Practice patterns among U.S. gastroenterologists regarding endoscopic management of Barrett's esophagus

Identification of visible lesions during surveillance endoscopy for Barrett's esophagus: a video-based survey study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Visible lesion (VL) detection is essential in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). We sought to assess the rate of VL detection by academic and community endoscopists using high-definition white-light endoscopy (HD-WLE) and narrow-band imaging (NBI) during surveillance endoscopy.

METHODS

Fifty endoscopists were invited to participate in a prospective video survey study. Participants viewed 25 standardized clips of patients referred for endoscopic therapy. Participants noted identification of anatomic landmarks and VLs using HD-WLE and NBI and reported practice-level data. The criterion standard of VL identification was established by consensus of 5 BE experts. Our primary outcome was the rate of VL identification using HD-WLE and NBI.

RESULTS

Forty-four of 50 participants completed the study (22 academic and 22 community). Compared with the criterion standard, participants did not identify 28% (HD-WLE) and 31% (NBI) of VLs. Community endoscopists had more experience (>5 years in practice: community 85% vs academic 54.5%, P = .041; >5 surveillance endoscopies a month: community 85% vs academic 31.8%, P = .046). Across all participants, VL detection using NBI improved significantly with a minimum of 5 surveillance endoscopies per month (area under the curve = .72; 95% confidence interval, .56-.85; P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite improved endoscope resolution and availability of virtual chromoendoscopy, the overall rate of VL detection remains low. Identification of VLs using NBI may be volume dependent. Further education and training efforts focused on VL detection during BE surveillance endoscopy are needed.

Prevalence of Barrett's esophagus in a Southern European country: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND

Identification of Barrett's esophagus (BE) with the treatment of dysplasia is essential to prevent esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Moreover, determination of BE prevalence is important to define subsequent management strategies. However, precise estimates on BE prevalence from several European countries are lacking. We aimed to determine BE prevalence in a Southern European country.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, multicenter study from November 2019 to February 2020 was performed defining BE as a columnar extent in the distal esophagus greater than or equal to 1 cm with intestinal metaplasia.

RESULTS

A total of 1550 individuals, 51% male with a mean age of 62 (SD = 15) years undergoing upper endoscopy were included. The overall BE prevalence was 1.29% (95% confidence interval: 0.73-1.85); significantly higher in men [2.05% (1.06-3.04)] vs. women [0.53% (0.01-1.04)]. Of the 20 BE patients, eight were newly diagnosed and 12 were under surveillance. The median extent was C3 (min 0; max 16) M4.5 (min 2; max 16). One patient each had EAC (0.06%) and high-grade dysplasia (0.06%) at the time of endoscopy. There was no difference in prevalence between geographical regions, centers, use of sedation or experience of endoscopists. Considering all reports, 93% used standardized terminology, 23% accurate photodocumentation and 69% photodocumented the esophagogastric junction (EGJ). Furthermore, 80% used Prague classification, 55% Seattle protocol, 60% distance to the squamocolumnar junction, 75% to the EGJ and 40% to the hiatal pinch. When considering only reports with EGJ photodocumentation or Prague classification, the prevalence was 1.78% (0.91-2.64) or 1.03% (0.53-1.53).

CONCLUSION

We report for the first time BE prevalence in Southern Europe and report a low overall prevalence in an unselected population. Future studies need to determine progression rates and how to improve quality metrics.

Attending Training Courses on Barrett's Esophagus Improves Adherence to Guidelines: A Survey from the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Little is known on practice patterns of endoscopists for the management of Barrett's esophagus (BE) over the last decade.

AIMS

Our aim was to assess practice patterns of endoscopists for the diagnosis, surveillance and treatment of BE.

METHODS

All members of the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy (SIED) were invited to participate to a questionnaire-based survey. The questionnaire included questions on demographic and professional characteristics, and on diagnosis and management strategies for BE.

RESULTS

Of the 883 SIED members, 259 (31.1%) completed the questionnaire. Of these, 73% were males, 42.9% had > 50 years of age and 68.7% practiced in community hospitals. The majority (82.9%) of participants stated to use the Prague classification; however 34.5% did not use the top of gastric folds to identify the gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ); only 51.4% used advanced endoscopy imaging routinely. Almost all respondents practiced endoscopic surveillance for non-dysplastic BE, but 43.7% performed eradication in selected cases and 30% practiced surveillance every 1-2 years. The majority of endoscopists managed low-grade dysplasia with surveillance (79.1%) and high-grade dysplasia with ablation (77.1%). Attending a training course on BE in the previous 5 years was significantly associated with the use of the Prague classification (OR 4.8, 95% CI 1.9-12.1), the top of gastric folds as landmark for the GEJ (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.27-4.74) and advanced imaging endoscopic techniques (OR 3.33, 95% CI 1.53-7.29).

