Literature DB >> 19398879

Surveillance in Barrett's esophagus: a failed premise.

John M Inadomi1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It is recommended that patients in whom Barrett's esophagus is diagnosed undergo surveillance endoscopy. However, multiple issues regarding the efficacy and feasibility of surveillance remain.
METHODS: Quantitative techniques were used to examine surveillance in patients with Barrett's esophagus. A retrospective case-control study was performed to determine whether surveillance endoscopy prolonged survival in a cohort of U.S. veterans diagnosed with esophageal adenocarcinoma. Cost-effectiveness analysis was employed to compare competing strategies of management for patients with Barrett's esophagus to determine whether surveillance strategies using alternative biomarkers could out-perform dysplasia based surveillance, and whether new techniques for eradicating Barrett's metaplasia would constitute cost-effective strategies.
RESULTS: Surveillance did not improve long-term survival among veterans diagnosed with esophageal adenocarcinoma. Lead-time bias has confounded previous reports claiming the efficacy of endoscopic surveillance. Cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that while screening 50-year old Caucasian males with heartburn may be cost-effective, surveillance even at 5 year intervals among patients with Barrett's esophagus without dysplasia exceeded the threshold of cost-effective care. If a biomarker were developed whose sensitivity and specificity to predict cancer development exceeded 80%, this could represent a more viable strategy than dysplasia-based surveillance and overcome the inherent inter- and intra-observer variations in dysplasia diagnosis that currently limit the effectiveness of surveillance programs. Finally, techniques that reduce cancer incidence such as endoscopic mucosal resection or ablation will likely be more cost-effective than current surveillance strategies that rely on early detection of cancer.
CONCLUSIONS: Current recommendations for the management of patients with Barrett's esophagus are flawed. Future guidelines should include alternative markers of cancer risk and focus on strategies that reduce cancer incidence instead of cancer detection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19398879     DOI: 10.2302/kjm.58.12

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Keio J Med        ISSN: 0022-9717


  8 in total

Review 1.  Endoscopic options for treatment of dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  R Brooks Vance; Kerry B Dunbar
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-12-25

2.  Comparison of cancer-associated genetic abnormalities in columnar-lined esophagus tissues with and without goblet cells.

Authors:  Santhoshi Bandla; Jeffrey H Peters; David Ruff; Shiaw-Min Chen; Chieh-Yuan Li; Kunchang Song; Kimberly Thoms; Virginia R Litle; Thomas Watson; Nikita Chapurin; Michal Lada; Arjun Pennathur; James D Luketich; Derick Peterson; Austin Dulak; Lin Lin; Adam Bass; David G Beer; Tony E Godfrey; Zhongren Zhou
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Stool DNA testing for the detection of pancreatic cancer: assessment of methylation marker candidates.

Authors:  John B Kisiel; Tracy C Yab; William R Taylor; Suresh T Chari; Gloria M Petersen; Douglas W Mahoney; David A Ahlquist
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-09-22       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 4.  The case for endoscopic treatment of non-dysplastic and low-grade dysplastic Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  David E Fleischer; Robert Odze; Bergein F Overholt; John Carroll; Kenneth J Chang; Ananya Das; John Goldblum; Daniel Miller; Charles J Lightdale; Jeffrey Peters; Richard Rothstein; Virender K Sharma; Daniel Smith; Victor Velanovich; Herbert Wolfsen; George Triadafilopoulos
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 5.  MicroRNAs in Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Takatsugu Kan; Stephen J Meltzer
Journal:  Curr Opin Pharmacol       Date:  2009-09-19       Impact factor: 5.547

6.  Estimates and predictors of health care costs of esophageal adenocarcinoma: a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Hla-Hla Thein; Nathaniel Jembere; Kednapa Thavorn; Kelvin K W Chan; Peter C Coyte; Claire de Oliveira; Chin Hur; Craig C Earle
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2018-06-27       Impact factor: 4.430

7.  Combined EsophaCap cytology and MUC2 immunohistochemistry for screening of intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia and carcinoma.

Authors:  Zhongren Zhou; Irina Kalatskaya; Donna Russell; Norman Marcon; Maria Cirocco; Paul M Krzyzanowski; Cathy Streutker; Hua Liang; Virginia R Litle; Tony E Godfrey; Lincoln Stein
Journal:  Clin Exp Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-05-15

8.  A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of An Adenocarcinoma Risk Prediction Multi-Biomarker Assay For Patients With Barrett's Esophagus.

Authors:  Jing Hao; Rebecca Critchley-Thorne; David L Diehl; Susan R Snyder
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2019-10-25
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.