Management controversies in Barrett's oesophagus

Limitations of endoscopic ablation in Barrett's esophagus

In the last 5-10 years, endoscopic ablative therapies have been gaining ground as treatment for Barrett's esophagus associated with high-grade dysplasia and early cancer, and they are becoming the most preferred technique over surgery as the standard of care. These therapies are associated with a lower rate of complications and mortality than surgery; studies have found them to be safe, effective and tolerable. Endoscopic ablative therapies are not, however, without their drawbacks. There is a paucity of data on long-term efficacy, and direct comparisons of the different modalities are lacking. Unlike surgery, current data suggest that endoscopic ablation treatments may not be curative in all patients, so patients require ongoing surveillance and acid suppression. Questions remain regarding durability as well as factors promoting recurrence after endoscopic therapy. The authors conducted a systematic review of the literature on ablative therapies in Barrett's esophagus to describe the modalities currently available and to provide an understanding of their limitations.

Photodynamic therapy vs radiofrequency ablation for Barrett's dysplasia: efficacy, safety and cost-comparison

AIM

To compare effectiveness, safety, and cost of photodynamic therapy (PDT) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in treatment of Barrett's dysplasia (BD).

METHODS

Consecutive case series of patients undergoing either PDT or RFA treatment at single center by a single investigator were compared. Thirty-three patients with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) had treatment with porfimer sodium photosensitzer and 630 nm laser (130 J/cm), with maximum of 3 treatment sessions. Fifty-three patients with BD (47 with low-grade dysplasia -LGD, 6 with HGD) had step-wise circumferential and focal ablation using the HALO system with maximum of 4 treatment sessions. Both groups received proton pump inhibitors twice daily. Endoscopic biopsies were acquired at 2 and 12 mo after enrollment, with 4-quadrant biopsies every 1 cm of the original BE extent. A complete histological resolution response of BD (CR-D) was defined as all biopsies at the last endoscopy session negative for BD. Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences between the two study groups for primary outcomes. For all outcomes, a two-sided P value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.

RESULTS

Thirty (91%) PDT patients and 39 (74%) RFA were men (P = 0.05). The mean age was 70.7 ± 12.2 and 65.4 ± 12.7 (P = 0.10) year and mean length of BE was 5.4 ± 3.2 cm and 5.7 ± 3.2 cm (P = 0.53) for PDT and RFA patients, respectively. The CR-D was (18/33) 54.5% with PDT vs (47/53) 88.7% with RFA (P = 0.001). One patient with PDT had an esophageal perforation and was managed with non-surgical measures and no perforation was seen with RFA. PDT was five times more costly than RFA at our institution. The two groups were not randomized and had different BD grading are the limitations of the study.

CONCLUSION

In our experience, RFA had higher rate of CR-D without any serious adverse events and was less costly than PDT for endoscopic treatment of BD.