Screening for Barrett's Oesophagus: Are We Ready for it?

Professionals' views on the justification for esophageal adenocarcinoma screening: A systematic literature search and qualitative analysis

Screening for early esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), including screening for its precursor Barrett's esophagus (BE), has the potential to reduce EAC-related mortality and morbidity. This literature review aimed to explore professionals' views on the justification for EAC screening. A systematic search of Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and PsycInfo, from January 1, 2000 to September 22, 2022, identified 5 original studies and 63 expert opinion articles reporting professionals' perspectives on EAC screening. Included articles were qualitatively analyzed using the framework method, which was deductively led by modernized screening principles. The analyses showed that many professionals are optimistic about technological advancements in BE detection and treatment. However, views on whether the societal burden of EAC merits screening were contradictory. In addition, knowledge of the long-term benefits and risks of EAC screening is still considered insufficient. There is no consensus on who to screen, how often to screen, which screening test to use, and how to manage non-dysplastic BE. Professionals further point out the need to develop technology that facilitates automated test sample processing and public education strategies that avoid causing disproportionately high cancer worry and social stigma. In conclusion, modernized screening principles are currently insufficiently fulfilled to justify widespread screening for EAC. Results from future clinical screening trials and risk prediction modeling studies may shift professionals' thoughts regarding justification for EAC screening.

Expanding beyond endoscopy: A review of non-invasive modalities in Barrett’s esophagus screening and surveillance

Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is a condition that results from replacement of the damaged normal squamous esophageal mucosa to intestinal columnar mucosa and is the most significant predisposing factor for development of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Current guidelines recommend endoscopic evaluation for screening and surveillance based on various risk factors which has limitations such as invasiveness, availability of a trained specialist, patient logistics and cost. Trans-nasal endoscopy is a less invasive modality but still has similar limitations such as limited availability of trained specialist and costs. Non-endoscopic modalities, in comparison, require minimal intervention, can be done in an office visit and has the potential to be a more ideal choice for mass public screening and surveillance, particularly in patents at low risk for BE. These include newer generations of esophageal capsule endoscopy which provides direct visualization of BE, and tethered capsule endomicroscopy which can obtain high-resolution images of the esophagus. Various cell collection devices coupled with biomarkers have been used for BE screening. Cytosponge, in combination with TFF3, as well as EsophaCap and EsoCheck have shown promising results in various studies when used with various biomarkers. Other modalities including circulatory microRNAs and volatile organic compounds that have demonstrated favorable outcomes. Use of these cell collection methods for BE surveillance is a potential area of future research.

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy for the detection of Barrett's esophagus: systematic review and meta-analysis

Conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy (cEGD) is currently the gold standard endoscopic procedure for diagnosis and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE). This procedure is however less suitable for widespread screening because of its invasiveness and costs. An alternative endoscopic procedure is unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, patient tolerability, technical success rate, and safety of uTNE compared with cEGD for detecting BE and related neoplasia. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies that reported the diagnostic accuracy of uTNE compared with cEGD for detecting BE and related neoplasia. Eight prospective studies were included, in which 623 patients underwent both uTNE and cEGD. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of uTNE for detecting columnar epithelium were 98% (95% CI 83-100%) and 99% (95% CI 82-100%), respectively. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of uTNE for detecting intestinal metaplasia in biopsies were 89% (95% CI 78-95%) and 93% (95% CI 71-98%), respectively. In three of the six studies that reported patient tolerability, a higher patient tolerability of uTNE compared with cEGD was reported. The technical success rate of uTNE ranged from 89% to 100% and no (serious) adverse events were reported. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence that uTNE is an accurate, safe, and well-tolerated procedure for the detection of columnar epithelium and can be considered as screening modality for BE.