Explore the vast range of titles available.

Barrett's oesophagus is a metaplastic change of the lining of the oesophagus, such that the normal squamous epithelium is replaced by specialised or intestinalised columnar epithelium. The disorder seems to be a complication of chronic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, although asymptomatic individuals might also be affected, and it is a risk factor for the development of oesophageal adenocarcinoma, a cancer with rapidly increasing incidence in developed societies. We review the presentation, epidemiology, and risk factors for this condition. We discuss the molecular changes necessary for the development of Barrett's oesophagus and its progression to cancer, and new strides in both the endoscopic detection of the lesion and the treatment of dysplastic disease. Also, we assess the effectiveness of efforts to screen patients at risk of Barrett's oesophagus, and whether such efforts avert cancer death. We conclude with a discussion of future directions for research, focusing on treatment of early neoplasia, and modifications of current practices to show our evolving understanding of this condition.

Esophageal dilation is commonly performed in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), but there are few long-term data. The aims of this study were to assess the safety and long-term efficacy of esophageal dilation in a large cohort of EoE cases, and to determine the frequency and predictors of requiring multiple dilations. We conducted a retrospective cohort study in the University of North Carolina EoE Clinicopathological Database from 2002 to 2014. Included subjects met consensus diagnostic criteria for EoE. Clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features were extracted, as were dilation characteristics (dilator type, change in esophageal caliber, and total number of dilations) and complications. Patients with EoE who had undergone dilation were compared with those who did not and also stratified by whether they required single or multiple dilations. Of 509 EoE patients, 164 were dilated a total of 486 times. Those who underwent dilation had a longer duration of symptoms before diagnosis (11.1 vs. 5.4 years, P<0.001). Ninety-five patients (58%) required >1 dilation (417 dilations total, mean of 4.4±4.3 per patient). The only predictor of requiring multiple dilations was a smaller baseline esophageal diameter. Dilation was tolerated well, with no major bleeds, perforations, or deaths. The overall complication rate was 5%, primarily due to post-procedural pain. Of 164 individuals dilated, a majority (58% or 95/164) required a second dilation. Of these individuals, 75% required repeat dilation within 1 year. Dilation in EoE is well-tolerated, with a very low risk of serious complications. Patients with long-standing symptoms before diagnosis are likely to require dilation. More than half of those dilated will require multiple dilations, often needing a second procedure within 1 year. These findings can be used to counsel patients with fibrostenotic complications of EoE.

The variability of eosinophilic infiltrates in eosinophilic esophagitis is not well described. This study aimed to determine the distribution of esophageal eosinophilia and the utility of histologic cut-points for eosinophilic esophagitis diagnosis in subjects undergoing endoscopy. We performed a prospective study of adults undergoing outpatient endoscopy. Research protocol esophageal biopsies were obtained from all subjects. Incident cases of eosinophilic esophagitis were diagnosed per consensus guidelines. Biopsies were interpreted following a validated protocol, and maximum eosinophil counts (eosinophils per high-power field; eos/hpf) were determined. Histologic analyses were performed on a per-patient, per-biopsy, and per-hpf basis. There were 213 patients, yielding 923 esophageal biopsies with 4588 hpfs. Overall, 48 patients (23%), 165 biopsy fragments (18%), and 449 hpfs (10%) had ≥15 eos/hpf; most subjects had no or low levels of eosinophils. In the eosinophilic esophagitis cases, 119 biopsy fragments (63%) and 332 hpfs (36%) had ≥15 eos/hpf. There was a mean 104-fold difference between the lowest and highest hpf eosinophil count for the eosinophilic esophagitis patients; 85% of the biopsies from eosinophilic esophagitis cases also had at least one hpf with <15 eos/hpf. The cut-point of 15 eos/hpf had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 96% for diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis. In conclusion, most patients have little to no esophageal eosinophilia. In patients with eosinophilic esophagitis, there was marked variability in the eosinophil counts by biopsy and by hpf within a given biopsy. Additionally, the 15 eos/hpf cut-point was highly sensitive and specific for eosinophilic esophagitis. Multiple esophageal biopsies from different locations should be obtained to optimize eosinophilic esophagitis diagnosis.

