A feasibility trial of Acetic acid-targeted Biopsies versus nontargeted quadrantic biopsies during BArrett's surveillance: the ABBA trial

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.

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.

The effect of procedural time on dysplasia detection rate during endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus

BACKGROUND : Endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) with Seattle protocol biopsies is time-consuming and inadequately performed in routine practice. There is no recommended procedural time for BE surveillance. We investigated the duration of surveillance procedures with adequate tissue sampling and effect on dysplasia detection rate (DDR). METHODS : We performed post hoc analysis from the standard arm of a crossover randomized controlled trial recruiting patients with BE (≥C2 and/or ≥M3) and no clearly visible dysplastic lesions. After inspection with white-light imaging, targeted biopsies of subtle lesions and Seattle protocol biopsies were performed. Procedure duration and biopsy number were stratified by BE length. The effect of endoscopy-related variables on DDR was assessed by multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS : Of 142 patients recruited, 15 (10.6 %) had high grade dysplasia/intramucosal cancer and 15 (10.6 %) had low grade dysplasia. The median procedural time was 16.5 minutes (interquartile range 14.0-19.0). Endoscopy duration increased by 0.9 minutes for each additional 1 cm of BE length. Seattle protocol biopsies had higher sensitivity for dysplasia than targeted biopsies (86.7 % vs. 60.0 %; P = 0.045). Longer procedural time was associated with increased likelihood of dysplasia detection on quadrantic biopsies (odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95 %CI 1.00-1.20, P = 0.04), and for patients with BE > 6 cm also on targeted biopsies (OR 1.21, 95 %CI 1.04-1.40; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS : In BE patients with no clearly visible dysplastic lesions, longer procedural time was associated with increased likelihood of dysplasia detection. Adequate time slots are required to perform good-quality surveillance and maximize dysplasia detection.

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.

Advanced imaging and artificial intelligence for Barrett's esophagus: What we should and soon will do

Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is a well-established risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma. It is recommended that patients have regular endoscopic surveillance, with the ultimate goal of detecting early-stage neoplastic lesions before they can progress to invasive carcinoma. Detection of both dysplasia or early adenocarcinoma permits curative endoscopic treatments, and with this aim, thorough endoscopic assessment is crucial and improves outcomes. The burden of missed neoplasia in BE is still far from being negligible, likely due to inappropriate endoscopic surveillance. Over the last two decades, advanced imaging techniques, moving from traditional dye-spray chromoendoscopy to more practical virtual chromoendoscopy technologies, have been introduced with the aim to enhance neoplasia detection in BE. As witnessed in other fields, artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized the field of diagnostic endoscopy and is set to cover a pivotal role in BE as well. The aim of this commentary is to comprehensively summarize present evidence, recent research advances, and future perspectives regarding advanced imaging technology and AI in BE; the combination of computer-aided diagnosis to a widespread adoption of advanced imaging technologies is eagerly awaited. It will also provide a useful step-by-step approach for performing high-quality endoscopy in BE, in order to increase the diagnostic yield of endoscopy in clinical practice.

Revising the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) research priorities: a research progress update

BACKGROUND

One of the aims of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to encourage high quality endoscopic research at a European level. In 2016, the ESGE research committee published a set of research priorities. As endoscopic research is flourishing, we aimed to review the literature and determine whether endoscopic research over the last 4 years had managed to address any of our previously published priorities.

METHODS

As the previously published priorities were grouped under seven different domains, a working party with at least two European experts was created for each domain to review all the priorities under that domain. A structured review form was developed to standardize the review process. The group conducted an extensive literature search relevant to each of the priorities and then graded the priorities into three categories: (1) no longer a priority (well-designed trial, incorporated in national/international guidelines or adopted in routine clinical practice); (2) remains a priority (i. e. the above criterion was not met); (3) redefine the existing priority (i. e. the priority was too vague with the research question not clearly defined).

RESULTS

The previous ESGE research priorities document published in 2016 had 26 research priorities under seven domains. Our review of these priorities has resulted in seven priorities being removed from the list, one priority being partially removed, another seven being redefined to make them more precise, with eleven priorities remaining unchanged. This is a reflection of a rapid surge in endoscopic research, resulting in 27 % of research questions having already been answered and another 27 % requiring redefinition.

CONCLUSIONS

Our extensive review process has led to the removal of seven research priorities from the previous (2016) list, leaving 19 research priorities that have been redefined to make them more precise and relevant for researchers and funding bodies to target.