with allocation concealment.
Setting:
Outpatient clinic setting at a Veterans Affairs medical center.
Patients:
A total of 184 veterans with or without GERD symptoms.
Interventions:
Transnasal esophagoscopy (TNE) or esophageal capsule esophagoscopy (ECE).
Main outcome measurements:
Acceptance and tolerability of TNE and ECE and effectiveness of BE screening.
Results:
Esophageal screening was accepted by 184 of 1210 (15.2%) veterans. The majority were men (96%) and African American (58%), with a mean (± standard deviation) age of 58.9 (± 8.1) years. Five TNE participants (5%) and 2 ECE participants (2%) refused the assigned procedure after randomization (P = .25). Eleven patients (12.6%) randomized to TNE crossed the minimal clinically important threshold for overall procedure tolerability, as opposed to no patients randomized to ECE (P = .001). Effectiveness of BE screening was not significantly different in both procedures (TNE vs ECE = 3.2% vs 5.4%; P = .47). Overall, BE was present in 8 of 75 white participants (10.6%) and in 0 of 107 African American participants (P < .001).
Limitations:
The general veteran population may not reflect the screening population for BE.
Conclusion:
Despite a small proportion of veterans expressing interest in esophageal screening, both TNE and ECE were feasible in the outpatient clinic setting and were accepted by >95% of participants who did express an interest. Screening was effective only in white participants. Moderate differences in tolerability between TNE and ECE notwithstanding, cost considerations along with availability of equipment and trained personnel should guide the modality to be used for BE screening.
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 form of development and initial accuracy of non-invasive 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 which have the potential of making screening feasible and also highlight some of the challenges which will have to be overcome to develop an effective approach to improve the outcomes of subjects with esophageal adenocarcinoma.
Purpose of review:
To summarize the emerging data on the risk factors for Barrett's esophagus and risk stratification tools.
Recent findings:
Obesity, particularly abdominal obesity, is associated with Barrett's esophagus, likely because of both mechanical effects promoting gastroesophageal reflux and nonmechanical effects. Circulating peptides related to obesity alter the risk of Barrett's esophagus and may work synergistically with gastroesophageal reflux. Tobacco use is an underappreciated risk for Barrett's esophagus. A number of genetic variants have been associated with Barrett's esophagus, involving pathways in esophageal development. Risk stratification tools are becoming available that have modest discriminatory capability and good calibration.
Summary:
The developing understanding of risk factors for Barrett's esophagus is shifting the clinical guidelines to a nuanced approach incorporating multiple risk factors to select patients for screening for Barrett's esophagus.
The natural history of low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) is unclear.
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that reported the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and/or high-grade dysplasia (HGD) among patients with BE with LGD.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.
Patients with BE-LGD, with mean cohort follow-up ≥2 years.
Pooled incidence rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of EAC and/or BE-HGD.
We identified 24 studies reporting on 2694 patients with BE-LGD, with 119 cases of EAC. Pooled annual incidence rates of EAC alone and EAC and/or HGD in patients with BE-LGD were 0.54% (95% CI, 0.32-0.76; 24 studies) and 1.73% (95% CI, 0.99-2.47; 17 studies). The results were stable across study setting and location and in high-quality studies. Substantial heterogeneity was observed, which could be explained by stratifying based on LGD/BE ratio as a surrogate for quality of pathology; the pooled annual incidence rates of EAC were 0.76% (95% CI, 0.44-1.09; 14 studies) for LGD/BE ratio <0.15 and 0.32% (95% CI, 0.07-0.58; 10 studies) for LGD/BE ratio >0.15. The annual rate of mortality not related to esophageal disease in patients with BE-LGD was 4.7% (95% CI, 3.2-6.2; 4 studies).
Substantial heterogeneity was observed in the overall analysis.
The incidence of EAC among patients with BE-LGD is 0.54% annually. The LGD/BE ratio appears to explain the variation observed in the reported incidence of EAC in different cohorts. Conditions not related to esophageal disease are a major cause of mortality in patients with BE-LGD, although additional studies are warranted.
Barrett esophagus, a complication of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), predisposes patients to esophageal adenocarcinoma, a tumor that has increased in incidence more than 7-fold over the past several decades. Controversy exists regarding the issues of endoscopic screening and surveillance for Barrett esophagus, treatment for the underlying GERD, and the role of endoscopic eradication therapy.
To review current concepts on the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of Barrett esophagus; to discuss the importance of dysplasia and the role of endoscopic eradication therapy for its treatment; and to review current management guidelines.
MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched from 1984 to April 2013. Additional citations were obtained by reviewing references from selected research and review articles.
