Barrett's esophagus surveillance in a prospective Dutch multi-center community-based cohort of 985 patients demonstrates low risk of neoplastic progression

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on monitoring and management of Barrett's oesophagus and stage I oesophageal adenocarcinoma

Barrett's oesophagus is the only known precursor to oesophageal adenocarcinoma, a cancer with very poor prognosis. The main risk factors for Barrett's oesophagus are a history of gastro-oesophageal acid reflux symptoms and obesity. Men, smokers and those with a family history are also at increased risk. Progression from Barrett's oesophagus to cancer occurs via an intermediate stage, known as dysplasia. However, dysplasia and early cancer usually develop without any clinical signs, often in individuals whose symptoms are well controlled by acid suppressant medications; therefore, endoscopic surveillance is recommended to allow for early diagnosis and timely clinical intervention. Individuals with Barrett's oesophagus need to be fully informed about the implications of this diagnosis and the benefits and risks of monitoring strategies. Pharmacological treatments are recommended for control of symptoms, but not for chemoprevention. Dysplasia and stage 1 oesophageal adenocarcinoma have excellent prognoses, since they can be cured with endoscopic or surgical therapies. Endoscopic resection is the most accurate staging technique for early Barrett's-related oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Endoscopic ablation is effective and indicated to eradicate Barrett's oesophagus in patients with dysplasia. Future research should focus on improved accuracy for dysplasia detection via new technologies and providing more robust evidence to support pathways for follow-up and treatment.

Trends in prevalence of esophageal adenocarcinoma: Findings from a statewide database of over 6 million patients

Esophageal cancer (EC) is a leading cause of cancer-related death in the west 1 . Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) is the most common type of EC worldwide. However, in Western countries, including the United States, esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is the most common 2 . EAC is most common in the lower esophagus whereas SCC is most common in the middle and upper esophagus 3 . The incidence of EAC has increased dramatically in western countries over the past few decades. 2 3 The exact reason for this rise in EAC has not been clearly understood. However, an increase in the prevalence of EAC risk factors is postulated as a potential explanation 4 . Although there are many identifiable EAC risk factors, including gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), obesity, male sex, White race, and smoking 5 6 7 , Barrett's esophagus (BE) remains the major precursor lesion of esophageal adenocarcinoma. BE develops when there is a change in the normal squamous lining of the esophageal mucosa into intestinal metaplasia 8 9 . The incidence has also increased in the population over the past few decades 10 11 . There is a well-described progression within BE from non-dysplastic BE (NDBE), low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), intramucosal carcinoma (IMC), to invasive EAC 12 13 . Recent data suggest that the increased incidence of EAC may have plateaued 1 . However, we questioned whether the prevalence of EAC is still increasing, especially at younger ages in lieu of recent trends showing an increase in the prevalence of colorectal cancer in younger patients. These findings resulted in a lowering of the colorectal cancer screening age cutoff to 45 years from 50 years 14 15 16 . Therefore, we aimed to assess the time trends in the prevalence and incidence of EAC and some of its risk factors in a large population of patients in Florida and to assess these trends based on age categories. We hypothesized that the prevalence of EAC and BE has increased over time at younger age groups.

Diagnosis and management of Barrett esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