Management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) requires repeated endoscopic mucosal sampling to assess disease activity. A less invasive and expensive means of monitoring of EoE is required. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy, safety, and tolerability of the cytosponge compared to endoscopy and biopsy for histologic assessment of EoE. In this prospective two-center cross-sectional study, patients with known EoE underwent cytosponge sampling followed by endoscopy and biopsy. Sample adequacy and eosinophil counts (eos/HPF) were determined for both cytosponge and endoscopic samples. The cytosponge was assessed for diagnostic accuracy, safety, and patient preference as compared to endoscopy. Six patients (7%) failed to swallow the sponge. One hundred and five procedures were successfully performed in 80 patients (66% male, 100% white, 19% stricture). The cytosponge sample was adequate in 102 and the biopsy in 104; 101 procedures had adequate samples by both techniques. Fifty-seven biopsies were graded as active EoE with ≥15 eos/HPF as the gold standard. Eosinophil counts highly correlated between the biopsy and cytosponge (r=0.78, P<0.0001). Using a cutoff of ≤15 eos/HPF for inactive disease, the sensitivity and specificity of the cytosponge was 75% and 86%, respectively. Six patients had active EoE on cytosponge not found on biopsy. For biopsies with inactive EoE, the cytosponge identified 38/44. No complications occurred, and cytosponge endoscopic abrasion scores were low (0.34/4). Patients preferred cytosponge to endoscopy with higher rating scores (7.27 vs. 6.11, P=0.002). Compared to endoscopy with biopsy, cytosponge provided a minimally invasive, safe, well tolerated, and accurate method to assess EoE histologic activity. (ClinicalTrial.gov number NCT01585103).

Esophageal adenocarcinoma has undergone a marked increase in incidence in Western cultures. The cause of this rise is unclear, and multiple putative causal factors have been implicated in the literature. Although data regarding some of these factors are suggestive, none appear to completely explain the observed trends. Given the complexity of cancer biology, the variety of causative and protective factors involved, and the difficulty in accurate measurement of exposures and outcomes, isolating one or few causative factors is challenging. Understanding the driving force(s) behind these trends may require a better understanding of the interaction between risk factors, as well as the multiple ways in which a single risk factor may affect the pathogenesis of the tumor.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is an emerging clinicopathologic entity defined by abnormal esophageal eosinophilic infiltration. Our understanding of this disease is hampered by the lack of a uniform diagnostic standard. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the range of diagnostic strategies and histologic criteria in the EoE literature. The MEDLINE-indexed literature from 1950 through December 31, 2006 was independently searched by two investigators. To identify additional relevant studies, bibliographies were hand searched, as were the published proceedings of the 2000-2006 American College of Gastroenterology and American Gastroenterological Association national meetings. Data were extracted from all human EoE case reports, case series, cross-sectional and cohort studies, and clinical trials. Of 318 publications initially identified, 116 original articles, 39 abstracts, and 69 reviews were included. We found 10 different histologic definitions of EoE, ranging from 5 to 30 eosinophils per high-powered field (hpf), though 41 (35%) of the original articles did not state their diagnostic criteria. In the 13 original articles (11%) reporting an hpf area, the eosinophil density per mm(2) varied 23-fold. There was also variation in esophageal biopsy protocols, but specific protocols were reported in just 45 (39%) original articles. Significant variability in diagnostic criteria for eosinophilic esophagitis exists, and in a large proportion of studies, criteria are not reported. Because of this lack of a common disease definition, conclusions drawn from the cumulative EoE literature should be viewed with caution. A consensus research-quality standard for diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis is needed.

