Comparative Cost Effectiveness of Reflux-Based and Reflux-Independent Strategies for Barrett's Esophagus Screening

Barrett's Esophagus Risk Factors in Patients Without Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Large Population-Based Study

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is a lethal malignancy with an abysmal 5-year survival rate of <20%.1 Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the only known precursor to EAC.1,2 BE is characterized by intestinal metaplasia of the distal esophagus, typically arising in the setting of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).1 Hence, chronic GERD symptoms are an essential criterion for BE screening in most gastroenterology guidelines, alongside other BE risk factors including age >50 years, male sex, White race, history of tobacco smoking, hiatal hernia (HH) diagnosis, obesity, and family history of BE/EAC in first-degree relatives.1,3 Dysplastic BE and early stage EAC are amenable to endoscopic eradication therapy, highlighting the importance of BE/EAC screening and surveillance.4.

Algorithm Training and Testing for a Nonendoscopic Barrett's Esophagus Detection Test in Prospective Multicenter Cohorts

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) detection is invasive and expensive. Nonendoscopic BE/EAC detection tools are guideline-endorsed alternatives. We previously described a 5-methylated DNA marker (MDM) panel assayed on encapsulated sponge cell collection device (CCD) specimens. We aimed to train a new algorithm using a 3-MDM panel and test its performance in an independent cohort.

METHODS

Algorithm training and test samples were from 2 prospective multicenter cohorts. All BE cases had esophageal intestinal metaplasia (with or without dysplasia/EAC); control subjects had no endoscopic evidence of BE. The CCD procedure was followed by endoscopy. From CCD cell lysates, DNA was extracted, bisulfite treated, and MDMs were blindly assayed. The algorithm was set and locked using cross-validated logistic regression (training set) and its performance was assessed in an independent test set.

RESULTS

Training (N = 352) and test (N = 125) set clinical characteristics were comparable. The final panel included 3 MDMs (NDRG4, VAV3, ZNF682). Overall sensitivity was 82% (95% CI, 68%-94%) at 90% (79%-98%) specificity and 88% (78%-94%) sensitivity at 84% (70%-93%) specificity in training and test sets, respectively. Sensitivity was 90% and 68% for all long- and short-segment BE, respectively. Sensitivity for BE with high-grade dysplasia and EAC was 100% in training and test sets. Overall sensitivity for nondysplastic BE was 82%. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for BE detection were 0.92 and 0.94 in the training and test sets, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A locked 3-MDM panel algorithm for BE/EAC detection using a nonendoscopic CCD demonstrated excellent sensitivity for high-risk BE cases in independent validation samples. (Clinical trials.gov: NCT02560623, NCT03060642.).

Prevalence and Predictors of Barrett's Esophagus After Negative Initial Endoscopy: Analysis From Two National Databases

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Guidelines suggest a single screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in patients with multiple risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aimed to determine BE prevalence and predictors on repeat EGD after a negative initial EGD, using 2 large national databases (GI Quality Improvement Consortium [GIQuIC] and TriNetX).

METHODS

Patients who underwent at least 2 EGDs were included and those with BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma detected at initial EGD were excluded. Patient demographics and prevalence of BE on repeat EGD were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess for independent risk factors for BE detected on the repeat EGD.

RESULTS

In 214,318 and 153,445 patients undergoing at least 2 EGDs over a median follow-up of 28-35 months, the prevalence of BE on repeat EGD was 1.7% in GIQuIC and 3.4% in TriNetX, respectively (26%-45% of baseline BE prevalence). Most (89%) patients had nondysplastic BE. The prevalence of BE remained stable over time (from 1 to >5 years from negative initial EGD) but increased with increasing number of risk factors. BE prevalence in a high-risk population (gastroesophageal reflux disease plus ≥1 risk factor for BE) was 3%-4%.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study of >350,000 patients, rates of BE on repeat EGD ranged from 1.7%-3.4%, and were higher in those with multiple risk factors. Most were likely missed at initial evaluation, underscoring the importance of a high-quality initial endoscopic examination. Although routine repeat endoscopic BE screening after a negative initial examination is not recommended, repeat screening may be considered in carefully selected patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and ≥2 risk factors for BE, potentially using nonendoscopic tools.