MR1 : ESGE recommends the following standards for Barrett esophagus (BE) surveillance:- a minimum of 1-minute inspection time per cm of BE length during a surveillance endoscopy- photodocumentation of landmarks, the BE segment including one picture per cm of BE length, and the esophagogastric junction in retroflexed position, and any visible lesions- use of the Prague and (for visible lesions) Paris classification- collection of biopsies from all visible abnormalities (if present), followed by random four-quadrant biopsies for every 2-cm BE length.Strong recommendation, weak quality of evidence. MR2:  ESGE suggests varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance are advised.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR3:  ESGE suggests that, if a patient has reached 75 years of age at the time of the last surveillance endoscopy and/or the patient's life expectancy is less than 5 years, the discontinuation of further surveillance endoscopies can be considered. Weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence. MR4:  ESGE recommends offering endoscopic eradication therapy using ablation to patients with BE and low grade dysplasia (LGD) on at least two separate endoscopies, both confirmed by a second experienced pathologist.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR5:  ESGE recommends endoscopic ablation treatment for BE with confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD) without visible lesions, to prevent progression to invasive cancer.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR6:  ESGE recommends offering complete eradication of all remaining Barrett epithelium by ablation after endoscopic resection of visible abnormalities containing any degree of dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. MR7:  ESGE recommends endoscopic resection as curative treatment for T1a Barrett's cancer with well/moderate differentiation and no signs of lymphovascular invasion.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR8:  ESGE suggests that low risk submucosal (T1b) EAC (i. e. submucosal invasion depth ≤ 500 µm AND no [lympho]vascular invasion AND no poor tumor differentiation) can be treated by endoscopic resection, provided that adequate follow-up with gastroscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and computed tomography (CT)/positrion emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in expert centers.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR9:  ESGE suggests that submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (tumor invasion > 500 µm into the submucosa), and/or (lympho)vascular invasion, and/or a poor tumor differentiation should be considered high risk. Complete staging and consideration of additional treatments (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and/or surgery) or strict endoscopic follow-up should be undertaken on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR10 A: ESGE recommends that the first endoscopic follow-up after successful endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) of BE is performed in an expert center.Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence. B:  ESGE recommends careful inspection of the neo-squamocolumnar junction and neo-squamous epithelium with high definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy during post-EET surveillance, to detect recurrent dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. C:  ESGE recommends against routine four-quadrant biopsies of neo-squamous epithelium after successful EET of BE.Strong recommendation, low level of evidence. D:  ESGE suggests, after successful EET, obtaining four-quadrant random biopsies just distal to a normal-appearing neo-squamocolumnar junction to detect dysplasia in the absence of visible lesions.Weak recommendation, low level of evidence. E:  ESGE recommends targeted biopsies are obtained where there is a suspicion of recurrent BE in the tubular esophagus, or where there are visible lesions suspicious for dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. MR11:  After successful EET, ESGE recommends the following surveillance intervals:- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of HGD or EAC:at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of LGD:at 1, 3, and 5 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

Development and validation of a prediction model for histologic progression in patients with nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus

OBJECTIVES

Patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) are at risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We developed a model to predict histologic progression in patients with nondysplastic BE (NDBE).

METHODS

A longitudinal study in three referral centers was performed between January 2010 and December 2019. As progression to low-grade dysplasia (LGD) can be considered an indication for ablative therapy, the study end-point was histopathologic progression to LGD, high-grade dysplasia, or EAC at 3 years after diagnosis. We used logistic regression to create the model. Seventy percent of the cohort were used to stem the model and the remaining 30% for internal validation.

RESULTS

A total of 542 patients were included, 69.4% of whom were male, mean age 62.2 years. Long-segment BE at index endoscopy was diagnosed in 20.8% of the patients. After a mean follow-up of 6.7 years, 133 patients (24.5%) had histologic progression. Our model identified a neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (odds ratio [OR] 2.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.77-2.32, P < 0.001), BE length (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09-1.36, P < 0.001), age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.05, P = 0.02), smoking (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.09-2.75, P = 0.04), and renal failure (OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.93-2.43, P = 0.07) as predictors of histologic progression at 3 years. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of this model were 0.88 and 0.76 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This novel, internally validated model may predict histologic progression, even in patients with NDBE who generally have low rates of progression over time, and may contribute to enhanced patient selection for more intense surveillance programs.

