BACKGROUND & AIMS: The optimal management of high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus remains controversial. A biopsy protocol consisting of 4 quadrant jumbo biopsies (every 1 cm) with biopsies of mucosal abnormalities (the Seattle protocol) is considered to be the optimal method for detecting early cancers in patients with high-grade dysplasia, although it has never been validated. This study aimed to determine the frequency of unsuspected carcinoma at esophagectomy in Barrett's esophagus patients with high-grade dysplasia who underwent the Seattle protocol and to compare the findings with those of a less rigorous biopsy protocol. METHODS: Thirty-three patients with high-grade dysplasia underwent esophagectomy. None had obvious mass lesions at preoperative endoscopy. Patients were divided into group 1 (preoperative surveillance biopsies according to Seattle protocol) and group 2 (4 quadrant biopsies every 2 cm). Preoperative and postoperative diagnoses were confirmed by 2 expert gastrointestinal pathologists. RESULTS: Unsuspected intramucosal cancer was found in 8 of 20 (40%) patients in group 1 versus 4 of 13 (30%) in group 2 (P = .6). Preoperative mucosal nodularity was observed in 4 of 8 (50%) postoperative intramucosal cancers from group 1 versus 3 of 4 (75%) from group 2. Multifocal high-grade dysplasia was seen preoperatively in 7 of 8 (87.5%) postoperative intramucosal cancers in group 1 versus 2 of 4 (50%) in group 2. No patient had submucosal cancer or lymph node metastases at surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Intense preoperative biopsy sampling by the Seattle protocol does not more reliably predict the detection of cancer at the time of esophagectomy than a less intensive surveillance protocol. This calls into question the concept that extensive sampling with the Seattle protocol consistently detects early cancers arising in Barrett's esophagus patients with high-grade dysplasia.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The optimal management of high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus remains controversial. A biopsy protocol consisting of 4 quadrant jumbo biopsies (every 1 cm) with biopsies of mucosal abnormalities (the Seattle protocol) is considered to be the optimal method for detecting early cancers in patients with high-grade dysplasia, although it has never been validated. This study aimed to determine the frequency of unsuspected carcinoma at esophagectomy in Barrett's esophagus patients with high-grade dysplasia who underwent the Seattle protocol and to compare the findings with those of a less rigorous biopsy protocol. METHODS: Thirty-three patients with high-grade dysplasia underwent esophagectomy. None had obvious mass lesions at preoperative endoscopy. Patients were divided into group 1 (preoperative surveillance biopsies according to Seattle protocol) and group 2 (4 quadrant biopsies every 2 cm). Preoperative and postoperative diagnoses were confirmed by 2 expert gastrointestinal pathologists. RESULTS: Unsuspected intramucosal cancer was found in 8 of 20 (40%) patients in group 1 versus 4 of 13 (30%) in group 2 (P = .6). Preoperative mucosal nodularity was observed in 4 of 8 (50%) postoperative intramucosal cancers from group 1 versus 3 of 4 (75%) from group 2. Multifocal high-grade dysplasia was seen preoperatively in 7 of 8 (87.5%) postoperative intramucosal cancers in group 1 versus 2 of 4 (50%) in group 2. No patient had submucosal cancer or lymph node metastases at surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Intense preoperative biopsy sampling by the Seattle protocol does not more reliably predict the detection of cancer at the time of esophagectomy than a less intensive surveillance protocol. This calls into question the concept that extensive sampling with the Seattle protocol consistently detects early cancers arising in Barrett's esophagus patients with high-grade dysplasia.
Authors: Cathy Bennett; Nimish Vakil; Jacques Bergman; Rebecca Harrison; Robert Odze; Michael Vieth; Scott Sanders; Laura Gay; Oliver Pech; Gaius Longcroft-Wheaton; Yvonne Romero; John Inadomi; Jan Tack; Douglas A Corley; Hendrik Manner; Susi Green; David Al Dulaimi; Haythem Ali; Bill Allum; Mark Anderson; Howard Curtis; Gary Falk; M Brian Fennerty; Grant Fullarton; Kausilia Krishnadath; Stephen J Meltzer; David Armstrong; Robert Ganz; Gianpaolo Cengia; James J Going; John Goldblum; Charles Gordon; Heike Grabsch; Chris Haigh; Michio Hongo; David Johnston; Ricky Forbes-Young; Elaine Kay; Philip Kaye; Toni Lerut; Laurence B Lovat; Lars Lundell; Philip Mairs; Tadakuza Shimoda; Stuart Spechler; Stephen Sontag; Peter Malfertheiner; Iain Murray; Manoj Nanji; David Poller; Krish Ragunath; Jaroslaw Regula; Renzo Cestari; Neil Shepherd; Rajvinder Singh; Hubert J Stein; Nicholas J Talley; Jean-Paul Galmiche; Tony C K Tham; Peter Watson; Lisa Yerian; Massimo Rugge; Thomas W Rice; John Hart; Stuart Gittens; David Hewin; Juergen Hochberger; Peter Kahrilas; Sean Preston; Richard Sampliner; Prateek Sharma; Robert Stuart; Kenneth Wang; Irving Waxman; Chris Abley; Duncan Loft; Ian Penman; Nicholas J Shaheen; Amitabh Chak; Gareth Davies; Lorna Dunn; Yngve Falck-Ytter; John Decaestecker; Pradeep Bhandari; Christian Ell; S Michael Griffin; Stephen Attwood; Hugh Barr; John Allen; Mark K Ferguson; Paul Moayyedi; Janusz A Z Jankowski Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: K E Tipirneni; E L Rosenthal; L S Moore; A D Haskins; N Udayakumar; A H Jani; W R Carroll; A B Morlandt; M Bogyo; J Rao; Jason M Warram Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Raf Bisschops; Miguel Areia; Emmanuel Coron; Daniela Dobru; Bernd Kaskas; Roman Kuvaev; Oliver Pech; Krish Ragunath; Bas Weusten; Pietro Familiari; Dirk Domagk; Roland Valori; Michal F Kaminski; Cristiano Spada; Michael Bretthauer; Cathy Bennett; Carlo Senore; Mário Dinis-Ribeiro; Matthew D Rutter Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2016-08-21 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Leslie W Chan; Yak-Nam Wang; Lih Y Lin; Melissa P Upton; Joo Ha Hwang; Suzie H Pun Journal: Bioconjug Chem Date: 2013-01-10 Impact factor: 4.774