Explore the vast range of titles available.

Treatment of dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus prevents progression to adenocarcinoma; however, the optimal diagnostic strategy for Barrett's oesophagus is unclear. The Cytosponge-trefoil factor 3 (TFF3) is a non-endoscopic test for Barrett's oesophagus. The aim of this study was to investigate whether offering this test to patients on medication for gastro-oesophageal reflux would increase the detection of Barrett's oesophagus compared with standard management. This multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial was done in 109 socio-demographically diverse general practice clinics in England. Randomisation was done both at the general practice clinic level (cluster randomisation) and at the individual patient level, and the results for each type of randomisation were analysed separately before being combined. Patients were eligible if they were aged 50 years or older, had been taking acid-suppressants for symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux for more than 6 months, and had not undergone an endoscopy procedure within the past 5 years. General practice clinics were selected by the local clinical research network and invited to participate in the trial. For cluster randomisation, clinics were randomly assigned (1:1) by the trial statistician using a computer-generated randomisation sequence; for individual patient-level randomisation, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by the general practice clinics using a centrally prepared computer-generated randomisation sequence. After randomisation, participants received either standard management of gastro-oesophageal reflux (usual care group), in which participants only received an endoscopy if required by their general practitioner, or usual care plus an offer of the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure, with a subsequent endoscopy if the procedure identified TFF3-positive cells (intervention group). The primary outcome was the diagnosis of Barrett's oesophagus at 12 months after enrolment, expressed as a rate per 1000 person-years, in all participants in the intervention group (regardless of whether they had accepted the offer of the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure) compared with all participants in the usual care group. Analyses were intention-to-treat. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN68382401, and is completed. Between March 20, 2017, and March 21, 2019, 113 general practice clinics were enrolled, but four clinics dropped out shortly after randomisation. Using an automated search of the electronic prescribing records of the remaining 109 clinics, we identified 13 657 eligible patients who were sent an introductory letter with 14 days to opt out. 13 514 of these patients were randomly assigned (per practice or at the individual patient level) to the usual care group (n=6531) or the intervention group (n=6983). Following randomisation, 149 (2%) of 6983 participants in the intervention group and 143 (2%) of 6531 participants in the usual care group, on further scrutiny, did not meet all eligibility criteria or withdrew from the study. Of the remaining 6834 participants in the intervention group, 2679 (39%) expressed an interest in undergoing the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure. Of these, 1750 (65%) met all of the eligibility criteria on telephone screening and underwent the procedure. Most of these participants (1654 [95%]; median age 69 years) swallowed the Cytosponge successfully and produced a sample. 231 (3%) of 6834 participants had a positive Cytosponge-TFF3 result and were referred for an endoscopy. Patients who declined the offer of the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure and all participants in the usual care group only had an endoscopy if deemed necessary by their general practitioner. During an average of 12 months of follow-up, 140 (2%) of 6834 participants in the intervention group and 13 (<1%) of 6388 participants in the usual care group were diagnosed with Barrett's oesophagus (absolute difference 18·3 per 1000 person-years [95% CI 14·8–21·8]; rate ratio adjusted for cluster randomisation 10·6 [95% CI 6·0–18·8], p<0·0001). Nine (<1%) of 6834 participants were diagnosed with dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus (n=4) or stage I oesophago-gastric cancer (n=5) in the intervention group, whereas no participants were diagnosed with dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus or stage I gastro-oesophageal junction cancer in the usual care group. Among 1654 participants in the intervention group who swallowed the Cytosponge device successfully, 221 (13%) underwent endoscopy after testing positive for TFF3 and 131 (8%, corresponding to 59% of those having an endoscopy) were diagnosed with Barrett's oesophagus or cancer. One patient had a detachment of the Cytosponge from the thread requiring endoscopic removal, and the most common side-effect was a sore throat in 63 (4%) of 1654 participants. In patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux, the offer of Cytosponge-TFF3 testing results in improved detection of Barrett's oesophagus. Cytosponge-TFF3 testing could also lead to the diagnosis of treatable dysplasia and early cancer. This strategy will lead to additional endoscopies with some false positive results. Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research, the UK National Health Service, Medtronic, and the Medical Research Council.

ObjectiveDue to an annual progression rate of Barrett’s oesophagus (BO) with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) between 9% and 13% per year endoscopic ablation therapy is preferred to surveillance. Since this recommendation is based on only one randomised trial, we aimed at checking these results by another multicentre randomised trial with a similar design.DesignA prospective randomised study was performed in 14 centres comparing radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (maximum of 4 sessions) to annual endoscopic surveillance, including patients with a confirmed diagnosis of BO with LGD. Primary outcome was the prevalence of LGD at 3 years. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of LGD at 1 year, the complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) at 3 years, the rate of neoplastic progression at 3 years and the treatment-related morbidity.Results125 patients were initially included, of whom 82 with confirmed LGD (76 men, mean age 62.3 years) were finally randomised, 40 patients in the RFA and 42 in the surveillance group. At 3 years, CE-IM rates were 35% vs 0% in the RFA and surveillance groups, respectively (p<0.001). At the same time, the prevalence LGD was 34.3% (95% CI 18.6 to 50.0) in the RFA group vs 58.1% (95% CI 40.7 to 75.4) in the surveillance group (OR=0.38 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.02), p=0.05). Neoplastic progression was found in 12.5% (RFA) vs 26.2% (surveillance; p=0.15). The complication rate was maximal after the first RFA treatment (16.9%).ConclusionRFA modestly reduced the prevalence of LGD as well as progression risk at 3 years. The risk-benefit balance of endoscopic ablation therapy should therefore be carefully weighted against surveillance in patients with BO with confirmed LGD.Trial registration number NCT01360541.