CONCLUSIONS

Practice patterns for management of BE among endoscopists are variable. Attending training courses on BE improves adherence to guidelines.

A Pilot Study on Automatic Three-Dimensional Quantification of Barrett's Esophagus for Risk Stratification and Therapy Monitoring

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Barrett's epithelium measurement using widely accepted Prague C&M classification is highly operator dependent. We propose a novel methodology for measuring this risk score automatically. The method also enables quantification of the area of Barrett's epithelium (BEA) and islands, which was not possible before. Furthermore, it allows 3-dimensional (3D) reconstruction of the esophageal surface, enabling interactive 3D visualization. We aimed to assess the accuracy of the proposed artificial intelligence system on both phantom and endoscopic patient data.

METHODS

Using advanced deep learning, a depth estimator network is used to predict endoscope camera distance from the gastric folds. By segmenting BEA and gastroesophageal junction and projecting them to the estimated mm distances, we measure C&M scores including the BEA. The derived endoscopy artificial intelligence system was tested on a purpose-built 3D printed esophagus phantom with varying BEAs and on 194 high-definition videos from 131 patients with C&M values scored by expert endoscopists.

RESULTS

Endoscopic phantom video data demonstrated a 97.2% accuracy with a marginal ± 0.9 mm average deviation for C&M and island measurements, while for BEA we achieved 98.4% accuracy with only ±0.4 cm2 average deviation compared with ground-truth. On patient data, the C&M measurements provided by our system concurred with expert scores with marginal overall relative error (mean difference) of 8% (3.6 mm) and 7% (2.8 mm) for C and M scores, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed methodology automatically extracts Prague C&M scores with high accuracy. Quantification and 3D reconstruction of the entire Barrett's area provides new opportunities for risk stratification and assessment of therapy response.

Multinational survey on the preferred approach to management of Barrett’s esophagus in the Asia-Pacific region

BACKGROUND

Major societies provide differing guidance on management of Barrett’s esophagus (BE), making standardization challenging.

AIM

To evaluate the preferred diagnosis and management practices of BE among Asian endoscopists.

METHODS

Endoscopists from across Asia were invited to participate in an online questionnaire comprising eleven questions regarding diagnosis, surveillance and management of BE.

RESULTS

Five hundred sixty-nine of 1016 (56.0%) respondents completed the survey, with most respondents from Japan (n = 310, 54.5%) and China (n = 129, 22.7%). Overall, the preferred endoscopic landmark of the esophagogastric junction was squamo-columnar junction (42.0%). Distal palisade vessels was preferred in Japan (59.0% vs 10.0%, P < 0.001) while outside Japan, squamo-columnar junction was preferred (59.5% vs 27.4%, P < 0.001). Only 16.3% of respondents used Prague C and M criteria all the time. It was never used by 46.1% of Japanese, whereas 84.2% outside Japan, endoscopists used it to varying extents (P < 0.001). Most Asian endoscopists (70.8%) would survey long-segment BE without dysplasia every two years. Adherence to Seattle protocol was poor with only 6.3% always performing it. 73.2% of Japanese never did it, compared to 19.3% outside Japan (P < 0.001). The most preferred (74.0%) treatment of non-dysplastic BE was proton pump inhibitor only when the patient was symptomatic or had esophagitis. For BE with low-grade dysplasia, 6-monthly surveillance was preferred in 61.9% within Japan vs 47.9% outside Japan (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Diagnosis and management of BE varied within Asia, with stark contrast between Japan and outside Japan. Most Asian endoscopists chose squamo-columnar junction to be the landmark for esophagogastric junction, which is incorrect. Most also did not consistently use Prague criteria, and Seattle protocol. Lack of standardization, education and research are possible reasons.

An Urban Center Experience Exploring Barriers to Adherence to Endoscopic Surveillance for Non-Dysplastic Barrett's Esophagus

Background

Data regarding barriers to Barrett’s esophagus (BE) surveillance is limited. Studying an urban center population, we aimed to characterize non-dysplastic BE surveillance rates and identify health, racial, and socioeconomic disparities affecting surveillance.

Methods

Patients with biopsy-confirmed BE were retrospectively identified between January 2002 and December 2012. Non-dysplastic BE patients were analyzed for adherence to established surveillance guidelines. Demographic, racial, comorbidities, and socioeconomic variables were extracted. Annual gross income (AGI) was utilized as a marker of socioeconomic status (SES). Univariate and multivariate analyses compared adherent vs. non-adherent patients to surveillance guidelines.