Advances in Screening for Barrett Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), the primary form of esophageal cancer in the United States, is a lethal cancer with exponentially increasing incidence. Screening for Barrett esophagus (BE), the only known precursor to EAC, followed by endoscopic surveillance to detect dysplasia and early-stage EAC and subsequent endoscopic treatment (to prevent progression of dysplasia to EAC and to treat early-stage EAC effectively) is recommended by several society guidelines. Sedated endoscopy (the primary current tool for BE screening) is both invasive and expensive, limiting its widespread use. In this review, we aim to provide a comprehensive review of recent innovations in the nonendoscopic detection of BE and EAC. These include swallowable cell sampling devices combined with protein and epigenetic biomarkers (which are now guideline endorsed as alternatives to sedated endoscopy), tethered capsule endomicroscopy, emerging peripheral blood-sampled molecular biomarkers, and exhaled volatile organic compounds. We also summarize progress and challenges in assessing BE and EAC risk, which is an important complementary component of the process for the clinical implementation of these innovative nonendoscopic tools, and propose a new paradigm for the strategy to reduce EAC incidence and mortality.

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.

Prevalence of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma With and Without Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Although gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms are an essential criterion for Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening in most gastroenterology society guidelines, a significant proportion of BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) cases do not endorse them. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to study the prevalence of BE/EAC in those with and without GERD.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted through 5 major databases for studies reporting prevalence of BE/EAC in patients with and without GERD. Pooled proportions and odds ratios (ORs) of BE, long-segment BE, short-segment BE, dysplasia, and EAC in patients with and without GERD were synthesized.

RESULTS

Forty-three articles (12,883 patients with GERD; 51,350 patients without GERD) were included in the final analysis. BE prevalence was 7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.8%-8.5%) and 2.2% (95% CI, 1.6%-3%) among individuals with and without GERD, respectively. EAC prevalence was 0.6% (95% CI, 0.4%-1%) and 0.1% (95% CI, 0%-0.2%) in those with and without GERD, respectively. The overall risks for BE (OR, 2.91; 95% CI, 2.06-4.11) and long-segment BE (OR,4.17; 95% CI, 1.78-9.77) were higher in patients with GERD, but the risk for short-segment BE (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.89-3.52) did not differ between the two groups. In 9 population-based high-quality studies (2244 patients with GERD; 3724 patients without GERD), BE prevalence in patients without GERD was 4.9% (95% CI, 2.6%-9%). BE prevalence was highest in North American studies (10.6% [GERD] and 4.8% [non-GERD]).

CONCLUSIONS

BE prevalence in those without GERD is substantial, particularly in large high-quality population-based studies. These data are important to factor in future BE/EAC early detection guidelines.

Development of Electronic Health Record-Based Machine Learning Models to Predict Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Risk

INTRODUCTION

Screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) is suggested in those with risk factors, but remains underutilized. BE/esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) risk prediction tools integrating multiple risk factors have been described. However, accuracy remains modest (area under the receiver-operating curve [AUROC] ≤0.7), and clinical implementation has been challenging. We aimed to develop machine learning (ML) BE/EAC risk prediction models from an electronic health record (EHR) database.

METHODS

The Clinical Data Analytics Platform, a deidentified EHR database of 6 million Mayo Clinic patients, was used to predict BE and EAC risk. BE and EAC cases and controls were identified using International Classification of Diseases codes and augmented curation (natural language processing) techniques applied to clinical, endoscopy, laboratory, and pathology notes. Cases were propensity score matched to 5 independent randomly selected control groups. An ensemble transformer-based ML model architecture was used to develop predictive models.