Digestive and liver diseases are a source of significant morbidity, mortality, and health-care costs for the U.S. population. An annual report of the toll of these diseases could be helpful to clinicians, policymakers, and researchers. To describe the epidemiology of gastrointestinal and liver diseases in the United States using data from privately and publicly held databases. We collected data from the National Center for Health Statistics, the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, the National Inpatient Sample, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Cancer Institute, as well as proprietary pharmaceutical databases to construct a report on the impact of gastrointestinal and liver diseases on the U.S. population. We compiled information on causes of death, hospitalization, clinic visits, cancer incidence, and mortality and infectious disease incidence from these databases, and extracted data specific to gastrointestinal diseases. Because of the high costs associated with medications used to treat gastrointestinal diseases, we also include in this year's report a special section on pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacoeconomics. Colorectal cancer continues to be the leading cause of GI-related death, although the data indicate a downward trend in deaths. Abdominal pain, diarrhea, vomiting, and nausea are the most common GI symptoms precipitating a visit to the physician, and GERD is the most common GI-related diagnosis given in office visits. Chest pain not specified to be cardiac in origin is the most common cause of inpatient admission possibly related to GI disease, with cholelithiasis and pancreatitis following. Americans spend in excess of US dollars 10 billion/yr on proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), and two of the top five selling drugs in the United States are PPIs. Trends in PPI use demonstrate turbulent changes, likely reflecting both new drug entries into the field, as well as drug marketing. The number of PPI prescriptions/yr in the United States has doubled since 1999. Twenty-three drugs used for gastrointestinal diseases are among the top 200 generic drugs used in the United States. Gastrointestinal and liver diseases are significant contributors to the morbidity, mortality, and health-care expenditures of the U.S. population.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is thought to be more common among males and Caucasians, but little is known about the disease presentation among patients with different genders or racial backgrounds. The objective of this study was to determine the clinical, endoscopic, and histologic characteristics of patients with EoE of different genders or racial backgrounds. We conducted a retrospective study of the University of North Carolina EoE clinicopathologic database between January 2000 and December 2008. Cases of EoE were defined per 2007 consensus guidelines and stratified by race and gender for comparison. In all, 208 incident EoE cases were identified (76% males, mean age 26 years, 82% Caucasian, and 12% African American). Caucasians were older at diagnosis than African Americans (27.1 vs. 19.0 years, P=0.05), less likely to present with failure-to-thrive (9 vs. 30%, P=0.002), and more likely to have esophageal rings (41 vs. 12%, P=0.005). These findings persisted after stratification by age. A higher proportion of males were diagnosed under the age of 18 as compared with females (48 vs. 64%, P=0.05). Males were more likely to report dysphagia and food impaction as symptoms (71 vs. 53%, P=0.02 and 35 vs. 20%, P=0.05, respectively), and these findings also persisted after stratification by age. The remainder of clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features did not differ by either race or gender. While age and dysphagia differed by gender and race among EoE patients, the majority of symptoms and findings were not different across groups, even after stratification by age. Clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for EoE, regardless of race or gender, and obtain esophageal biopsies to confirm the diagnosis.

Background Laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) can cause atypical symptoms, asthma, and pulmonary fibrosis. The aim of this study was to establish the normative data for LPR using hypopharyngeal multichannel intraluminal impedance-pH (HMII). Methods Asymptomatic subjects underwent endoscopy followed by 24-h HMII using a specialized impedance catheter configured to detect LPR before and after a 2-week course of proton pump inhibitors (PPI). Subjects were excluded if they had esophageal pathology or a positive DeMeester score. A cohort of 24 LPR patients who had a complete response to treatment was used for comparison with the normative data. Results Forty subjects were enrolled. Thirty-four subjects completed one, and 25 completed both HMII testing periods off and on PPI. There was no difference in the total number of reflux events between off and on PPI [22 (8–32) and 24 (10–28), respectively, p  = 0.89]. The 95th percentiles of LPR off and on PPI were 0 and 1, respectively. All patients with treatment responsive LPR had pre-treatment HMII values of LPR greater than the 95th percentile. Conclusion LPR events are rare in an asymptomatic population. One or more LPR events should be considered abnormal in patients with LPR symptoms regardless of whether there is a positive DeMeester score.