Results

A total of 217 patients with non-dysplastic BE were analyzed. The majority were male (67.3%) and Caucasian (75.6%), with only 47.5% adherent with the first surveillance endoscopy. Patients with a high average AGI were more likely to be adherent with the initial surveillance endoscopy than those with low AGI (p=0.032). Initial compliance with first surveillance was associated with better surveillance at regular intervals (p=0.001). No significant differences in age, primary language, insurance type, marital status, or Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) between adherent and non-adherent patients were found.

Conclusions

Although overall adherence to guidelines was suboptimal, this study identifies important socioeconomic disparities in the endoscopic surveillance for non-dysplastic BE. Identifying and understanding the barriers to care among these lower socioeconomic groups may ultimately lead to improved screening compliance and early BE detection.

The global prevalence of Barrett's esophagus: A systematic review of the published literature

BACKGROUND

Determining the prevalence of Barrett's esophagus is important for defining screening strategies. We aimed to synthesize the available data, determine Barrett's esophagus prevalence, and assess variability.

METHODS

Three databases were searched. Subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were conducted and pooled prevalence was computed.

RESULTS

Of 3510 studies, 103 were included. In the general population, we estimated a prevalence for endoscopic suspicion of Barrett's esophagus of (a) any length with histologic confirmation of intestinal metaplasia as 0.96% (95% confidence interval: 0.85-1.07), (b) ≥1 cm of length with histologic confirmation of intestinal metaplasia as 0.96% (95% confidence interval: 0.75-1.18) and (c) for any length with histologic confirmation of columnar metaplasia as 3.89% (95% confidence interval: 2.25-5.54) . By excluding studies with high-risk of bias, the prevalence decreased to: (a) 0.70% (95% confidence interval: 0.61-0.79) and (b) 0.82% (95% confidence interval: 0.63-1.01). In gastroesophageal reflux disease patients, we estimated the prevalence with afore-mentioned criteria to be: (a) 7.21% (95% confidence interval: 5.61-8.81) (b) 6.72% (95% confidence interval: 3.61-9.83) and (c) 7.80% (95% confidence interval: 4.26-11.34). The Barrett's esophagus prevalence was significantly influenced by time period, region, Barrett's esophagus definition, Seattle protocol, and study design. There was a significant gradient East-West and North-South. There were minimal to no data available for several countries. Moreover, there was significant heterogeneity between studies.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to reassess the true prevalence of Barrett's esophagus using the current guidelines in most regions. Having knowledge about the precise Barrett's esophagus prevalence, diverse attitudes from educational to screening programs could be taken.

Shorter time to achieve endoscopic eradication is not associated with improved long-term outcomes in Barrett's esophagus

Quality indicators have been proposed for endoscopic eradication therapy of Barrett's esophagus (BE). One such measure suggests that complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) should be achieved within 18 months of starting treatment. The aim of this study was to assess whether achievement of CE-IM within 18 months is associated with improved long-term clinical outcomes. This was a retrospective cohort study of BE patients who underwent endoscopic eradication. Time to CE-IM was recorded and categorized as ≤ or > 18 months. The main outcome measures were recurrence of IM and of dysplasia after CE-IM, defined as a single endoscopy without endoscopic evidence of BE or histologic evidence of intestinal metaplasia. Recurrence was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional hazards modeling. A total of 290 patients were included in the analyses. The baseline histology was high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal carcinoma in 74.2% of patients. CE-IM was achieved in 85.5% of patients, and 54.1% of the cohort achieved CE-IM within 18 months. Achieving CE-IM within 18 months was not associated with reduced risk of recurrence of IM or dysplasia in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. In this cohort, older age and increased BE length were associated with IM recurrence, and increased hiatal hernia size was associated with dysplasia recurrence. Compared to longer times, achieving CE-IM within 18 months was not associated with a reduced risk of recurrence of IM or dysplasia. Alternative evidence-based quality metrics for endoscopic eradication therapy should be identified.

Screening for Barrett's Esophagus: Balancing Clinical Value and Cost-effectiveness

In predisposed individuals with long standing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), esophageal squamous mucosa can transform into columnar mucosa with intestinal metaplasia, commonly called Barrett’s esophagus (BE). Barrett’s mucosa can develop dysplasia, which can be a precursor for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, most EAC cases are identified when esophageal symptoms develop, without prior BE or GERD diagnoses. While several gastrointestinal societies have published BE screening guidelines, these vary, and many recommendations are not based on high quality evidence. These guidelines are concordant in recommending targeted screening of predisposed individuals (eg, long standing GERD symptoms with age > 50 years, male sex, Caucasian race, obesity, and family history of BE or EAC), and against population based screening, or screening of GERD patients without risk factors. Targeted endoscopic screening programs provide earlier diagnosis of high grade dysplasia and EAC, and offer potential for endoscopic therapy, which can improve prognosis and outcome. On the other hand, endoscopic screening of the general population, unselected GERD patients, patients with significant comorbidities or patients with limited life expectancy is not cost-effective. New screening modalities, some of which do not require endoscopy, have the potential to reduce costs and expand access to screening for BE.

