Angela C Tramontano1, Deirdre F Sheehan1, Jennifer M Yeh2, Chung Yin Kong1,3, Emily C Dowling1, Joel H Rubenstein4,5, Julian A Abrams6, John M Inadomi7, Deborah Schrag3,8, Chin Hur1,3,9. 1. Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 2. Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 5. Division of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 6. Division of Digestive and Liver Diseases, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York, USA. 7. University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA. 8. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 9. Gastroenterology Division, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic surveillance of patients with Barrett's Esophagus (BE) is recommended to detect esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and its dysplasia precursors, but survival benefits are unclear. Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) and linked Medicare data, we sought to determine the impact of a prior BE diagnosis on survival in patients with EAC. METHODS: Our analysis focused on patients over age 65 with primary EAC diagnosed in a SEER region from 2000-2011 and enrolled in Medicare. We identified patients with preexisting BE prior to EAC diagnosis and compared this group to EAC patients without a prior BE diagnosis. A Cox Proportional Hazards model compared survival and included variables such as age, sex, cancer stage, treatment, and medical comorbidities. RESULTS: Among 4,978 SEER-Medicare patients identified with EAC, 577 (12%) had preexisting BE; 4,401 (88%) did not. BE patients had overall lower stage (28.5% stage I vs. 12.8% stage IV) than those without preexisting BE (16.4% stage I vs. 30.6% stage IV). Overall survival was better among patients in the BE group (hazard ratio (HR), 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.50-0.61); this benefit persisted in the adjusted model (HR, 0.72; 95%, 0.65-0.80). After adjusting for lead-time bias, the HRs attenuated to the null, with an unadjusted HR of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.86-1.05, P=0.39) and adjusted HR of 0.99 (CI: 0.89-1.10, P=0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Survival outcomes in patients with a BE diagnosis prior to EAC were statistically better in both the unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards model. However, this benefit appears to be predominantly lead-time and length-time bias.
OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic surveillance of patients with Barrett's Esophagus (BE) is recommended to detect esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and its dysplasia precursors, but survival benefits are unclear. Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) and linked Medicare data, we sought to determine the impact of a prior BE diagnosis on survival in patients with EAC. METHODS: Our analysis focused on patients over age 65 with primary EAC diagnosed in a SEER region from 2000-2011 and enrolled in Medicare. We identified patients with preexisting BE prior to EAC diagnosis and compared this group to EAC patients without a prior BE diagnosis. A Cox Proportional Hazards model compared survival and included variables such as age, sex, cancer stage, treatment, and medical comorbidities. RESULTS: Among 4,978 SEER-Medicare patients identified with EAC, 577 (12%) had preexisting BE; 4,401 (88%) did not. BE patients had overall lower stage (28.5% stage I vs. 12.8% stage IV) than those without preexisting BE (16.4% stage I vs. 30.6% stage IV). Overall survival was better among patients in the BE group (hazard ratio (HR), 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.50-0.61); this benefit persisted in the adjusted model (HR, 0.72; 95%, 0.65-0.80). After adjusting for lead-time bias, the HRs attenuated to the null, with an unadjusted HR of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.86-1.05, P=0.39) and adjusted HR of 0.99 (CI: 0.89-1.10, P=0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Survival outcomes in patients with a BE diagnosis prior to EAC were statistically better in both the unadjusted and adjusted Cox proportional hazards model. However, this benefit appears to be predominantly lead-time and length-time bias.
Authors: Hashem B El-Serag; Aanand D Naik; Zhigang Duan; Mohammad Shakhatreh; Ashley Helm; Amita Pathak; Marilyn Hinojosa-Lindsey; Jason Hou; Theresa Nguyen; John Chen; Jennifer R Kramer Journal: Gut Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: T W Rice; E H Blackstone; J R Goldblum; M M DeCamp; S C Murthy; G W Falk; A H Ormsby; L A Rybicki; J E Richter; D J Adelstein Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Romy E Verbeek; Max Leenders; Fiebo J W Ten Kate; Richard van Hillegersberg; Frank P Vleggaar; Jantine W P M van Baal; Martijn G H van Oijen; Peter D Siersema Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Douglas A Corley; Theodore R Levin; Laurel A Habel; Noel S Weiss; Patricia A Buffler Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Stephen W Duffy; Iris D Nagtegaal; Matthew Wallis; Fay H Cafferty; Nehmat Houssami; Jane Warwick; Prue C Allgood; Olive Kearins; Nancy Tappenden; Emma O'Sullivan; Gill Lawrence Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2008-05-25 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Chung Yin Kong; Sonja Kroep; Kit Curtius; William D Hazelton; Jihyoun Jeon; Rafael Meza; Curtis R Heberle; Melecia C Miller; Sung Eun Choi; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Eric J Feuer; John M Inadomi; Chin Hur; E Georg Luebeck Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-04-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Brittany L Baldwin-Hunter; Rita M Knotts; Samantha D Leeds; Joel H Rubenstein; Charles J Lightdale; Julian A Abrams Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2019-07-04 Impact factor: 3.199