Patrick Yachimski1, Sachin Wani2, Tonya Givens3, Eric Howard3, Tina Higginbotham3, Angie Price4, Kenneth Berman4, Lindsay Hosford2, Paul Menard Katcher2, Elissa Ozanne5, Katherine Perzan6, Chin Hur6. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. Electronic address: patrick.yachimski@vanderbilt.edu. 2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee. 4. Veterans Administration Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver, Colorado. 5. Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire. 6. Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic intervention or pharmacologic inhibition of cyclooxygenase might be used to prevent progression of Barrett's esophagus (BE) to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We investigated whether patients with BE prefer endoscopic therapy or chemoprevention of EAC. METHODS: Eighty-one subjects with nondysplastic BE were given a survey that described 2 scenarios. The survey explained that treatment A (ablation), endoscopy, reduced lifetime risk of EAC by 50%, with 5% risk for esophageal stricture, whereas treatment B (aspirin) reduced lifetime risk of EAC by 50% and the risk of heart attack by 30%, yet increased the risk for ulcer by 75%. Subjects indicated their willingness to undergo either treatment A and/or treatment B if endoscopic surveillance were required every 3-5 years, every 10 years, or were not required. Visual aids were included to represent risk and benefit percentages. RESULTS: When surveillance was required every 3-5 years, more subjects were willing to undergo treatment A than treatment B (78%, 63 of 81 vs 53%, 43 of 81; P < .01). There were no differences in age, sex, education level, or history of cancer, heart disease, or ulcer between patients willing to undergo treatment A and those willing to undergo treatment B. Altering the frequency of surveillance did not affect patients' willingness to undergo either treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In a simulated scenario, patients with BE preferred endoscopic intervention over chemoprevention for EAC. Further investigation of the shared decision-making process regarding preventive strategies for patients with BE may be warranted.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic intervention or pharmacologic inhibition of cyclooxygenase might be used to prevent progression of Barrett's esophagus (BE) to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We investigated whether patients with BE prefer endoscopic therapy or chemoprevention of EAC. METHODS: Eighty-one subjects with nondysplastic BE were given a survey that described 2 scenarios. The survey explained that treatment A (ablation), endoscopy, reduced lifetime risk of EAC by 50%, with 5% risk for esophageal stricture, whereas treatment B (aspirin) reduced lifetime risk of EAC by 50% and the risk of heart attack by 30%, yet increased the risk for ulcer by 75%. Subjects indicated their willingness to undergo either treatment A and/or treatment B if endoscopic surveillance were required every 3-5 years, every 10 years, or were not required. Visual aids were included to represent risk and benefit percentages. RESULTS: When surveillance was required every 3-5 years, more subjects were willing to undergo treatment A than treatment B (78%, 63 of 81 vs 53%, 43 of 81; P < .01). There were no differences in age, sex, education level, or history of cancer, heart disease, or ulcer between patients willing to undergo treatment A and those willing to undergo treatment B. Altering the frequency of surveillance did not affect patients' willingness to undergo either treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In a simulated scenario, patients with BE preferred endoscopic intervention over chemoprevention for EAC. Further investigation of the shared decision-making process regarding preventive strategies for patients with BE may be warranted.
Authors: Chin Hur; Sung Eun Choi; Joel H Rubenstein; Chung Yin Kong; Norman S Nishioka; Dawn T Provenzale; John M Inadomi Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2012-05-21 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Stuart J Spechler; Prateek Sharma; Rhonda F Souza; John M Inadomi; Nicholas J Shaheen Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Seth D Crockett; Isaac M Lipkus; Stephanie D Bright; Richard E Sampliner; Kenneth K Wang; Vikram Boolchand; Lori S Lutzke; Nicholas J Shaheen Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-11-17 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Frederik Hvid-Jensen; Lars Pedersen; Asbjørn Mohr Drewes; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Peter Funch-Jensen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Aanand D Naik; Marilyn Hinojosa-Lindsey; Jennifer Arney; Hashem B El-Serag; Jason Hou Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Chin Hur; Darcy E Broughton; Elissa Ozanne; Patrick Yachimski; Norman S Nishioka; G Scott Gazelle Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2008-09-04 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Gary W Falk; Navtej S Buttar; Nathan R Foster; Katie L Allen Ziegler; Catherine J Demars; Yvonne Romero; Norman E Marcon; Thomas Schnell; Douglas A Corley; Prateek Sharma; Marcia R Cruz-Correa; Chin Hur; David E Fleischer; Amitabh Chak; Kenneth R Devault; David S Weinberg; Gary Della'Zanna; Ellen Richmond; Thomas C Smyrk; Sumithra J Mandrekar; Paul J Limburg Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Leo Alexandre; Allan B Clark; Hina Y Bhutta; Sean Holt; Michael P N Lewis; Andrew R Hart Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2013-12-06 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Kelly E Lloyd; Louise H Hall; Natalie King; Rachael J Thorneloe; Rocio Rodriguez-Lopez; Lucy Ziegler; David G Taylor; Mairead MacKenzie; Samuel G Smith Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-11-09 Impact factor: 4.018