Risk factors for cancer in Barrett esophagus include chronic GERD, hiatal hernia, advanced age, male sex, white race, cigarette smoking, and obesity with an intra-abdominal body fat distribution. The annual risk of esophageal cancer is approximately 0.25% for patients without dysplasia and 6% for patients with high-grade dysplasia. High-quality studies have found no significant differences in cancer incidence for patients with Barrett esophagus whose GERD is treated medically or surgically. Endoscopic eradication therapy with radiofrequency ablation significantly reduces the frequency of progression to cancer for patients with high-grade dysplasia.
Endoscopic screening is recommended for patients with multiple risk factors for cancer in Barrett esophagus. For patients with Barrett esophagus without dysplasia, endoscopic surveillance at intervals of 3 to 5 years is recommended, and GERD is treated much as it is for patients without Barrett esophagus. Endoscopic eradication therapy is the treatment of choice for high-grade dysplasia and is an option for low-grade dysplasia. Endoscopic eradication therapy is not recommended for the general population of patients with nondysplastic Barrett esophagus.
Oesophageal adenocarcinoma will soon cease to be a rare form of cancer for people born after 1940. In many Western countries, its incidence has increased more rapidly than other digestive cancers. Incidence started increasing in the Seventies in England and USA, 15 years later in Western Europe and Australia. The cumulative risk between the ages of 15 and 74 is particularly striking in the UK, with a tenfold increase in men and fivefold increase in women in little more than a single generation. Prognosis is poor with a 5-year relative survival rate of less than 10%. The main known risk factors are gastro-oesophageal reflux, obesity (predominantly mediated by intra-abdominal adipose tissues) and smoking. Barrett's oesophagus is a precancerous lesion, however, the risk of degeneration has been overestimated. In population-based studies the annual risk of adenocarcinoma varied between 0.12% and 0.14% and its incidence between 1.2 and 1.4 per 1000 person-years. Only 5% of subjects with Barrett's oesophagus die of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. On the basis of recent epidemiological data, new surveillance strategies should be developed. The purpose of this review is to focus on the epidemiology and risk factors of oesophageal adenocarcinoma.
To assess the feasibility of unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) and video capsule endoscopy (VCE) as alternatives to sedated endoscopy (sEGD) as screening tools for Barrett esophagus (BE) and to obtain preliminary estimates of participation rates for sEGD, uTNE, and VCE when used for community BE screening in a population cohort.
From February 1, 2009, to May 31, 2010, patients from Olmsted County, Minnesota, who were older than 50 years and had no history of known BE were randomized (stratified by age, sex, reflux symptoms noted in a validated questionnaire) into 3 groups for esophageal evaluation with sEGD, uTNE, or VCE. Participation rates and safety profiles were estimated.
We contacted 127 patients to recruit 20 for each procedure arm (60 total). The probability of participation was 38% (95% confidence interval [CI], 26%-51%) for sEGD, 50% (95% CI, 35%-65%) for uTNE, and 59% (95% CI, 42%-74%) for VCE. Both uTNE and VCE were well tolerated without adverse effects. BE was identified in 3 patients and esophagitis in 8.
Unsedated techniques may be acceptable, feasible, and safe alternatives to sEGD to screen for BE in the community. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00943280.
The risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) in non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus (BO) may have been overestimated. The objective was to estimate the incidence of OAC in patients with BO without dysplasia.
The authors searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1966 to 2011 and performed a bibliographic review of previous publications, excluding abstracts, non-peer-reviewed publications and those not published in English, for prospective or retrospective studies of the incidence of OAC in patients with BO. They excluded patients with any degree of dysplasia at baseline and those without documented intestinal metaplasia. Studies were independently reviewed by two individuals. 57 of 3450 studies were included. The authors extracted information on number of patients with BO, length of follow-up, incident cases of OAC, mean age of patients, country of origin, whether prospective or retrospective, mean length of BO segments and mortality from causes other than OAC. Study quality was assessed by the Ottawa Newcastle criteria.
The 57 included studies comprised 11,434 patients and 58,547 patient-years of follow-up. The pooled annual incidence of OAC was 0.33% (95% CI 0.28% to 0.38%). Among 16 studies that provided appropriate information on mortality, there were 56 incident cases of OAC but 684 deaths from apparently unrelated causes. Among 16 studies that provided information on patients with short-segment BO, the annual incidence of OAC was only 0.19%.
The incidence of OAC in non-dysplastic BO is around 1 per 300 patients per year. The incidence of OAC in short-segment BO is under 1 per 500 patients per year.
Factors other than acid may play a role in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and its complications.
To assessed the role of bile acids in the pathogenesis of GERD, Barrett's oesophagus and Barrett's-related neoplasia.
We conducted a systematic review of computerised bibliographic databases for original articles involving humans or human oesophageal tissue or cells that assessed exposure to or manipulation of bile acids. Outcomes assessed included GERD symptoms; gross oesophageal injury; Barrett's oesophagus and related neoplasia; and intermediate markers of inflammation, proliferation or neoplasia.
