Search

Despite advances in endoscopic imaging modalities, there are still significant miss rates of dysplasia and cancer in Barrett’s esophagus. Artificial intelligence (AI) is a promising tool that may potentially be a useful adjunct to the endoscopist in detecting subtle dysplasia and cancer. Studies have shown AI systems have a sensitivity of more than 90% and specificity of more than 80% in detecting Barrett’s related dysplasia and cancer. Beyond visual detection and diagnosis, AI may also prove to be useful in quality control, streamlining clinical work, documentation, and lessening the administrative load on physicians. Research in this area is advancing at a rapid rate, and as the field expands, regulations and guidelines will need to be put into place to better regulate the growth and use of AI. This review provides an overview of the present and future role of AI in Barrett’s esophagus.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: European guidelines recommend different surveillance intervals of non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (NDBE) based on segment length, as opposed to guidelines in the United States, which do recommend surveillance intervals based on BE length. We studied rates of progression of NDBE to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in patients with short-segment BE using the definition of BE in the latest guidelines (length ≥1 cm). METHODS: We collected demographic, clinical, endoscopy, and histopathology data from 1883 patients with endoscopic evidence of NDBE (mean age, 57.3 years; 83.5% male; 88.1% Caucasians) seen at 7 tertiary referral centers. Patients were followed for a median 6.4 years. Cases of dysplasia or EAC detected within 1 year of index endoscopy were considered prevalent and were excluded. Unadjusted rates of progression to HGD or EAC were compared between patients with short (≥1 and

Summary Barrett’s esophagus (BE), a premalignant condition for the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), is a consequence of chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Although the incidence of EAC is increasing, a similar trend for BE is not clear. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of newly diagnosed BE over time in a cohort of patients presenting with GERD symptoms. Information was prospectively collected between 1998 and 2015 for patients presenting to the endoscopy unit at a tertiary referral center for their index upper endoscopy for evaluation of GERD symptoms. Patients were asked to complete a validated GERD questionnaire that documents the onset of GERD symptoms (heartburn and acid regurgitation) and grades the frequency and severity of symptoms experienced. Demographic information, body mass index (BMI), and use of aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acid suppression therapy if any, smoking, family history, and endoscopic findings: erosive esophagitis, BE, and hiatal hernia were recorded. Patients evaluated during 1998–2003 (control) were compared with those presented in subsequent years (3-year cohorts) using chi-square test, and a multivariable logistic regression model was used to evaluate independent predictors. A total of 1109 patients were included in the analysis: mean age 56.9 years (standard deviation [SD] 12.8), 83% Caucasian, 93% male, and mean BMI 29.8 (SD 5.5). Overall, 226 (20.3%) patients were diagnosed with BE, with a mean BE length of 2.1 cm (SD 2.6). There was a significant decrease in the prevalence of BE over time from 24.3% in 1998–2003 to 13.5% in 2013–2015 (P = 0.002). During the same time period, a significant increasing trend in proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (41.7%; 1998–2003 vs. 80.2%; 2013–2015) (P The results of our study indicate that there has been a steady and significant decline in the prevalence of BE in GERD patients over the last 2 decades. During this same time period, there has been an accompanying increase in the use of PPI, aspirin therapy, and a reduction in smoking, all modifiable risk factors potentially contributing to the decreasing prevalence of BE. Whether this decreasing prevalence of BE will lead to a reduction in EAC remains to be seen.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Less than 10% of patients diagnosed with esophageal adenocarcinoma have a pre-existing Barrett’s esophagus (BE) diagnosis, possibly due to suboptimal performance of guidelines. We examined the prevalence of BE in a previously unscreened primary care population and the potential yield of practice BE screening guidelines. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective cross-sectional study of consecutively recruited unreferred patients from primary care clinics who underwent study upper endoscopy. We examined the performance of BE screening guidelines of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), and our own modification of guidelines. RESULTS: We identified 44 BE cases and 469 controls (prevalence, 8.6%). Among 371 patients without GERD symptoms, 25 (6.7%) had BE. The AGA guidelines requiring ≥2 BE risk factors had sensitivity of 100% and specificity of only 0.2%, whereas ACG, ASGE, ESGE, and BSG guidelines (all requiring GERD first) had low sensitivities (38.6%−43.2%), specificities ranging 67.4% to 76.5%, and area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) of 0.50 to 0.60. Our 2-pronged approach depending on presence of GERD symptoms or absence of GERD symptoms but with other risk factors achieved sensitivity of 81.8%, specificity of 51.2%, and AUROC of 0.66. CONCLUSIONS: Over half of BE cases were without frequent GERD symptoms, but virtually all had at least one known BE risk factor. Practice guidelines requiring GERD symptoms have low sensitivity, whereas those not requiring GERD have low specificity. We have proposed a screening guideline with better use of known risk factors.