Effect of biopsy protocol adherence vs non-adherence on dysplasia detection rates in Barrett's esophagus surveillance endoscopies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background  Barrett's esophagus (BE) surveillance endoscopies are advised for early diagnosis of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Current guidelines recommend obtaining four-quadrant random biopsies every 2 centimeters of BE length alongside with targeted biopsies if visible lesions are present. Low adherence rates for this random biopsy protocol are widely reported. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect of adherence versus non-adherence to the four-quadrant biopsy protocol on detection of dysplasia in BE patients. Methods  We searched for studies that reported effects of adherence and non-adherence to the four-quadrant biopsy protocol on dysplasia detection rates in BE patients. Adherence was defined as taking a minimum of 4 quadrant random biopsies per 2 cm of BE segment. Studies with low risk of bias and without applicability concerns were included in a good quality synthesis. Pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI) of dysplasia detection rates were calculated. Results  A total of 1,570 studies were screened and 8 studies were included. Four studies were included in the good quality synthesis. In the pooled good quality analysis, four-quadrant biopsy protocol adherence significantly increased detection of dysplasia compared to non-adherence (RR 1.90, 95 % CI = 1.36-2.64; I2 = 45 %). Pooled RRs for LGD and HGD/EAC were 2.00 (95 % CI = 1.49-2.69; I2 = 0 %) and 2.03 (95 % CI = 0.98-4.24; I2 = 28 %), respectively. Conclusion  This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that four-quadrant biopsy protocol adherence is associated with increased detection of dysplasia in BE patients. Efforts should be made to increase biopsy protocol adherence rates.

Impact of expert center endoscopic assessment of confirmed low grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus diagnosed in community hospitals

BACKGROUND : The optimal management for patients with low grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett's esophagus (BE) is unclear. According to the Dutch national guideline, all patients with LGD with histological confirmation of the diagnosis by an expert pathologist (i. e. "confirmed LGD"), are referred for a dedicated re-staging endoscopy at an expert center. We aimed to assess the diagnostic value of re-staging endoscopy by an expert endoscopist for patients with confirmed LGD. METHODS : This retrospective cohort study included all patients with flat BE diagnosed in a community hospital who had confirmed LGD and were referred to one of the nine Barrett Expert Centers (BECs) in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with prevalent high grade dysplasia (HGD) or cancer during re-staging in a BEC. RESULTS : Of the 248 patients with confirmed LGD, re-staging in the BEC revealed HGD or cancer in 23 % (57/248). In 79 % (45/57), HGD or cancer in a newly detected visible lesion was diagnosed. Of the remaining patients, re-staging in the BEC showed a second diagnosis of confirmed LGD in 68 % (168/248), while the remaining 9 % (23/248) had nondysplastic BE. CONCLUSION : One quarter of patients with apparent flat BE with confirmed LGD diagnosed in a community hospital had prevalent HGD or cancer after re-staging at an expert center. This endorses the advice to refer patients with confirmed LGD, including in the absence of visible lesions, to an expert center for re-staging endoscopy.

Today’s Mistakes and Tomorrow’s Wisdom in Development and Use of Biomarkers for Barrett’s Esophagus

<b><i>Background:</i></b> A histological diagnosis of dysplasia is our current best predictor of progression in Barrett’s esophagus (BE), the precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Despite periodic endoscopic surveillance and assessment of dysplastic changes, we fail to identify the majority of those who progress before the development of EAC, whereas the majority of patients undergo endoscopy without showing progression. <b><i>Summary:</i></b> Low-grade dysplasia (LGD), confirmed by expert pathologists, identifies BE patients at higher risk for progression, but the diagnosis of LGD is challenging. Recent research indicates that progression from BE to EAC is heterogeneous and can accelerate via genome doubling and genome catastrophes, resulting in different ways to progression. We identified 3 target areas, which may help to overcome the current lack of an accurate biomarker: (1) the implementation of somatic point mutations, chromosomal alterations, and epigenetic changes (genomics and epigenomics), (2) evaluate and develop biomarkers over space and time, (3) use new sampling methods such as noninvasive self-expandable sponges and endoscopic brushes. This review focus on the state of the art in risk stratifying BE and on recent advances which may overcome the limitations of current strategies. <b><i>Key Messages:</i></b> A panel of clinical factors, genomics, epigenomics, and/or proteomics will most likely lead to an assay that accurately risk stratifies BE patients into low- or high-risk for progression. This biomarker panel needs to be developed and validated in large cohorts containing a sufficient number of progressors, with testing samples over space (spatial distribution) and time (temporal distribution). For implementation in clinical practice, the technique should be affordable and applicable to formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples, which represent standard of care.