Sonja Kroep1, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar2, Joel H Rubenstein3, Harry J de Koning2, Reinier Meester2, John M Inadomi4, Marjolein van Ballegooijen2. 1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: s.kroep@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Public Health, Erasmus Medical Center University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Published estimates for the rate of progression from Barrett's esophagus (BE) to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) vary. We used simulation modeling to reconcile published data and more accurately estimate the incidence of EAC among people with BE. METHODS: We calibrated the ERASMUS/UW model (a collaboration between Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands and the University of Washington, Seattle) for EAC to match the 0.18% annual rate of progression from population-based studies. This model was then used to simulate the design of prospective studies, introducing more endoscopic surveillance. We used the model to predict rates of progression for both types of studies and for different periods of follow-up, and compared the predicted rates with published data. RESULTS: For the first 5 years of follow-up, the model reproduced the 0.19% mean annual rate of progression observed in population-based studies; the same disease model predicted a 0.36% annual rate of progression in studies with a prospective design (0.41% reported in published articles). After 20 years, these rates each increased to 0.63% to 0.65% annually, corresponding with a 9.1% to 9.5% cumulative cancer incidence. Between these periods, the difference between the progression rates of both study designs decreased from 91% to 5%. CONCLUSIONS: In the first 5 years after diagnosis, the rate of progression from BE to EAC is likely to more closely approximate the lower estimates reported from population-based studies than the higher estimates reported from prospective studies in which EAC is detected by surveillance. Clinicians should use this information to explain to patients their short-term and long-term risks if no action is taken, and then discuss the risks and benefits of surveillance.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Published estimates for the rate of progression from Barrett's esophagus (BE) to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) vary. We used simulation modeling to reconcile published data and more accurately estimate the incidence of EAC among people with BE. METHODS: We calibrated the ERASMUS/UW model (a collaboration between Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands and the University of Washington, Seattle) for EAC to match the 0.18% annual rate of progression from population-based studies. This model was then used to simulate the design of prospective studies, introducing more endoscopic surveillance. We used the model to predict rates of progression for both types of studies and for different periods of follow-up, and compared the predicted rates with published data. RESULTS: For the first 5 years of follow-up, the model reproduced the 0.19% mean annual rate of progression observed in population-based studies; the same disease model predicted a 0.36% annual rate of progression in studies with a prospective design (0.41% reported in published articles). After 20 years, these rates each increased to 0.63% to 0.65% annually, corresponding with a 9.1% to 9.5% cumulative cancer incidence. Between these periods, the difference between the progression rates of both study designs decreased from 91% to 5%. CONCLUSIONS: In the first 5 years after diagnosis, the rate of progression from BE to EAC is likely to more closely approximate the lower estimates reported from population-based studies than the higher estimates reported from prospective studies in which EAC is detected by surveillance. Clinicians should use this information to explain to patients their short-term and long-term risks if no action is taken, and then discuss the risks and benefits of surveillance.
Authors: Shivaram Bhat; Helen G Coleman; Fouad Yousef; Brian T Johnston; Damian T McManus; Anna T Gavin; Liam J Murray Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 13.506
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: Tusar K Desai; Kumar Krishnan; Niharika Samala; Jashanpreet Singh; John Cluley; Subaiah Perla; Colin W Howden Journal: Gut Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 23.059
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: Pieter J F de Jonge; Ewout W Steyerberg; Ernst J Kuipers; Pieter Honkoop; Leonieke M M Wolters; Marjon Kerkhof; Horman van Dekken; Peter D Siersema Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Pieter J F de Jonge; Mark van Blankenstein; Caspar W N Looman; Mariël K Casparie; Gerrit A Meijer; Ernst J Kuipers Journal: Gut Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Rob Boer; Ann Zauber; J Dik F Habbema Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: John M Inadomi; Ma Somsouk; Ryan D Madanick; Jennifer P Thomas; Nicholas J Shaheen Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2009-03-06 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Fouad Yousef; Chris Cardwell; Marie M Cantwell; Karen Galway; Brian T Johnston; Liam Murray Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-06-12 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Michael B Cook; Sally B Coburn; Jameson R Lam; Philip R Taylor; Jennifer L Schneider; Douglas A Corley Journal: Gut Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Jeffrey Molendijk; Thi-My-Tam Nguyen; Ian Brown; Ahmed Mohamed; Yenkai Lim; Johanna Barclay; Mark P Hodson; Thomas P Hennessy; Lutz Krause; Mark Morrison; Michelle M Hill Journal: Biomolecules Date: 2020-05-16
Authors: Amir-Houshang Omidvari; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Harry J de Koning; Reinier G S Meester Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-07-12 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Ksenia S Maslyonkina; Alexandra K Konyukova; Darya Y Alexeeva; Mikhail Y Sinelnikov; Liudmila M Mikhaleva Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2021-12-06 Impact factor: 4.452