Search

Background and study aims Patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) are at risk of a second primary tumor in the gastrointestinal tract, most commonly in the esophagus. Screening these patients for esophageal carcinoma may help detect asymptomatic dysplasia and early cancer, thus allowing curative treatment and more prolonged survival, but the impact of endoscopic screening remains uncertain. Here we aimed to describe the long-term results of an esophageal SCC screening program in patients with head and neck cancer in terms of prevalence, associated risk factors, and survival. Patients and methods We performed an observational study of a prospectively collected database including patients with HNSCC who had undergone high-definition endoscopy with chromoscopy between 2010 and 2018 at a Brazilian tertiary academic center. Results The study included 1,888 patients. The esophageal SCC prevalence was 7.9 %, with the majority (77.8 %) being superficial lesions. Significant risk factors for esophageal high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and invasive cancer included tumors of the oral cavity and oropharynx and the presence of low-grade dysplasia (LGD). Overall survival (OS) was significantly shorter among patients in whom esophageal cancer was diagnosed at an advanced stage (P

Introduction: Adequate sedation is one of the cornerstones of good quality gastrointestinal endoscopy (GIE). Propofol sedation has increased significantly but there has been much debate over whether it can be administered by endoscopists. The aim of this prospective trial was to compare nonanesthesiologist-administered propofol (NAAP) and monitored anesthesia care (MAC). Methods: A total of 2000 outpatients undergoing GIE at Hospital Albert Einstein (São Paulo, Brazil), a tertiary-care private hospital, were divided into two matched groups: NAAP (n = 1000) and MAC (n = 1000). In NAAP, propofol doses were determined by the endoscopist. A second physician stayed in the room during the entire procedure, according to local regulations. In MAC, the anesthesiologist administered propofol. Results: In total, 1427 patients (71.3 %) were ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) class I and 573 were ASA class II. In NAAP, patients received more propofol + fentanyl (61.1 % vs. 50.5 %; P