In this chapter, we explore the relationship between gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and Barrett’s esophagus (BE), the only known premalignant condition to esophageal adenocarcinoma. We will discuss typical and atypical symptomatology of GERD and how that is affected by the presence of BE, esophageal motility findings in BE patients and how that affects its pathogenesis, the role of non-acidic reflux, various diagnostic tools that can be used by the clinician, and finally shed light on advances in management options of GERD (medical and surgical) as well as ablative therapies in BE.

Background Although shorter lengths of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) have been associated with a lower risk of neoplastic progression, precise estimates have varied, especially for non-dysplastic BE (NDBE) only. Therefore, current US guidelines do not provide specific recommendations on surveillance intervals based on BE length. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature to examine neoplastic progression rates of NDBE based on BE length. Methods PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and Embase were comprehensively searched. Studies reporting progression rates in patients with NDBE and > 1 year of follow-up were included. The number of patients progressing to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and high grade dysplasia (HGD)/EAC in individual studies and the mean follow-up were recorded to derive person-years of follow-up. Pooled rates of progression to EAC and HGD/EAC based on BE length ( Results Of the 486 initial studies identified, 10 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. These included a total of 4097 NDBE patients; 1979 with short-segment BE (SSBE; 10 773 person-years of follow-up) and 2118 with long-segment BE (LSBE; 12 868 person-years). The annual rates of progression to EAC were significantly lower for SSBE compared with LSBE: 0.06 % (95 % confidence interval 0.01 % – 0.10 %) vs. 0.31 % (0.21 % – 0.40 %), respectively; odds ratio (OR) 0.25 (0.11 – 0.56); P Conclusion The results demonstrate significantly lower rates of neoplastic progression in NDBE patients with SSBE compared with LSBE. BE length can easily be used for risk stratification purposes for NDBE patients undergoing surveillance endoscopy and consideration should be given to tailoring surveillance intervals based on BE length in future US guidelines.

In this review, we discuss different endoscopic techniques in the eradication of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) as well as some controversies in the field of treatment. Patients with T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma and BE of high-grade dysplasia should undergo endoscopic ablative therapy. The most studied technique to date is radiofrequency ablation. It can be combined with endoscopic mucosal resection in cases containing nodular and flat lesions. Cryotherapy and APC have shown promise with good efficacy and safety profiles so far, but are not mainstream as more studies are needed. Surveillance is still required post-ablation since recurrence is common. Low-grade dysplasia can be treated with either endo-ablative therapy or surveillance. Non-dysplastic BE treatment is controversial and so far, only surveillance is recommended. Research is ongoing to better risk stratify these patients. Our ability to diagnose and treat BE has come a long way in the past few years with the goal of preventing its progression into malignancy. The advent of endoscopic techniques in the eradication of BE has provided a less invasive and safer modality of treatment as compared to surgical esophagectomy. Data in the form of randomized trials and high-volume registries has provided good evidence to support the efficacy of these techniques and their long-term durability.

INTRODUCTION: Data on time trends of dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in Barrett’s esophagus (BE) during the index endoscopy (ie, prevalent cases) are limited. Our aim was to determine the prevalence patterns of BE-associated dysplasia on index endoscopy over the past 25 years. METHODS: The Barrett’s Esophagus Study is a multicenter outcome project of a large cohort of patients with BE. Proportions of patients with index endoscopy findings of no dysplasia (NDBE), low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and EAC were extracted per year of index endoscopy, and 5-yearly patient cohorts were tabulated over years 1990 to 2010+ (2010-current). Prevalent dysplasia and endoscopic findings were trended over the past 25 years using percentage dysplasia (LGD, HGD, EAC, and HGD/EAC) to assess changes in detection of BE-associated dysplasia over the last 25 years. Statistical analysis was done using SAS version 9.4 software (SAS, Cary, NC). RESULTS: A total of 3643 patients were included in the analysis with index endoscopy showing NDBE in 2513 (70.1%), LGD in 412 (11.5%), HGD in 193 (5.4%), and EAC in 181 (5.1%). Over time, there was an increase in the mean age of patients with BE (51.7 ± 29 years vs 62.6 ± 11.3 years) and the proportion of males (84% vs 92.6%) diagnosed with BE but a decrease in the mean BE length (4.4±4.3 cm vs 2.9±3.0 cm) as time progressed (1990–1994 to 2010–2016 time periods). The presence of LGD on index endoscopy remained stable over 1990 to 2016. However, a significant increase (148% in HGD and 112% in EAC) in the diagnosis of HGD, EAC, and HGD/EAC was noted on index endoscopy over the last 25 years (P < .001). There was also a significant increase in the detection of visible lesions on index endoscopy (1990–1994, 5.1%; to 2005–2009, 6.3%; and 2010+, 16.3%) during the same period. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the prevalence of HGD and EAC has significantly increased over the past 25 years despite a decrease in BE length during the same period. This increase parallels an increase in the detection of visible lesions, suggesting that a careful examination at the index examination is crucial. (Gastrointest Endosc 2019;89:257–63.)