Eighty-three original articles were included. In in vivo studies, bile acids concentrations were higher in the oesophageal aspirates of patients with GERD than controls, and bile acids infusions triggered GERD symptoms, especially in high concentrations or in combination with acid. In ex vivo/in vitro studies, bile acids stimulated squamous oesophageal cells and Barrett's epithelial cells to produce inflammatory mediators (e.g., IL-8 and COX-2) and caused oxidative stress, DNA damage and apoptosis. They also induced squamous cells to change their gene expression pattern to resemble intestinal-type cells and caused Barrett's cells to increase expression of intestinal-type genes.
In aggregate, these studies suggest that bile acids may contribute to the pathogenesis of symptoms, oesophagitis and Barrett's metaplasia with related carcinogenesis in patients with GERD. However, all study results are not uniform and substantial differences in study parameters may explain at least some of this variation.
Recent advances in the management of Barrett's esophagus may kindle enthusiasm for screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are recognized as relative risks for EAC. However, the absolute incidence of EAC in specific populations with GERD is unknown. We aimed to estimate the symptom-, age-, and sex-specific incidences of EAC, and place these incidences in the perspective of other cancers for which screening is endorsed.
A Markov computer model utilizing published and publicly available data was created to estimate the age- and sex-specific incidences of EAC in American white non-Hispanics with GERD symptoms.
The incidence of EAC in men younger than 50 years with GERD symptoms is very low (for instance, at the age of 35 years, incidence=1.0/100,000), and their incidence of colorectal cancer is relatively much higher (for instance, at the age of 35 years, incidence of colorectal cancer is 6.7-fold greater). The incidence of EAC in older men with weekly GERD symptoms is substantial (for instance, at the age of 70 years, incidence=60.8/100,000 person-years), but their incidence of colorectal cancer is at least threefold greater. The incidence of EAC in women with GERD is extremely low, and similar to that of breast cancer in men (for instance, 3.9/100,000 person-years at the age of 60 years).
Screening for EAC should not be performed in men younger than 50 years or in women because of very low incidences of cancer, regardless of the frequency of GERD symptoms. In white men with weekly GERD over the age of 60 years, the incidence of EAC is substantial, and might warrant screening if that practice is particularly accurate, safe, effective, and inexpensive.
Endoscopic screening has been proposed for patients with symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) in the hope of reducing mortality from oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Assessing the net benefits of such a strategy requires a precise understanding of the cancer risk in the screened population.
To estimate precisely the association between symptoms of GERD and oesophageal adenocarcinoma.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of population-based studies with strict ascertainment of exposure and outcomes.
Five eligible studies were identified. At least weekly symptoms of GERD increased the odds of oesophageal adenocarcinoma fivefold (odds ratio = 4.92; 95% confidence interval = 3.90, 6.22), and daily symptoms increased the odds sevenfold (random effects summary odds ratio = 7.40, 95% confidence interval = 4.94, 11.1), each compared with individuals without symptoms or less frequent symptoms. Duration of symptoms was also associated with oesophageal adenocarcinoma, but with very heterogeneous results, and unclear thresholds.
Frequent GERD symptoms are strongly associated with oesophageal adenocarcinoma. These results should be useful in developing epidemiological models of the development of oesophageal adenocarcinoma, and in models of interventions aimed at reducing mortality from this cancer.
Transnasal ultrathin esophagogastroduodenoscopy (N-EGD) with less gagging reflexes under non-sedation is likely suitable for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), however, N-EGD might have drawbacks, including its low image resolution. Limited information is available regarding the diagnosability of N-EGD for GERD. We compared the utility and gagging reflexes of three different endoscopies, including N-EGD, ultrathin transoral EGD (UTO-EGD) and conventional oral EGD (CO-EGD), in the diagnosis of GERD. We performed screening endoscopy in 1580 patients (N-EGD n=727, UTO-EGD n=599, CO-EGD n=254) and compared the frequency distributions of the severity of reflux esophagitis, hiatus hernia, and Barrett's epithelium to estimate the diagnostic performance of each endoscopy. We also analyzed patients' tolerability of endoscopy by the subjective evaluation of gagging reflexes. In the diagnosis of reflux esophagitis and Barrett's epithelium, there was no significant difference in the frequency distributions of the severity of the diseases among three EGDs. However, the incidence of Barrett's epithelium was higher than that in the previous nationwide survey of GERD in Japan. The evaluated size of hiatus hernia was smaller in N-EGD than in two other peroral endoscopies. The size of hiatus hernia correlated significantly with severity of gagging reflexes that was also lowest when diagnosed with N-EGD. N-EGD had an equivalent performance in the diagnosis of reflux esophagitis and Barrett's epithelium compared with CO-EGD. Enlargement of hiatus hernia induced by gagging reflexes was minimal in N-EGD, resulting in its better performance in the diagnosis of Barrett's epithelium.