BackgroundFor endoscopic resection of early GI neoplasia, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) achieves higher rates of complete resection (R0) than endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). However, ESD is technically more difficult and evidence from randomised trial is missing.ObjectiveWe compared the efficacy and safety of ESD and EMR in patients with neoplastic Barrett's oesophagus (BO).DesignBO patients with a focal lesion of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN) or early adenocarcinoma (EAC) ≤3 cm were randomised to either ESD or EMR. Primary outcome was R0 resection; secondary outcomes were complete remission from neoplasia, recurrences and adverse events (AEs).ResultsThere were no significant differences in patient and lesion characteristics between the groups randomised to ESD (n=20) or EMR (n=20). Histology of the resected specimen showed HGIN or EAC in all but six cases. Although R0 resection defined as margins free of HGIN/EAC was achieved more frequently with ESD (10/17 vs 2/17, p=0.01), there was no difference in complete remission from neoplasia at 3 months (ESD 15/16 vs EMR 16/17, p=1.0). During a mean follow-up period of 23.1±6.4 months, recurrent EAC was observed in one case in the ESD group. Elective surgery was performed in four and three cases after ESD and EMR, respectively (p=1.0). Two severe AEs were recorded for ESD and none for EMR (p=0.49).ConclusionsIn terms of need for surgery, neoplasia remission and recurrence, ESD and EMR are both highly effective for endoscopic resection of early BO neoplasia. ESD achieves a higher R0 resection rate, but for most BO patients this bears little clinical relevance. ESD is, however, more time consuming and may cause severe AE.Trial registration numberNCT1871636

The authors provide a state-of-the-art review of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, and natural history of Barrett's esophagus and management options for the disorder. It has been estimated that 5.6% of adults in the United States have Barrett's esophagus, 1 the condition in which a metaplastic columnar mucosa that confers a predisposition to cancer replaces an esophageal squamous mucosa damaged by gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). 2 GERD and Barrett's esophagus are major risk factors for esophageal adenocarcinoma, a deadly tumor whose frequency in the United States has increased by a factor of more than 7 during the past four decades. 3 , 4 The metaplastic columnar mucosa of Barrett's esophagus causes no symptoms, and the condition has clinical importance only because it confers a predisposition to cancer. Pathogenesis . . .

ObjectiveAfter focal endoscopic resection (ER) of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or early cancer (EC) in Barrett's oesophagus (BO), eradication of all remaining BO reduces the recurrence risk. The aim of this study was to compare the safety of stepwise radical ER (SRER) versus focal ER followed by radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for complete eradication of BO containing HGD/EC.MethodsA multicentre randomised clinical trial was carried out in three tertiary centres. Patients with BO ≤5 cm containing HGD/EC were randomised to SRER or ER/RFA. Patients in the SRER group underwent piecemeal ER of 50% of BO followed by serial ER. Patients in the ER/RFA group underwent focal ER for visible lesions followed by serial RFA. Follow-up endoscopy with biopsies (four-quadrant/2 cm BO) was performed at 6 and 12 months and then annually. The main outcome measures were: stenosis rate; complications; complete histological response for neoplasia (CR-neoplasia); and complete histological response for intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM).ResultsCR-neoplasia was achieved in 25/25 (100%) SRER and in 21/22 (96%) ER/RFA patients. CR-IM was achieved in 23 (92%) SRER and 21 (96%) ER/RFA patients. The stenosis rate was significantly higher in SRER (88%) versus ER/RFA (14%; p<0.001), resulting in more therapeutic sessions in SRER (6 vs 3; p<0.001) due to dilations. After median 24 months follow-up, one SRER patient had recurrence of EC, requiring ER.ConclusionsIn patients with BO ≤5 cm containing HGD/EC, SRER and ER/RFA achieved comparably high rates of CR-IM and CR-neoplasia. However, SRER was associated with a higher number of complications and therapeutic sessions. For these patients, a combined endoscopic approach of focal ER followed by RFA may thus be preferred over SRER.Clinical trial numberNTR1337.

