Literature DB >> 34275161

Systematic review with meta-analysis: neoplasia detection rate and post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia in Barrett's oesophagus.

Nour Hamade1, Amrit K Kamboj2, Rajesh Krishnamoorthi3, Siddharth Singh4, Leslie C Hassett5, David A Katzka2, Charles J Kahi1, Hala Fatima1, Prasad G Iyer2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Neoplasia detection rate, the proportion of Barrett's oesophagus patients with high-grade dysplasia or oesophageal adenocarcinoma detected at index surveillance endoscopy has been proposed as a quality metric. However, the correlation between neoplasia detection rate and a clinically relevant outcome like post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia remains unknown. Post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia refers to the rate of high-grade dysplasia or oesophageal adenocarcinoma on repeat endoscopy within one year of an index screening examination revealing non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus or low-grade dysplasia. AIM: To assess correlation between neoplasia detection rate and post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia.
METHODS: We performed a systematic search of multiple databases from date of inception to June 2021 to identify cohort studies reporting both neoplasia detection rate and post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia. Data from each study were pooled using a random effects model, and their correlation assessed using meta-regression. Heterogeneity was assessed and a priori planned subgroup analyses were conducted.
RESULTS: Ten studies with 27 894 patients with Barrett's oesophagus were included. The pooled neoplasia detection rate and post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia were 5.0% (95% CI: 3.4%-7.1%, I2  = 97%) and 19.6% (95% CI: 10.1%-34.7%, I2  = 96%), respectively. Meta-regression revealed a statistically significant inverse relationship between the two variables (coefficient -3.50, 95% CI: -4.63 to -2.37, P < 0.01). With every 1% increase of neoplasia detection rate, post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia decreased by 3.50%. Heterogeneity was high despite adjusting for study quality and performing several subgroup analyses.
CONCLUSION: We observed a statistically significant inverse correlation between neoplasia detection rate and post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia. Additional studies are needed to further validate this correlation.
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34275161      PMCID: PMC9152697          DOI: 10.1111/apt.16531

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther        ISSN: 0269-2813            Impact factor:   9.524


  40 in total

Review 1.  ASGE Technology Committee systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the ASGE Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations thresholds for adopting real-time imaging-assisted endoscopic targeted biopsy during endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  Nirav Thosani; Barham K Abu Dayyeh; Prateek Sharma; Harry R Aslanian; Brintha K Enestvedt; Sri Komanduri; Michael Manfredi; Udayakumar Navaneethan; John T Maple; Rahul Pannala; Mansour A Parsi; Zachary L Smith; Shelby A Sullivan; Subhas Banerjee
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 9.427

2.  Measuring Quality in Barrett's Endoscopy.

Authors:  Swathi Eluri; Nicholas J Shaheen
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2020-09-03       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 3.  AGA Clinical Practice Update on Endoscopic Treatment of Barrett's Esophagus With Dysplasia and/or Early Cancer: Expert Review.

Authors:  Prateek Sharma; Nicholas J Shaheen; David Katzka; Jacques J G H M Bergman
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2019-11-12       Impact factor: 22.682

4.  Barrett's oesophagus: results from a 13-year surveillance programme.

Authors:  K Bani-Hani; H Sue-Ling; D Johnston; A T Axon; I G Martin
Journal:  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 2.566

5.  Frequency of Barrett's neoplasia after initial negative endoscopy with biopsy: a long-term histopathological follow-up study.

Authors:  M Vieth; B Schubert; K Lang-Schwarz; M Stolte
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 10.093

6.  GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency.

Authors:  Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Regina Kunz; James Woodcock; Jan Brozek; Mark Helfand; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Paul Glasziou; Roman Jaeschke; Elie A Akl; Susan Norris; Gunn Vist; Philipp Dahm; Vijay K Shukla; Julian Higgins; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2011-07-31       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  A Barrett's esophagus registry of over 1000 patients from a specialist center highlights greater risk of progression than population-based registries and high risk of low grade dysplasia.

Authors:  S L Picardo; M P O'Brien; R Feighery; D O'Toole; N Ravi; N J O'Farrell; J N O'Sullivan; J V Reynolds
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2014-01-15       Impact factor: 3.429

Review 8.  The Effect of Endoscopic Surveillance in Patients With Barrett's Esophagus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Don Chamil Codipilly; Apoorva Krishna Chandar; Siddharth Singh; Sachin Wani; Nicholas J Shaheen; John M Inadomi; Amitabh Chak; Prasad G Iyer
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2018-02-16       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  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

10.  Validation of the Prague C&M classification of Barrett's esophagus in clinical practice.

Authors:  Lorenza Alvarez Herrero; Wouter L Curvers; Frederike G I van Vilsteren; Herbert Wolfsen; Krish Ragunath; Louis-Michel Wong Kee Song; Rosalie C Mallant-Hent; Arnoud van Oijen; Pieter Scholten; Erik J Schoon; Ed B E Schenk; Bas L A M Weusten; Jacques G H M Bergman
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2013-10-28       Impact factor: 10.093

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.