Literature DB >> 28389530

Revised British Society of Gastroenterology recommendation on the diagnosis and management of Barrett's oesophagus with low-grade dysplasia.

Massimiliano di Pietro1, Rebecca C Fitzgerald1.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Keywords:  BARRETT'S OESOPHAGUS; ENDOSCOPY; OESOPHAGEAL CANCER

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28389530      PMCID: PMC5868287          DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314135

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gut        ISSN: 0017-5749            Impact factor:   23.059


× No keyword cloud information.
The most recent guidelines for the management of Barrett's oesophagus published in 2014 recommended endoscopic surveillance for patient with histological evidence of low-grade dysplasia (LGD) on random biopsies.1 In the last 2 years, new evidence on the natural history of LGD in Barrett's oesophagus and on the safety and efficacy of endoscopic treatment in this subgroup of patients has been published. Duits et al have conducted a retrospective analysis of 293 patients with LGD diagnosed in community hospitals.2 Following consensus review, the original LGD diagnosis was confirmed in 27% of cases, while the remaining of the cases were downgraded to non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus or indefinite for dysplasia (IND). Patients with a LGD consensus diagnosis had a progression rate to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or cancer of 9.1%/year over a median follow-up of 39 months. By contrast, patients whose diagnosis was down-staged to either non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus or IND had a conversion rate of 0.6% and 0.9%/year, respectively (evidence grade: low). This study reiterates the difficulty in making a pathological diagnosis of LGD, but also shows that confirmation by an expert pathologist from a different institution associates with a substantially higher risk of progression. In keeping with this study, a recent meta-analysis found that studies on cohorts with a low LGD/non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus ratios (<0.15), indicative of a more stringent and robust dysplasia diagnosis, reported a significantly higher annual incidence of cancer (0.76%, 95% CI 0.45% to 1.07%) compared with studies with a ratio >0.15, where many LGD cases were likely overdiagnosed (0.32%; 95% CI 0.07% to 0.58%) (evidence grade: low).3 With regard to endoscopic treatment, a recent multicentre randomized controlled trial compared the outcome of 68 patients with LGD treated with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with an equal number of patients undergoing annual endoscopic surveillance.4 The main inclusion criterion was a diagnosis of LGD confirmed by a central pathologist with extensive experience in Barrett's oesophagus. Over a 3-year follow-up period, 1% of patients in the treatment arm progressed to HGD or cancer, compared with 26.5% in the control arm (p<0.001) (evidence grade: high). Complete eradication of dysplasia and intestinal metaplasia by RFA was achieved in 98% and 90%, respectively. The most common complication was stricture, which occurred in 12% of patients, but this was successfully managed in all patients with endoscopic dilatation. Taken together, the new published data suggest that a consensus diagnosis of LGD by independent pathologists correlates with a significant risk of progression to HGD/cancer and that RFA significantly reduces this risk. This strongly indicates that endoscopic ablation, preferably with RFA, is an appropriate treatment for Barrett's oesophagus with LGD (figure 1). Due to the considerable diagnostic difficulties, LGD should be diagnosed and confirmed by an expert GI pathologist in at least two endoscopes. Treatment options should be discussed by an upper GI multidisciplinary team (MDT) to ensure pathology review and assess patient fitness and endoscopic therapy should be restricted to high volume centres as per main 2014 guidelines. As noted in the current guidelines, p53 immunohistochemistry can be a useful diagnostic adjunct.
Figure 1

Updated flow chart for the management of dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus. A pathological finding of indefinite for dysplasia does not exclude the presence of dysplasia; therefore, a 6-month follow-up is warranted. Endoscopic follow-up in 6 months is recommended for LGD. If LGD is also found at follow-up endoscopy, even if not consecutive, provided that the diagnosis of dysplasia on two occasions is confirmed by two independent GI pathologists (ideally from a different institution), endoscopic ablation should be considered. A diagnosis of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) also needs to be confirmed by a second GI pathologist. Patients with dysplasia should be offered endoscopic therapy following discussion within MDT setting. LGD, low-grade dysplasia; HGD, high-grade dysplasia; MDT, multidisciplinary team; OGD, oesophagogastroduodenoscopy.

Updated flow chart for the management of dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus. A pathological finding of indefinite for dysplasia does not exclude the presence of dysplasia; therefore, a 6-month follow-up is warranted. Endoscopic follow-up in 6 months is recommended for LGD. If LGD is also found at follow-up endoscopy, even if not consecutive, provided that the diagnosis of dysplasia on two occasions is confirmed by two independent GI pathologists (ideally from a different institution), endoscopic ablation should be considered. A diagnosis of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) also needs to be confirmed by a second GI pathologist. Patients with dysplasia should be offered endoscopic therapy following discussion within MDT setting. LGD, low-grade dysplasia; HGD, high-grade dysplasia; MDT, multidisciplinary team; OGD, oesophagogastroduodenoscopy. Therefore, the new recommendation on the management of LGD in Barrett's oesophagus is: Patients with LGD should have a repeat endoscopy in 6 months' time. If LGD is found in any of the follow-up oesophagogastroduodenoscopy and is confirmed by an expert GI pathologist in at least two sets of biopsies, the patient should be offered endoscopic ablation therapy, preferably with RFA, after review by the specialist MDT. If ablation is not undertaken, 6-monthly surveillance is recommended (recommendation grade A for endoscopic therapy and C for surveillance). Agreement: A+ 56%, A 33%, U 0%, D 11%, D+ 0%.
  4 in total