In this sham-controlled, randomized trial involving patients with dysplastic Barrett's esophagus, patients who were treated with radiofrequency ablation were more likely to have complete eradication of dysplasia and intestinal metaplasia and less likely to progress to more severe dysplasia or cancer. Adverse events included chest pain and esophageal stricture. Patients with dysplastic Barrett's esophagus who were treated with radiofrequency ablation were more likely to have complete eradication of dysplasia and intestinal metaplasia and less likely to progress to more severe dysplasia or cancer. Barrett's esophagus is defined as metaplasia of the esophageal epithelium, with normal squamous epithelium replaced by columnar epithelium containing goblet cells, also known as intestinal metaplasia (Figure 1A). 1 This change is associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease. 2 Approximately 10% of patients with chronic reflux have Barrett's esophagus, 3 , 4 and the prevalence of the condition in a recent population study was 1.6%. 5 The condition is associated with an increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma. 6 , 7 The incidence of this once rare cancer has increased by more than 500% since the 1970s. 8 The cancer remains highly lethal, with a 5-year survival rate of less . . .

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is among the most common conditions encountered by the gastroenterologist. In this document, the American College of Gastroenterology updates its guidance for the best practices in caring for these patients. These guidelines continue to endorse screening of high-risk patients for BE; however, routine screening is limited to men with reflux symptoms and multiple other risk factors. Acknowledging recent data on the low risk of malignant progression in patients with nondysplastic BE, endoscopic surveillance intervals are attenuated in this population; patients with nondysplastic BE should undergo endoscopic surveillance no more frequently than every 3-5 years. Neither routine use of biomarker panels nor advanced endoscopic imaging techniques (beyond high-definition endoscopy) is recommended at this time. Endoscopic ablative therapy is recommended for patients with BE and high-grade dysplasia, as well as T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma. Based on recent level 1 evidence, endoscopic ablative therapy is also recommended for patients with BE and low-grade dysplasia, although endoscopic surveillance continues to be an acceptable alternative. Given the relatively common recurrence of BE after ablation, we suggest postablation endoscopic surveillance intervals. Although many of the recommendations provided are based on weak evidence or expert opinion, this document provides a pragmatic framework for the care of the patient with BE.

AbstractEsophageal cancer is the seventh most common malignancy worldwide, with over 470 000 new cases diagnosed each year. Two distinct histological subtypes predominate, and should be considered biologically separate disease entities.1 These subtypes are esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). Outcomes remain poor regardless of subtype, with most patients presenting with late stage disease.2 Novel strategies to improve early detection of the respective precursor lesions, squamous dysplasia, and Barrett’s esophagus offer the potential to improve outcomes. The introduction of a limited number of biologic agents, as well as immune checkpoint inhibitors, is resulting in improvements in the systemic treatment of locally advanced and metastatic esophageal cancer. These developments, coupled with improvements in minimally invasive surgical and endoscopic treatment approaches, as well as adaptive and precision radiotherapy technologies, offer the potential to improve outcomes still further. This review summarizes the latest advances in the diagnosis and management of esophageal cancer, and the developments in understanding of the biology of this disease.

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a common condition associated with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease. BE is the only known precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma, a highly lethal cancer with an increasing incidence over the last 5 decades. These revised guidelines implement Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to propose recommendations for the definition and diagnosis of BE, screening for BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma, surveillance of patients with known BE, and the medical and endoscopic treatment of BE and its associated early neoplasia. Important changes since the previous iteration of this guideline include a broadening of acceptable screening modalities for BE to include nonendoscopic methods, liberalized intervals for surveillance of short-segment BE, and volume criteria for endoscopic therapy centers for BE. We recommend endoscopic eradication therapy for patients with BE and high-grade dysplasia and those with BE and low-grade dysplasia. We propose structured surveillance intervals for patients with dysplastic BE after successful ablation based on the baseline degree of dysplasia. We could not make recommendations regarding chemoprevention or use of biomarkers in routine practice due to insufficient data.

ObjectiveGastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has heterogeneous aetiology primarily attributable to its symptom-based definitions. GERD genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have shown strong genetic overlaps with established risk factors such as obesity and depression. We hypothesised that the shared genetic architecture between GERD and these risk factors can be leveraged to (1) identify new GERD and Barrett’s oesophagus (BE) risk loci and (2) explore potentially heterogeneous pathways leading to GERD and oesophageal complications.DesignWe applied multitrait GWAS models combining GERD (78 707 cases; 288 734 controls) and genetically correlated traits including education attainment, depression and body mass index. We also used multitrait analysis to identify BE risk loci. Top hits were replicated in 23andMe (462 753 GERD cases, 24 099 BE cases, 1 484 025 controls). We additionally dissected the GERD loci into obesity-driven and depression-driven subgroups. These subgroups were investigated to determine how they relate to tissue-specific gene expression and to risk of serious oesophageal disease (BE and/or oesophageal adenocarcinoma, EA).ResultsWe identified 88 loci associated with GERD, with 59 replicating in 23andMe after multiple testing corrections. Our BE analysis identified seven novel loci. Additionally we showed that only the obesity-driven GERD loci (but not the depression-driven loci) were associated with genes enriched in oesophageal tissues and successfully predicted BE/EA.ConclusionOur multitrait model identified many novel risk loci for GERD and BE. We present strong evidence for a genetic underpinning of disease heterogeneity in GERD and show that GERD loci associated with depressive symptoms are not strong predictors of BE/EA relative to obesity-driven GERD loci.