RESULTS

We identified 8,476 BE cases, 1,539 EAC cases, and 252,276 controls. The BE ML transformer model had an overall sensitivity, specificity, and AUROC of 76%, 76%, and 0.84, respectively. The EAC ML transformer model had an overall sensitivity, specificity, and AUROC of 84%, 70%, and 0.84, respectively. Predictors of BE and EAC included conventional risk factors and additional novel factors, such as coronary artery disease, serum triglycerides, and electrolytes.

DISCUSSION

ML models developed on an EHR database can predict incident BE and EAC risk with improved accuracy compared with conventional risk factor-based risk scores. Such a model may enable effective implementation of a minimally invasive screening technology.

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Is Not a Great Screening Criterion: Time to Move on to Other Strategies for Controlling the Burden of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

ABSTRACT

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is key in the pathogenesis of Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Endoscopic screening of select individuals with GERD symptoms for Barrett's esophagus and EAC has been recommended, but the great majority of patients with EAC had never undergone prior screening, despite over a million esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) performed annually in the United States among individuals with GERD symptoms. This is likely due to a conflation among providers regarding diagnostic EGD in those with refractory symptoms and screening EGD. An alternative approach is needed that de-emphasizes GERD to avoid confusion and increase uptake of appropriate screening.

Utilization trends for endoscopic ablation therapy and esophagectomy in Barrett's esophagus from 2005 to 2019

Guidelines have shifted to now recommend endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett's esophagus (BE) with low and high-grade dysplasia. Previously, esophagectomy was the standard therapy for high-grade dysplasia. However, it is unclear to what degree ablation therapy has affected utilization of esophagectomy. In this retrospective observational cohort study of BE patients without cancer from the Premier Healthcare Database, the prevalence of utilization of endoscopic ablation therapy and of esophagectomy in BE were calculated and temporal trends were evaluated. A total of 938, 333 BE cases were included in the study. There was a significantly increasing trend of ablation over the period 2006 to 2010 (Annual Percentage Change (APC); 95% CI 0.56% [0.51%, 0.61%]), a significantly decreasing trend for the period 2011 to 2015 (APC; 95% CI - 0.15% [- 0.20%, - 0.11%]), and a shallow increasing trend for the period 2016 to 2019 (APC; 95% CI 0.09% [0.06%, 0.11%]). For esophagectomy, there was a significantly decreasing trend for the period 2006 to 2009 (APC; 95% CI - 0.03% [- 0.04%, - 0.02%]; P < 0.001) that corresponded to the uptrend in utilization of endoscopic ablation. There was a stable trend of esophagectomy over the period 2010 to 2019 (APC; 95% CI - 0.0006% [- 0.0002%, 0.0005%]; P = 0.1947). Adoption and increased utilization of endoscopic ablation therapy for BE has coincided with a decrease in esophagectomy, and is the predominate method of therapy for BE with dysplasia.

The Global Landscape of Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Incidence and Mortality in 2020 and Projections to 2040: New Estimates From GLOBOCAN 2020

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The aim of this study was to provide an overview of the burden of esophageal cancer in 185 countries in 2020 and projections for the year 2040.

METHODS

Estimates of esophageal cancer cases and deaths were extracted from the GLOBOCAN database for 2020. Age-standardized incidence and mortality rates were calculated overall, by sex, histologic subtype (adenocarcinoma [AC] and squamous cell carcinoma [SCC]), country, and level of human development for 185 countries. The predicted burden of incidence and mortality in 2040 was calculated based on global demographic projections.

RESULTS

Globally, there were an estimated 604,100 new cases of, and 544,100 deaths from, esophageal cancer in 2020, corresponding to age-standardized incidence and mortality rates of 6.3 and 5.6 per 100,000, respectively. Most cases were SCCs (85% [512,500 cases]) and 14% (85,700 cases) were ACs. Incidence and mortality rates were 2- to 3-fold higher in male (9.3 and 8.2, respectively) compared with female (3.6 and 3.2, respectively) individuals. Global variations in incidence and mortality were observed across countries and world regions; the highest rates occurred in Eastern Asia and Southern and Eastern Africa and the lowest occurred in Western Africa and Central America regions. If rates remain stable, 957,000 new cases (141,300 AC cases and 806,000 SCC cases) and 880,000 deaths from esophageal cancer are expected in 2040.

