| Literature DB >> 32010750 |
Donevan R Westerveld1, Khaai Nguyen2, Debdeep Banerjee1, Chelsea Jacobs1, Nikhil Kadle3, Peter V Draganov3, Dennis Yang3.
Abstract
Background and study aims Balloon cryoablation (BC) is a novel procedure for endoscopic ablation of Barrett's esophagus (BE- associated neoplasia. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of BC for treatment of BE neoplasia. Patients and methods Several databases were searched for relevant articles (PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, EMBASE) as well as abstracts of recent gastroenterology meetings. Data extraction was performed by two investigators using standardized forms, including age, gender, length of BE segment, prior treatments, procedural time and number ablation sessions, technical feasibility, adverse events, and eradication rates of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) and dysplasia (CE-D) at follow-up. Quality of the studies was assessed using a modified Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Results Seven studies met inclusion criteria for a total of 548 ablation sessions in 272 patients. The most common histopathology reported prior to BC was high-grade dysplasia (n = 131), followed by low-grade dysplasia (n = 75), and intramucosal adenocarcinoma (n = 52). The pooled rate for technical feasibility was 95.8 % (95 % CI: 93.6-97.5 %; I 2 = 13.2 %; P = 0.3). Pooled rates of CE-IM and CE-D were 85.8 % (95 % CI: 77.8-92.2 %, I 2 = 55.5 %; p = 0.04) and 93.8 % (95 % CI: 85.5-98.7 %, I 2 = 74.2 %; P = 0.001), respectively. The overall adverse event (AE) rate was 12.5 % (34 out of 272 patients), of which stricture formation was the most common (5.8 %), followed by mucosal laceration (0.7 %), perforation (0.4 %), and bleeding (0.4 %). All AEs were successfully managed endoscopically. Conclusion This meta-analysis suggests that BC is a safe and effective ablative technique for treatment of BE neoplasia; future prospective comparative trials are needed to corroborate these initial findings.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32010750 PMCID: PMC6976310 DOI: 10.1055/a-1067-4520
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram. From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
Study and patient characteristics.
| Study | Publication type | Study design | Number of patients | Age (years) | Male/female | Prague C&M criteria | Prior treatment (n) | Baseline histopathology | Number of ablation sessions | Cryotherapy dosimetry | |||||
| C | M | RFA | EMR | ND/ID | LGD | HGD | IMC | ||||||||
|
Scholvinck 2015
| Full text | MC prospective | 39 | 66 (median) | 35/4 | 2 (median) | 5 (median) | 0 | 12 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 11 | 1 | 6 s (n = 10), 8 s (n = 28), 10 s (n = 18) |
|
Wang 2015
| Abstract | SC retrospective | 5 | 65 (median) | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | – | – | 5 | – | 1 | 10 s |
|
Sitaraman 2016
| Abstract | SC retrospective | 17 | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | NR | – | 2 | 12 | 3 | 1 | 10 s |
|
Kunzli 2017
| Full text | SC prospective | 30 | 66 (median) | 26/4 | 0 (median) | 0 (median) | 23 | 15 | – | 14 | 7 | 9 | 1 | 10 s |
|
Van Munster 2018
| Full text | SC retrospective | 20 | 66 (median) | 17/3 | 0 (mean) | 2 (mean) | 8 | 10 | – | 9 | 11 | – | 1 | 10 s |
|
Canto 2018
| Full text | SC prospective | 41 | 65.6 (mean) | 19/22 | 1.7 (mean) | 3.9 (mean) | 19 | 14 | – | 13 | 23 | 5 | 3 (median) | 10 s |
|
Canto 2019
| Abstract | MC prospective | 120 | 64.7 (mean) | 101/19 | 1 (mean) | 3 (mean) | 0 | 54 | – | 28 | 64 | 23 | 2 (median) | 10 s |
C, circumferential extent of disease; M, maximum extent of disease; RFA, radiofrequency ablation; EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; HGD, high-grade dysplasia; ID, infectious disease; IMC, imaging mass cytometry; LGD, low-grade dysplasia; MC, multicenter; ND no evidence of disease; NR, no response; SC, single-center
Assessment of study quality with modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.
| Study | Large cohort size | Length of BE segment | Baseline histopathology | RFA/EMR prior to cryotherapy | No. cryotherapy sessions/dosimetry | Adequacy of follow-Up | Total |
|
Scholvinck 2015
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
|
Wang 2015
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
|
Sitaraman 2016
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
|
Kunzli 2017
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
|
Van Munster 2018
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
|
Canto 2018
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
|
Canto 2019
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
BE, Barrett’s esophagus; RFA, radiofrequency ablation; EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection
Fig. 2 aForest plots of the included studies evaluating the feasibility of CbFAS. b CE-IM rate, and c CE-D rate. CI, confidence interval; overall, overall effect size; random effect model; CE-IM, complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia; CE-D, complete eradication of dysplasia.
Fig. 3 aFunnel plots calculated to indicate publication bias for the feasibility of performing CbFAS, b CE-IM, and c CE-D. CbFAS, cryoballoon focal ablation system; CE-IM, complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia; CE-D, complete eradication of dysplasia.