A Survey of Expert Practice and Attitudes Regarding Advanced Imaging Modalities in Surveillance of Barrett's Esophagus

BACKGROUND

Published guidelines do not address what the minimum incremental diagnostic yield (IDY) for detection of dysplasia/cancer is required over the standard Seattle protocol for an advanced imaging modality (AIM) to be implemented in routine surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) patients. We aimed to report expert practice patterns and attitudes, specifically addressing the minimum IDY in the use of AIMs in BE surveillance.

METHODS

An international group of BE experts completed an anonymous electronic survey of domains relevant to surveillance practice patterns and use of AIMs. The evaluated AIMs were conventional chromoendoscopy (CC), virtual chromoendoscopy (VC), volumetric laser endomicroscopy (VLE), confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE), and wide-area transepithelial sampling (WATS^3D). Responses were recorded using five-point balanced Likert items and analyzed as continuous variables.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 84% (61/73)-41 US and 20 non-US. Experts were most comfortable with and routinely use VC and CC, and least comfortable with and rarely use VLE, CLE, and WATS^3D. Experts rated data from randomized controlled trials (1.4 ± 0.9) and guidelines (2.6 ± 1.2) as the two most influential factors for implementing AIMs in clinical practice. The minimum IDY of AIMs over standard biopsies to be considered of clinical benefit was lowest for VC (15%, IQR 10-29%) and highest for VLE (30%, IQR 20-50%). Compared to US experts, non-US experts reported higher use of CC for BE surveillance (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

These results should inform benchmarks that need to be met for guidelines to recommend the routine use of AIMs in the surveillance of BE patients.

How Should We Report Endoscopic Results in Patient's with Barrett's Esophagus?

Barrett's esophagus is the only known pre-cancerous lesion for esophageal adenocarcinoma and is diagnosed by high-definition white light endoscopy demonstrating a columnar-lined esophagus along with biopsy evidence of intestinal metaplasia. With accurate performance and reporting of the endoscopic procedure, an evidence-based management strategy can be developed for treatment of Barrett's dysplasia. However, cross-sectional data demonstrate that there is still inconsistency among gastroenterologists in performance and reporting of endoscopic findings in patients with Barrett's esophagus. Here, we present an evidence-based review of how to report endoscopic findings in Barrett's esophagus.

Adherence to quality indicators and surveillance guidelines in the management of Barrett's esophagus: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

 Adherence to quality indicators and surveillance guidelines in the management of Barrett's esophagus (BE) promotes high-quality, cost-effective care. The aims of this study were (1) to evaluate adherence to standardized classification (Prague Criteria) and systematic (four-quadrant) biopsy protocol, (2) to identify predictors of practice patterns, and (3) to assess adherence to surveillance guidelines for non-dysplastic BE (NDBE).

METHODS

 This was a single-center retrospective study of esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) performed for BE (June 2008 to December 2015). Patient demographics, procedure characteristics, and histology results were obtained from the procedure report-generating database and chart review. Adherence to Prague Criteria and systematic biopsies was based on operative report documentation. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of practice patterns. Guideline adherent surveillance EGD was defined as those performed within 6 months of the recommended 3- to 5-year interval.

RESULTS

 In total, 397 patients (66.5 % male; mean age 60.1 ± 12.5 years) had an index EGD during the study period. Adherence to Prague Criteria and systematic biopsies was 27.4 % and 24.1 %, respectively. Endoscopists who performed therapeutic interventions for BE were more likely to use the Prague Criteria (OR: 3.16; 95 %CI: 1.47 - 6.82; P  < 0.01) than those who did not. Longer time in practice was positively associated with adherence to Prague Criteria (OR 1.07; 95 %CI: 1.02 - 1.12; P  < 0.01) but with a lower likelihood of performing systematic biopsies (OR 0.91; 95 %CI: 0.85 - 0.97; P  < 0.01). More than half (55.6 %) of patients with NDBE underwent surveillance EGD sooner (range 1 - 29 months) than the recommended interval.

CONCLUSION

 Adherence to quality indicators and surveillance guidelines in BE is low. Operator characteristics, including experience with endoscopic therapy for BE and time in practice predicted practice pattern. Future efforts are needed to reduce variability in practice and promote high-value care.

Adherence to Surveillance Guidelines in Nondysplastic Barrett's Esophagus

INTRODUCTION

Surveillance patterns in Barrett's esophagus (BE) are not well characterized. Guidelines published between 2002 and 2008 recommended surveillance esophagogastroduodenoscopy (sEGD) at 3-year intervals for nondysplastic BE (NDBE). We assessed guideline adherence in incident NDBE in a Veterans Affairs (VA)-based study.