Review 1.  Incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus with low-grade dysplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Siddharth Singh; Palaniappan Manickam; Anita V Amin; Niharika Samala; Leo J Schouten; Prasad G Iyer; Tusar K Desai
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-02-17       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  Barrett's oesophagus patients with low-grade dysplasia can be accurately risk-stratified after histological review by an expert pathology panel.

Authors:  Lucas C Duits; K Nadine Phoa; Wouter L Curvers; Fiebo J W Ten Kate; Gerrit A Meijer; Cees A Seldenrijk; G Johan Offerhaus; Mike Visser; Sybren L Meijer; Kausilia K Krishnadath; Jan G P Tijssen; Rosalie C Mallant-Hent; Jacques J G H M Bergman
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2014-07-17       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  Radiofrequency ablation vs endoscopic surveillance for patients with Barrett esophagus and low-grade dysplasia: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  K Nadine Phoa; Frederike G I van Vilsteren; Bas L A M Weusten; Raf Bisschops; Erik J Schoon; Krish Ragunath; Grant Fullarton; Massimiliano Di Pietro; Narayanasamy Ravi; Mike Visser; G Johan Offerhaus; Cees A Seldenrijk; Sybren L Meijer; Fiebo J W ten Kate; Jan G P Tijssen; Jacques J G H M Bergman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-03-26       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett's oesophagus.

Authors:  Rebecca C Fitzgerald; Massimiliano di Pietro; Krish Ragunath; Yeng Ang; Jin-Yong Kang; Peter Watson; Nigel Trudgill; Praful Patel; Philip V Kaye; Scott Sanders; Maria O'Donovan; Elizabeth Bird-Lieberman; Pradeep Bhandari; Janusz A Jankowski; Stephen Attwood; Simon L Parsons; Duncan Loft; Jesper Lagergren; Paul Moayyedi; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; John de Caestecker
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 23.059

  4 in total
  26 in total

1.  Evaluation of Dysplasia in Barrett Esophagus.

Authors:  Seth A Gross; Joseph Kingsbery; Janice Jang; Michelle Lee; Abraham Khan
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2018-04

Review 2.  Critical appraisal of guidelines for screening and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  Spyridon Michopoulos
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-07

3.  Safety and Acceptability of Esophageal Cytosponge Cell Collection Device in a Pooled Analysis of Data From Individual Patients.

Authors:  Wladyslaw Januszewicz; Wei Keith Tan; Katie Lehovsky; Irene Debiram-Beecham; Tara Nuckcheddy; Susan Moist; Sudarshan Kadri; Massimiliano di Pietro; Alex Boussioutas; Nicholas J Shaheen; David A Katzka; Evan S Dellon; Rebecca C Fitzgerald
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2018-08-09       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 4.  Clinical Guidelines Update on the Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus.

Authors:  Michelle Clermont; Gary W Falk
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 5.  Role of TFF3 as an adjunct in the diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus using a minimally invasive esophageal sampling device-The CytospongeTM.

Authors:  Anna L Paterson; Marcel Gehrung; Rebecca C Fitzgerald; Maria O'Donovan
Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol       Date:  2019-12-09       Impact factor: 1.582

Review 6.  Management of Early-Stage Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus: Endoscopic Mucosal Resection and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection.

Authors:  Stefan Seewald; Tiing Leong Ang; Roos E Pouw; Fridolin Bannwart; Jacques J Bergman
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  Neoplasia Detection Rate in Barrett's Esophagus and Its Impact on Missed Dysplasia: Results from a Large Population-Based Database.

Authors:  Lovekirat Dhaliwal; D Chamil Codipilly; Parth Gandhi; Michele L Johnson; Ramona Lansing; Kenneth K Wang; Cadman L Leggett; David A Katzka; Prasad G Iyer
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2020-07-21       Impact factor: 11.382

8.  Epidemiology and Outcomes of Young-Onset Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: An Analysis from a Population-Based Database.

Authors:  David A Katzka; Prasad G Iyer; Don C Codipilly; Tarek Sawas; Lovekirat Dhaliwal; Michele L Johnson; Ramona Lansing; Kenneth K Wang; Cadman L Leggett
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2020-12-11       Impact factor: 4.090

Review 9.  Epidemiology of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: Implications for Screening and Surveillance.

Authors:  Michael B Cook; Aaron P Thrift
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am       Date:  2020-10-21

10.  Computational modelling suggests that Barrett's oesophagus may be the precursor of all oesophageal adenocarcinomas.

Authors:  Kit Curtius; Joel H Rubenstein; Amitabh Chak; John M Inadomi
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2020-11-24       Impact factor: 31.793

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.