Surveillance After Treatment of Barrett's Esophagus Benefits Those With High-Grade Dysplasia or Intramucosal Cancer Most.

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.