METHODS

At a single VA center, we identified incident cases of biopsy-confirmed NDBE between January, 2006 and December, 2008. We excluded patients aged 76 years and above and those who developed BE-associated dysplasia or cancer during follow-up. All sEGDs through October, 2014 were documented. Our primary criteria classified cases as guideline adherent if a sEGD was performed within 6 months of each expected 3-year surveillance interval; in cases with ≥2 sEGDs, 1 sEGD >6 months, and ≤1 year outside an interval was allowed if the average interval was between 2.5 and 3.5 years. Comorbidity, primary care encounters, presence of long-segment BE (LSBE), endoscopist recommendations, and Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) were assessed.

RESULTS

We identified 110 patients (96.4% male, 93.6% white) with mean age 58.9±8.5 years at index EGD. Median follow-up was 6.7 years (range, 3.7 to 8.6). Thirty-three (30.0%) cases were guideline adherent; 77 (70.0%) cases were nonadherent, including 52 (47.3%) with irregular surveillance and 25 (22.7%) with no surveillance. Forty cases (14 adherent) had 1 sEGD, 36 (18 adherent) had 2, 8 (1 adherent) had 3, and 1 nonadherent case had 4. Adherent cases were significantly older (61.5 vs. 57.9 y, P=0.04), and tended to have more LSBE (33.3% vs. 20.8%, P=0.16). There were no differences between adherent and nonadherent cases in annual primary care encounters (72.7% vs. 66.2%, P=0.66), CCI≥4 (15.2% vs. 15.6%, P=0.95), biopsy-positive sEGDs (75.8% vs. 76.6%, P=0.92), and any recommendation for subsequent surveillance (81.8% vs. 77.9%, P=0.65). A logistic regression model using age, CCI, and LSBE showed an independent association between adherence and older age (P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

In a single-center VA cohort, sEGD of NDBE was mostly nonadherent to guidelines. Adherent cases were older at baseline with a trend toward more LSBE. A larger study is needed to identify medical and social factors associated with adherence or nonadherence to surveillance.

Endoscopic therapy for Barrett's high grade dysplasia and intramucosal esophageal cancer is effective in community clinical practice by advanced endoscopists following multidisciplinary approach

Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia (BEHGD) and intramucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma (IMC) can be treated by radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Efficacy of RFA and EMR in academic medical centers has been demonstrated in previous studies. However, the clinical effectiveness of this approach in community clinical practice is not fully established.All patients with biopsy-proven BEHGD and IMC (T1a), who were treated endoscopically between 2007 and 2014, were prospectively enrolled. Treatment algorithms were determined by consensus opinion after presentation at gastrointestinal tumor board. Patients underwent EMR and/or RFA until eradication-of-dysplasia and complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) was achieved. Patients were then enrolled in an endoscopic surveillance program.A total of 60 patients underwent endoscopic therapy for BEHGD (32) or IMC (28). Median length BE was 4 cm. Forty-six patients had EMR. Median treatment interval was nine months. Median follow-up was 33 months (Interquartile range: 16-50). Fifty-five (92%) patients achieved eradication-of-dysplasia and 52(87%) CRIM. One patient with BEHGD did not achieve any benefit six months into treatment. Nine (15%) patients relapsed after CRIM with nondysplastic-BE (6), BE with low-grade dysplasia (1), and BEHGD (2). After retreatment, eradication-of-intestinal metaplasia was achieved in five patients. BE length was a negative predictor for achieving CRIM (OR 0.81; P = 0.04). There were no procedure-related severe complications. Eleven patients with prior EMR developed symptomatic strictures, which were all successfully dilated.Endoscopic management of BEHGD and IMC can be safely and effectively performed in a community clinical practice similarly to high-volume academic medical centers when performed by advanced endoscopists following multidisciplinary approach.

Columnar islands in Barrett's esophagus: Do they impact Prague C&M criteria and dysplasia grade?

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The standard for classifying Barrett's metaplasia on endoscopy, the Prague C&M criteria, ignores all islands of metaplastic-appearing tissue. The aims of the present study were to measure the prevalence of columnar islands, quantify their impact on metaplasia extent, and determine if they harbor advanced dysplasia.

METHODS

Data from two prospective patient cohorts were retrospectively analyzed. They included adults who underwent upper endoscopy to evaluate for gastroesophageal reflux disease, Barrett's esophagus (BE), dysplasia, or adenocarcinoma between 2003 and 2012 at tertiary care centers in the USA and Germany. The BE pattern, location, and pathology were examined. The extent of BE as defined by the Prague criteria (disregarding the location of islands) was compared with the complete maximal extent of BE (incorporating the location of islands).