CONCLUSIONS

These updated estimates of the global burden of esophageal cancer represent an important baseline for setting priorities in policy making and developing and accelerating cancer control initiatives to reduce the current and projected burden. Although primary prevention remains key, screening and early detection represent important components of esophageal cancer control in high-risk populations.

Limitations of Heartburn and Other Societies' Criteria in Barrett's Screening for Detecting De Novo Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Despite extensive Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening efforts, most patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) present de novo. It is unclear how much of this problem is the result of insensitivity or poor applications of current screening guidelines. We aimed to evaluate the sensitivity of guidelines by determining the proportion of prevalent EAC cases that meet the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) or the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines for BE screening and determine whether changes to criteria would enhance detection.

METHODS

A retrospective single-center cohort from the United States (n = 663) and a prospective multicenter cohort from the United Kingdom (n = 645) were collected and analyzed independently. Screening eligibility was determined as patients with chronic reflux and at least 2 or more risk factors as defined by the guidelines. We calculated the proportion of screening-eligible patients and then compared BE/EAC risk factors between screening-eligible and screening-ineligible patients using the chi-squared or Student t test as appropriate.

RESULTS

In the Mayo clinic cohort there were 54.9% EAC cases and in the UK cohort there were 38.9% EAC cases that were not identified by ACG or BSG screening criteria, respectively. Among patients who did not meet the screening criteria, lack of heartburn was observed in 86.5% in the Mayo clinic cohort and in 61.4% in the UK cohort. Other risk factors that were lacking included obesity (defined as a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m²) and family history of EAC. Eliminating chronic reflux from the ACG/BSG criteria improved eligibility for screening from 45.1% to 81.3% (P < .001) in the Mayo Clinic cohort and from 61.1% (n = 394) to 81.5% (n = 526; P < .001) in the UK cohort. However, reflux may be difficult to ascertain from the history, and by including proton pump inhibitor use status in addition to the BSG criteria, screening eligibility improved by 10.0% in the UK cohort (n = 459; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

ACG/BSG BE screening guidelines have limited our ability to detect prevalent EAC. An optimized approach to identifying the individuals most suitable for EAC screening needs to be implemented, particularly one that does not rely on chronic reflux symptoms.

Esophageal adenocarcinoma phenotypes and risk factors

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has increased significantly over the last several decades. The majority of EAC patients present without a prior history of Barrett's esophagus (BE). As a result, endoscopic surveillance has made a suboptimal impact on EAC survival. These concerns raise serious question whether the time has come to take a different direction. The aim of this article is to review evolving evidence of EAC phenotypes and risk factors.

RECENT FINDINGS

A recent study has identified two phenotypes of EAC based on the presence or absence of intestinal metaplasia (IM) in the background of the tumor (BE/IM and non-BE/IM). The study found that one-half of patients with EAC have the non-BE/IM phenotype, which is associated with more aggressive behavior and worse survival. A retrospective review demonstrates that the proportion of the two phenotypes has been stable over the last decades. Similarly, the increasing incidence of EAC cannot be explained by an increased frequency of new, unique risk factors but rather by a higher prevalence of already known risk factors. Emerging data also demonstrates that, whereas reflux symptoms are an unreliable feature for screening regardless of phenotype, the absence of reflux symptoms is more common for the non-BE/IM. Differences in the degree of genomic methylation and immune response might explain the two phenotypes at a genomic level.

SUMMARY

EAC phenotypes have implications for tumor behavior and phenotypic differences might underlie our suboptimal screening efforts. Future screening efforts should not uniformly rely on reflux symptoms as a prerequisite for screening and should consider alternatives to the current screening strategy.

Endoscopic Screening Program for Control of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in Varied Populations: A Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Guidelines suggest endoscopic screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) among individuals with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and additional risk factors. We aimed to determine at what age to perform screening and whether sex and race should influence the decision.

