Amir-Houshang Omidvari1, Ayman Ali2, William D Hazelton3, Sonja Kroep4, Minyi Lee5, Steffie K Naber4, Brianna N Lauren6, Sassan Ostvar6, Ellen Richmond7, Chun Yin Kong5, Joel H Rubenstein8, Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar4, Georg Luebeck3, Chin Hur9, John Inadomi10. 1. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: a.omidvari@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana. 3. Program in Computational Biology, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, Washington. 4. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Irving Medical Center, Columbia University, New York, New York. 7. Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland. 8. Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Barrett's Esophagus Program, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 9. Institute for Technology Assessment, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Irving Medical Center, Columbia University, New York, New York. 10. Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic treatment is recommended for patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) with high-grade dysplasia, yet clinical management recommendations are inconsistent for patients with BE without dysplasia (NDBE) or with low-grade dysplasia (LGD). We used a comparative modeling analysis to identify optimal management strategies for these patients. METHODS: We used 3 independent population-based models to simulate cohorts of 60-year-old individuals with BE in the United States. We followed up each cohort until death without surveillance and treatment (natural disease progression), compared with 78 different strategies of management for patients with NDBE or LGD. We determined the optimal strategy using cost-effectiveness analyses, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: In the 3 models, the average cumulative incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma was 111 cases, with costs totaling $5.7 million per 1000 men with BE. Surveillance and treatment of men with BE prevented 23% to 75% of cases of esophageal adenocarcinoma, but increased costs to $6.2 to $17.3 million per 1000 men with BE. The optimal strategy was surveillance every 3 years for men with NDBE and treatment of LGD after confirmation by repeat endoscopy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $53,044/QALY). The average results for women were consistent with the results for men for LGD management, but the optimal surveillance interval for women with NDBE was 5 years (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $36,045/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Based on analyses from 3 population-based models, the optimal management strategy for patient with BE and LGD is endoscopic eradication, but only after LGD is confirmed by a repeat endoscopy. The optimal strategy for patients with NDBE is endoscopic surveillance, using a 3-year interval for men and a 5-year interval for women.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic treatment is recommended for patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) with high-grade dysplasia, yet clinical management recommendations are inconsistent for patients with BE without dysplasia (NDBE) or with low-grade dysplasia (LGD). We used a comparative modeling analysis to identify optimal management strategies for these patients. METHODS: We used 3 independent population-based models to simulate cohorts of 60-year-old individuals with BE in the United States. We followed up each cohort until death without surveillance and treatment (natural disease progression), compared with 78 different strategies of management for patients with NDBE or LGD. We determined the optimal strategy using cost-effectiveness analyses, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: In the 3 models, the average cumulative incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma was 111 cases, with costs totaling $5.7 million per 1000 men with BE. Surveillance and treatment of men with BE prevented 23% to 75% of cases of esophageal adenocarcinoma, but increased costs to $6.2 to $17.3 million per 1000 men with BE. The optimal strategy was surveillance every 3 years for men with NDBE and treatment of LGD after confirmation by repeat endoscopy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $53,044/QALY). The average results for women were consistent with the results for men for LGD management, but the optimal surveillance interval for women with NDBE was 5 years (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $36,045/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Based on analyses from 3 population-based models, the optimal management strategy for patient with BE and LGD is endoscopic eradication, but only after LGD is confirmed by a repeat endoscopy. The optimal strategy for patients with NDBE is endoscopic surveillance, using a 3-year interval for men and a 5-year interval for women.
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: Sonja Kroep; Curtis R Heberle; Kit Curtius; Chung Yin Kong; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Ayman Ali; W Asher Wolf; Nicholas J Shaheen; Stuart J Spechler; Joel H Rubenstein; Norman S Nishioka; Stephen J Meltzer; William D Hazelton; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Angela C Tramontano; G Scott Gazelle; E Georg Luebeck; John M Inadomi; Chin Hur Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Louisa G Gordon; George C Mayne; Nicholas G Hirst; Timothy Bright; David C Whiteman; David I Watson Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-09-27 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: 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: Amir-Houshang Omidvari; William D Hazelton; Brianna N Lauren; Steffie K Naber; Minyi Lee; Ayman Ali; Claudia Seguin; Chun Yin Kong; Ellen Richmond; Joel H Rubenstein; Georg E Luebeck; John M Inadomi; Chin Hur; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2021-05-08 Impact factor: 33.883
Authors: Mohamed Hussein; Vinay Sehgal; Sarmed Sami; Paul Bassett; Rami Sweis; David Graham; Andrea Telese; Danielle Morris; Manuel Rodriguez-Justo; Marnix Jansen; Marco Novelli; Matthew Banks; Laurence B Lovat; Rehan Haidry Journal: JGH Open Date: 2021-08-06