RESULTS

A total of 555 patients underwent endoscopy (mean age 60.1 years, 67.2% male, 91.9% white). Among those patients, 191 (34.4%) showed metaplastic-appearing mucosa in islands. Endoscopically, in 101 (52.9%) cases, islands were proximal to the farthest segment of BE as defined by the Prague M location. Histologically, intestinal metaplasia was confirmed in 60 (58.8%) of the 102 esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) where islands were biopsied. In 41 (40.2%) cases, the histologically confirmed BE islands extended farther than the maximal segment based on the Prague criteria. Pathology from biopsies of islands either changed the diagnosis or worsened the BE dysplasia grade in 16 (15.7%) of the 102 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Columnar islands are commonly seen on EGD. The Prague C&M criteria may underestimate the maximal extent of BE and overlook the area of highest dysplasia grade.

Organization of surveillance in GI practice

BACKGROUND

Several reports documented an inefficient utilisation of available resources, as well as a suboptimal compliance with surveillance recommendations. Although, evidence suggests that organisational issues can influence the quality of care delivered, surveillance protocols are usually based on non-organized approaches.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search (publication date: 01/2000-06/2016) on PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for guidelines, or consensus statements, for surveys of practice, reporting information about patients, or providers attitudes and behaviours, for intervention studies to enhance compliance with guidelines. Related articles were also scrutinised. Based on the clinical relevance and burden on endoscopy services this review was focused on surveillance for Barrett's oesophagus, IBD and post-polypectomy surveillance of colonic adenomas.

RESULTS

Existing guidelines are generally recognising structure and process requirements influencing delivery of surveillance interventions, while less attention had been devoted to transitions and interfaces in the care process. Available evidence from practice surveys is suggesting the need to design organizational strategies aimed to enable patients to attend and providers to deliver timely and appropriate care. Well designed studies assessing the effectiveness of specific interventions in this setting are however lacking. Indirect evidence from screening settings would suggest that the implementation of automated standardized recall systems, utilisation of clinical registries, removing financial barriers, could improve appropriateness of use and compliance with recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Lack of sound evidence regarding utility and methodology of surveillance can contribute to explain the observed variability in providers and patients attitudes and in compliance with the recommended surveillance.

Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus: A Retrospective Study Comparing the Endoscopic Assessment of Early Esophageal Lesions in the Community versus a Specialized Center

Specialized endoscopic evaluation for patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) is well supported; however, no studies have shown that centers with expertise provide better quality care for BE with high-grade dysplasia or early adenocarcinoma. In this study, the investigators aimed to evaluate the management and clinical course for patients treated in a community practice versus a specialized BE center. Methods. A retrospective analysis of referrals from the community to our specialized center for evaluation of BE at St Paul's Hospital Division of Gastroenterology between January 2007 and February 2014 was performed. Subjects were patients who were referred for BE and dysplasia and subsequently reevaluated by endoscopy. The pathology and endoscopy reports from the community and our center were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were as follows: being ≥ 19 years old and pathologic diagnosis of BE or dysplasia in the community. Exclusion criteria were as follows: incomplete pathology data or incomplete endoscopy reports from the community physicians. Results. A total of 77 patients were reviewed. The staging of 28.9% of patients referred from the community was changed from the initial pathological diagnosis. 18.4% of these patients were upstaged. Using Fischer's exact test, we showed that, in our specialized center, endoscopic impressions correlated significantly with pathology results (p < 0.0001).

ESGE Survey: worldwide practice patterns amongst gastroenterologists regarding the endoscopic management of Barrett's esophagus

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Barrett's esophagus is a common condition that is widely encountered in clinical practice. This European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) survey aimed to determine practice patterns amongst European clinicians with regard to the diagnosis and management of Barrett's esophagus.

METHODS

Clinicians attending the ESGE learning area at the United European Gastroenterology Week in 2014 were invited to complete a 10-question survey. This survey was programed on to two Apple iPads. Information was gathered with regard to demographics, practice settings, and diagnosis and management strategies for Barrett's esophagus.

RESULTS

In total, 163 responses were obtained. Over half of respondents (61 %) were based in university hospitals, the majority (78 %) were aged 30 - 50 and half had more than 10 years' experience; 66 % had attended courses on Barrett's esophagus and more than half (60 %) used the Prague C & M classification. Advanced imaging was used by 73 % of clinicians and 72 % of respondents stated that their group practiced ablation therapy. Most (76 %) practiced surveillance for non-dysplastic Barrett's, 6 % offered ablation therapy in some situations, and 18 % offered no intervention. For low grade dysplasia, 56 % practiced surveillance, 19 % ablated some cases and 15 % ablated all cases. In total, 32 % of clinicians referred high grade dysplasia to expert centers, with 20 % referring directly for surgery and 46 % using ablation therapy in certain cases. Endoscopic mucosal resection was the most commonly used ablation technique (44 %).