METHODS

We conducted comparative cost-effectiveness analyses using 3 independent simulation models. For each combination of sex and race (White/Black, 100,000 individuals each), we considered 41 screening strategies, including one-time or repeated screening. The optimal strategy was that with the highest effectiveness and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.

RESULTS

Among White men, 536 EAC deaths were projected without screening, and screening individuals with GERD twice at ages 45 and 60 years was optimal. Screening the entire White male population once at age 55 years was optimal in 26% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis runs. Black men had fewer EAC deaths without screening (n = 84), and screening those with GERD once at age 55 years was optimal. Although White women had slightly more EAC deaths (n = 103) than Black men, the optimal strategy was no screening, although screening those with GERD once at age 55 years was optimal in 29% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis runs. Black women had a very low burden of EAC deaths (n = 29), and no screening was optimal, as benefits were very small and some strategies caused net harm.

CONCLUSIONS

The optimal strategy for screening differs by race and sex. White men with GERD symptoms can potentially be screened more intensely than is recommended currently. Screening women is not cost-effective and may cause net harm for Black women.

Incidence and Mortality in Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer After Negative Endoscopy for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is associated with an increased risk of cancer of the upper gastrointestinal tract. This study aimed to assess whether and to what extent a negative upper endoscopy in patients with GERD is associated with decreased incidence and mortality in upper gastrointestinal cancer (ie, esophageal, gastric, or duodenal cancer).

METHODS

We conducted a population-based cohort study of all patients with newly diagnosed GERD between July 1, 1979 and December 31, 2018 in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. The exposure, negative upper endoscopy, was examined as a time-varying exposure, where participants contributed unexposed person-time from GERD diagnosis until screened and exposed person-time from the negative upper endoscopy. The incidence and mortality in upper gastrointestinal cancer were assessed using parametric flexible models, providing adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Among 1,062,740 patients with GERD (median age 58 years; 52% were women) followed for a mean of 7.0 person-years, 5324 (0.5%) developed upper gastrointestinal cancer and 4465 (0.4%) died from such cancer. Patients who had a negative upper endoscopy had a 55% decreased risk of upper gastrointestinal cancer compared with those who did not undergo endoscopy (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.43-0.48), a decrease that was more pronounced during more recent years (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.30-0.38 from 2008 onward), and was otherwise stable across sex and age groups. The corresponding reduction in upper gastrointestinal mortality among patients with upper endoscopy was 61% (adjusted HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.37-0.42). The risk reduction after a negative upper endoscopy in incidence and mortality lasted for 5 and at least 10 years, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Negative upper endoscopy is associated with strong and long-lasting decreases in incidence and mortality in upper gastrointestinal cancer in patients with GERD.

Unsedated Transnasal Endoscopy: A Safe, Well-Tolerated and Accurate Alternative to Standard Diagnostic Peroral Endoscopy

Diagnostic unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) has been proven to be a safe and well-tolerated procedure. Although its utilization in the United Kingdom (UK) is increasing, it is currently available in only a few centers. Through consideration of recent studies, we aimed to perform an updated review of the technological advances in uTNE, consider their impact on diagnostic accuracy, and to determine the role of uTNE in the COVID-19 era. Current literature has shown that the diagnostic accuracy of uTNE for identification of esophageal pathology is equivalent to conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy (cEGD). Concerns regarding suction and biopsy size have been addressed by the introduction of TNE scopes with working channels of 2.4 mm. Advances in imaging have improved detection of early gastric cancers. The procedure is associated with less cardiac stress and reduced aerosol production; when combined with no need for sedation and improved rates of patient turnover, uTNE is an efficient and safe alternative to cEGD in the COVID-19 era. We conclude that advances in technology have improved the diagnostic accuracy of uTNE to the point where it could be considered the first line diagnostic endoscopic investigation in the majority of patients. It could also play a central role in the recovery of diagnostic endoscopic services during the COVID-19 pandemic.