Literature DB >> 30094245

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

Spyridon Michopoulos1.   

Abstract

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) arising on Barrett esophagus (BE) has become the most frequent type of esophageal malignancy in the Western world. BE is a frequent condition but progression to EAC is rare. Scientific societies publish guidelines in order to improve patients' care. However, there are fields where evidence is lacking or there are many controversies. We aimed to spotlight the most important changes, as well as the points of controversy in the recently published guidelines for BE. For most, a length ≥1 cm of a salmon-pink mucosa extending above the eso-gastric junction is required in order to define BE, accompanied with the presence of intestinal metaplasia (IM) at histology. Screening with endoscopy for the general population is not recommended while there is no proof of the efficacy of screening for targeted high risk populations. New techniques permitting a cytologic examination are under evaluation and may change this strategy. The use of high-resolution endoscopes coupled with a careful inspection of the mucosa are required during surveillance of BE. New studies are necessary in order to clarify the real benefit from the use of advanced techniques, such as virtual chromoendoscopy. Length of non-dysplastic BE plays a role for the interval time determination between endoscopies during surveillance. Indefinite for dysplasia and even more low grade dysplasia (LGD) are debatable issues in the matter of BE. There are compelling data suggesting that a definite LGD, defined as a permanent lesion confirmed by a specialist pathologist in BE, has a more dismal prognosis than previously reported and an ablative intervention may be offered in this case. However, most (75-85%) cases with LGD were downstaged in published studies and it remains unknown if in real life, percentages of downstaging are approaching those of studies or there is an over-treatment of pseudo-LGD. Biomarkers such as p53 immunohistochemistry may aid better identification of patients at higher risk. For high grade dysplasia (HGD) visible lesions should be resected with Endoscopic Mucosal Resection (EMR) while flat lesions ablated, for most, nowadays, with radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has not proved superior compared to EMR in BE. It has to be underlined that most studies leading to the new guidelines for BE are not considered of high quality and new guidelines may emerge in the near future.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Barrett esophagus (BE); dysplasia; guidelines; surveillance; treatment

Year:  2018        PMID: 30094245      PMCID: PMC6064794          DOI: 10.21037/atm.2018.05.09

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Transl Med        ISSN: 2305-5839


  35 in total

1.  Inter- and intra-observer variability in the measurement of length at endoscopy: Implications for the measurement of Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  Nalini M Guda; Susan Partington; Nimish Vakil
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  The role of endoscopy in Barrett's esophagus and other premalignant conditions of the esophagus.

Authors:  John A Evans; Dayna S Early; Norio Fukami; Tamir Ben-Menachem; Vinay Chandrasekhara; Krishnavel V Chathadi; G Anton Decker; Robert D Fanelli; Deborah A Fisher; Kimberly Q Foley; Joo Ha Hwang; Rajeev Jain; Terry L Jue; Khalid M Khan; Jenifer Lightdale; Phyllis M Malpas; John T Maple; Shabana F Pasha; John R Saltzman; Ravi N Sharaf; Amandeep Shergill; Jason A Dominitz; Brooks D Cash
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Incidence of adenocarcinoma among patients with Barrett's esophagus.

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

4.  Global incidence of oesophageal cancer by histological subtype in 2012.

Authors:  Melina Arnold; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Jacques Ferlay; David Forman
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 23.059

5.  Health benefits and cost effectiveness of endoscopic and nonendoscopic cytosponge screening for Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  Tatiana Benaglia; Linda D Sharples; Rebecca C Fitzgerald; Georgios Lyratzopoulos
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2012-10-03       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  Systematic four-quadrant biopsy detects Barrett's dysplasia in more patients than nonsystematic biopsy.

Authors:  Jo-Etienne Abela; James J Going; John F Mackenzie; Margaret McKernan; Sylvia O'Mahoney; Robert C Stuart
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-03-26       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus.

Authors:  Nicholas J Shaheen; Gary W Falk; Prasad G Iyer; Lauren B Gerson
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-11-03       Impact factor: 10.864

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

Authors:  Massimiliano di Pietro; Rebecca C Fitzgerald
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2017-04-07       Impact factor: 23.059

9.  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

10.  A randomised trial of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for early Barrett's neoplasia.

Authors:  Grischa Terheggen; Eva Maria Horn; Michael Vieth; Helmut Gabbert; Markus Enderle; Alexander Neugebauer; Brigitte Schumacher; Horst Neuhaus
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2016-01-22       Impact factor: 23.059

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.