CONCLUSIONS

There has been reasonable uptake of the Prague C & M classification for describing Barrett's esophagus, and ablation is widely practiced. However, practice patterns for Barrett's esophagus vary widely between clinicians with clear guidance and quality standards required.

Comparison of endoscopic treatment modalities for Barrett's neoplasia

BACKGROUND

There are few data comparing endoscopic treatment outcomes for Barrett's esophagus (BE).

OBJECTIVE

To compare treatment outcomes in BE patients treated with radiofrequency ablation (RFA), RFA after EMR, and porfimer sodium photodynamic therapy (Ps-PDT).

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational study.

SETTING

Single tertiary center between 2001 and 2013.

PATIENTS

A total of 342 BE patients treated with RFA (n = 119), EMR+RFA (n = 98), and Ps-PDT (n = 125).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Rates of complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM), BE recurrence, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Baseline BE high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and adenocarcinoma were more common in the Ps-PDT group (89%) compared with the EMR-RFA (70%) and RFA (37%) groups. At a median follow-up of 14.2 months, 173 patients (50.6%) achieved CRIM. CRIM was significantly more common in Ps-PDT patients compared with RFA (P < .001) and EMR-RFA (P < .001) patients on multivariable analysis. In patients who achieved CRIM, the rates of subsequent BE recurrence were relatively similar among the 3 groups. Although the rates of bleeding were similar, strictures were less common in RFA patients (2.4%) compared with EMR-RFA (13.3%, P = .001) and Ps-PDT (10.4%, P =.043) patients.

CONCLUSION

This study of endoscopic treatment for Barrett's dysplasia and neoplasia found that complete remission was achieved more often and more rapidly after Ps-PDT with similar disease recurrence rates compared with EMR or RFA. Adverse events were more common after EMR and Ps-PDT. Further studies are required to determine which ablation and resection techniques are ideally suited for each BE patient.

Adherence to therapy for Barrett's esophagus-associated neoplasia

OBJECTIVES

Multiple endoscopic sessions may be necessary for treatment and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated neoplasia. Adherence to an endoscopic therapeutic regimen is important for longitudinal management of BE. The objective of this study was to identify the factors associated with adherence to therapy for BE-associated neoplasia.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified patients with BE whom were referred to a tertiary center for endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA) between 2009 and 2012. Demographic and clinical data were extracted from the medical record.

RESULTS

We had 69 subjects meet our inclusion criteria. Referral diagnosis was low-grade dysplasia in 9 (13%) subjects, high-grade dysplasia in 33 (48%) subjects and adenocarcinoma in 26 (38%) subjects. The majority (55%) lived more than 100 miles from the treatment center. The primary third-party payer was US Medicare for 54% of the subjects and private insurance for 36% of them; 45% of the subjects were seen in the clinic by the treating endoscopist, prior to endoscopic therapy and 71% underwent EMR as the initial treatment, while 29% underwent RFA without prior EMR. We found that 72% of subjects were adherent to therapy, including: 23 (33%) completing endoscopic therapy with documented post-treatment surveillance, 18 (26%) with ongoing endoscopic therapy, and 9 (13%) whom underwent esophagectomy. Subjects seen in gastroenterology clinical consultation were significantly more likely to demonstrate adherence than those referred for open access endoscopy (Lasso OR 2.31).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients seen in a clinical consultation prior to endoscopic therapy for BE-associated neoplasia were more likely to demonstrate treatment adherence, compared to patients referred for open-access endoscopy. A clinic visit prior to therapy may define expectations regarding treatment course and increase the likelihood of patient adherence.

Detection and staging of esophageal cancers within Barrett's esophagus is improved by assessment in specialized Barrett's units

BACKGROUND

Identification and resection of mucosal abnormalities are critical in managing dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE) because these areas may harbor esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).

OBJECTIVES

To compare mucosal lesion and EAC detection rates in dysplastic BE in the community versus a BE unit and assess the impact of EMR on disease staging and management.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary referral center.

PATIENTS

Patients with dysplastic BE.

