Cary C Cotton1, Nicholas J Shaheen1, Aaron P Thrift2,3. 1. Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 2. Section of Epidemiology and Population Sciences, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. 3. Dan L Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic eradication therapy with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and endoscopic mucosal resection is a safe and effective treatment for Barrett's esophagus. Although the outcomes of surveillance endoscopy after successful endoscopic eradication therapy have been described, no previous studies have modeled the natural history or the effect of surveillance endoscopy after successful ablation to prevent progression to invasive esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: The US RFA Registry is a multicenter registry consisting of patients treated with RFA for Barrett's esophagus at 148 institutions (113 community-based and 35 academic-affiliated). The authors fit models to impute the natural history of recurrence and neoplastic progression after any recurrence or retreatment. Natural history estimates of invasive adenocarcinoma after ablation therapy were compared with as-treated estimates at 5 years to derive the preventive risk difference for surveillance. RESULTS: Natural history estimates for the postablation progression of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or intramucosal adenocarcinoma to invasive adenocarcinoma after treatment were 6.3% at 5 years compared with 1.3% for low-grade dysplasia (LGD). The natural history model found a much higher preventative risk difference for surveillance for HGD/intramucosal adenocarcinoma (-4.8%), compared with LGD (-1.1%). The numbers needed to surveil at 5 years were 21 and 90 for these groups, respectively, to prevent one case of invasive esophageal adenocarcinoma, making surveillance after successful ablation of baseline HGD more than 4 times as effective at preventing invasive cancer than after successful ablation of baseline LGD. DISCUSSION: Endoscopic surveillance after successful ablation of baseline HGD or intramucosal cancer is much more effective than surveillance after successful treatment of baseline LGD in averting invasive adenocarcinoma. Although the modest benefits of surveillance for treated LGD may be greater than the risks for patients at average risk for adverse effects of endoscopy, clinicians should concentrate on retaining patients with baseline HGD or cancer in endoscopic surveillance programs.
INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic eradication therapy with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and endoscopic mucosal resection is a safe and effective treatment for Barrett's esophagus. Although the outcomes of surveillance endoscopy after successful endoscopic eradication therapy have been described, no previous studies have modeled the natural history or the effect of surveillance endoscopy after successful ablation to prevent progression to invasive esophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: The US RFA Registry is a multicenter registry consisting of patients treated with RFA for Barrett's esophagus at 148 institutions (113 community-based and 35 academic-affiliated). The authors fit models to impute the natural history of recurrence and neoplastic progression after any recurrence or retreatment. Natural history estimates of invasive adenocarcinoma after ablation therapy were compared with as-treated estimates at 5 years to derive the preventive risk difference for surveillance. RESULTS: Natural history estimates for the postablation progression of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or intramucosal adenocarcinoma to invasive adenocarcinoma after treatment were 6.3% at 5 years compared with 1.3% for low-grade dysplasia (LGD). The natural history model found a much higher preventative risk difference for surveillance for HGD/intramucosal adenocarcinoma (-4.8%), compared with LGD (-1.1%). The numbers needed to surveil at 5 years were 21 and 90 for these groups, respectively, to prevent one case of invasive esophageal adenocarcinoma, making surveillance after successful ablation of baseline HGD more than 4 times as effective at preventing invasive cancer than after successful ablation of baseline LGD. DISCUSSION: Endoscopic surveillance after successful ablation of baseline HGD or intramucosal cancer is much more effective than surveillance after successful treatment of baseline LGD in averting invasive adenocarcinoma. Although the modest benefits of surveillance for treated LGD may be greater than the risks for patients at average risk for adverse effects of endoscopy, clinicians should concentrate on retaining patients with baseline HGD or cancer in endoscopic surveillance programs.
Authors: Sarmed S Sami; Adharsh Ravindran; Allon Kahn; Diana Snyder; Jose Santiago; Jacobo Ortiz-Fernandez-Sordo; Wei Keith Tan; Ross A Dierkhising; Julia E Crook; Michael G Heckman; Michele L Johnson; Ramona Lansing; Krish Ragunath; Massimiliano di Pietro; Herbert Wolfsen; Francisco Ramirez; David Fleischer; Kenneth K Wang; Cadman L Leggett; David A Katzka; Prasad G Iyer Journal: Gut Date: 2019-01-11 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Milli Gupta; Prasad G Iyer; Lori Lutzke; Emmanuel C Gorospe; Julian A Abrams; Gary W Falk; Gregory G Ginsberg; Anil K Rustgi; Charles J Lightdale; Timothy C Wang; David I Fudman; John M Poneros; Kenneth K Wang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: W Asher Wolf; Sarina Pasricha; Cary Cotton; Nan Li; George Triadafilopoulos; V Raman Muthusamy; Gary W Chmielewski; F Scott Corbett; Daniel S Camara; Charles J Lightdale; Herbert Wolfsen; Kenneth J Chang; Bergein F Overholt; Ron E Pruitt; Atilla Ertan; Srinadh Komanduri; Anthony Infantolino; Richard I Rothstein; Nicholas J Shaheen Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-08-29 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Nicholas J Shaheen; Hannah P Kim; William J Bulsiewicz; William D Lyday; George Triadafilopoulos; Herbert C Wolfsen; Srinadh Komanduri; Gary W Chmielewski; Atilla Ertan; F Scott Corbett; Daniel S Camara; Richard I Rothstein; Bergein F Overholt Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2012-09-11 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Nicholas J Shaheen; Prateek Sharma; Bergein F Overholt; Herbert C Wolfsen; Richard E Sampliner; Kenneth K Wang; Joseph A Galanko; Mary P Bronner; John R Goldblum; Ana E Bennett; Blair A Jobe; Glenn M Eisen; M Brian Fennerty; John G Hunter; David E Fleischer; Virender K Sharma; Robert H Hawes; Brenda J Hoffman; Richard I Rothstein; Stuart R Gordon; Hiroshi Mashimo; Kenneth J Chang; V Raman Muthusamy; Steven A Edmundowicz; Stuart J Spechler; Ali A Siddiqui; Rhonda F Souza; Anthony Infantolino; Gary W Falk; Michael B Kimmey; Ryan D Madanick; Amitabh Chak; Charles J Lightdale Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-05-28 Impact factor: 91.245