INTERVENTIONS

Reassessment with high-definition white-light endoscopy (HD-WLE), narrow-band imaging (NBI), and Seattle protocol biopsies. EMR performed in lesions thought to harbor neoplasia. Review of referral histology and endoscopies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Mucosal lesion and EAC detection rates in a BE unit versus the community. Impact of EMR on management.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine patients were referred (88% male; median age, 69 years). At referral, HD-WLE/NBI use was 57%/14%, and Seattle protocol adherence was 20%. Eighteen patients had intramucosal cancer. Lesions were detected in 65 patients in the BE unit versus 29 patients at referral (P < .001). EMR was performed in 47 patients. BE unit assessment confirmed EAC in all 18 patients and identified 10 additional patients (56% increased cancer detection, P = .036); all 10 had lesions identified in the BE unit (vs 3 identified at referral). EMR in these patients found submucosal cancer (n = 4) and intramucosal cancer (n = 6), resulting in esophagectomy (n = 4) and chemoradiotherapy (n = 1).

LIMITATION

Academic center.

CONCLUSION

BE assessment at a BE unit resulted in increased lesion and EAC detection. EMR of early cancers was critical in optimizing patient management. These data suggest that BE unit referral be considered in patients with dysplastic BE.

Endoscopic mucosal resection or ablation for Barrett's esophagus containing high grade dysplasia: agreement strongest among expert gastroenterologists

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) plays an important role in the staging of Barrett's esophagus (BE) and the evaluation of high grade dysplasia (HGD). The study aim is to assess the interobserver agreement among gastroenterologists expert in BE endotherapy, gastroenterologists without specified expertise in BE endotherapy, and gastroenterology trainees in recommending EMR vs ablation for BE HGD lesions, and to assess the effect of a one-time educational intervention on the interobserver agreement among non-experts and trainees.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

An electronic survey containing 30 still endoscopic images of BE HGD was sent to three groups of respondents: experts, non-experts, and trainees. Respondents were asked to select "Endoscopic Mucosal Resection" or "Ablation" as the most appropriate next step in management. Non-experts and trainees were then invited to repeat the survey following an educational intervention. The main outcome measure was interobserver agreement measured by Fleiss' Kappa statistic and percent agreement.

RESULTS

In selecting between EMR and ablation, on the pre-intervention survey there was the highest amount of agreement among experts (kappa = 0.437), followed by agreement among trainees (kappa = 0.281), and non-experts (kappa = 0.107). Experts demonstrated significantly higher agreement compared to either trainees (P < 0.001) or non-experts (P < 0.001). On the post-intervention survey, interobserver agreement remained low among both trainees (kappa = 0.20) and non-experts (kappa = 0.14). Comparing the results of the surveys, there was no evidence that agreement differed for either trainees or non-experts.

CONCLUSIONS

Future efforts are needed to enable endoscopist recognition of BE HGD lesions. Consensus guidelines alone are insufficient in directing preferred endoscopic management of BE HGD.

Ablative therapy for esophageal dysplasia and early malignancy: focus on RFA

Ablative therapies have been utilized with increasing frequency for the treatment of Barrett's esophagus with and without dysplasia. Multiple modalities are available for topical ablation of the esophagus, but radiofrequency ablation (RFA) remains the most commonly used. There have been significant advances in technique since the introduction of RFA. The aim of this paper is to review the indications, techniques, outcomes, and most common complications following esophageal ablation with RFA.

Adherence to the 2011 American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement for the diagnosis and management of Barrett's esophagus

Considerable variability exists in adherence to practice guidelines for Barrett's esophagus (BE). Rapid advances in management approaches to BE led to a new American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) medical position statement in 2011. Our aim was to assess how well members of the AGA Clinical Practice section adhered to these guidelines. A self-administered survey incorporating questions on diagnostic criteria, cancer risk estimates, screening, surveillance, and therapeutics for BE was distributed electronically to 5850 North American members of the AGA Clinical Practice section. The response rate was 470 of 2040 opened e-mails (23%). Intestinal metaplasia was required for diagnosis of BE by 90%, but the Prague classification was used by only 53% of those aware of it. The annual risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma was reported as 0.1-0.5% by 76%. Screening practices were variable, with 35% screening all patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease and 15% repeating endoscopy in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease following a negative screening. Surveillance guidelines were followed by 79% for nondysplastic BE and 86% for low-grade dysplasia, with expert pathology confirmation of dysplasia reported by 86%. Proton pump inhibitor dosing was variable, with 18% administering twice-daily doses and 30% titrating dose to symptoms. Ablation therapy was recommended by 6% for nondysplastic BE, 38% for low-grade dysplasia, and 52% for high-grade dysplasia. There is satisfactory adherence to the new AGA guidelines with respect to diagnosis, cancer risk estimates, and surveillance intervals in a select group of respondents. However, adherence continues to be variable in the use of the Prague classification, screening, and dosing of antisecretory therapy. Use of ablation therapy increases with grade of dysplasia. The reason for continued variability in adherence to BE practice guidelines remains unclear, and more evidence-based guidance is required to enhance clinical practice.