Barrett's Esophagus Screening Research Articles

Non-endoscopic screening for Barrett's esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in at risk Veterans.

While rates of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma (EAC) in the US continue to rise, many patients at risk of disease are not screened. EsoCheck (EC), a non-endoscopic esophageal balloon sampling device coupled with EsoGuard (EG), a DNA based screening assay, is an FDA-approved minimally invasive alternative to the traditional screening method of upper endoscopy. To prospectively determine the diagnostic accuracy, tolerance, and acceptability of the EC/EG test in a screening population. We recruited Veterans who met the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) Guideline criteria for endoscopic Barrett's Esophagus (BE) and EAC screening at Louis Stokes Cleveland Veteran Affairs Medical Center. All study participants completed unsedated EC guided distal esophageal sampling followed by a sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Diagnostic yield of the EG assay and EGD was recorded and used in calculation of sensitivity and specificity of EC/EG in prospective screening. The abbreviated Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6) questionnaire was administered before and after completion of EC. Overall tolerance of EC sampling was evaluated on a 10-point Likert scale. Esophageal cancer screening was accepted by 130/782 (16.6%) eligible veterans and we analyzed results of those who completed both screening tests (N = 124). Prevalence of BE/EAC among studied veterans was 12.9% (16/124), based on EGD. Sensitivity and specificity of EC/EG for EGD-detected BE/EAC were 92.9% (95% CI 66.1, 99.8) and 72.2% (95% CI 62.1, 80.8), respectively. Positive and negative predictive values were 32.5% (95% CI 18.6, 49.1) and 98.6% (95% CI 92.4, 100), respectively. Baseline STAI-6 scores were reflective of notable levels of anxiety among veterans in the peri-procedural setting. Mean post-procedure acceptability score for Esocheck test was 7.23 (SD 2.45). Our data suggest excellent sensitivity and negative predictive value of EC/EG in a screening population of veterans, making this modality a powerful screening tool for BE and EAC.

Unmet needs in Barret's esophagus diagnosis and treatment: a narrative review.

This narrative review discusses Barrett's esophagus management in the context of perceived deficiencies or controversies. Barrett's adenocarcinoma incidence has not clearly been impacted by Barrett's screening and surveillance. The following report was derived from articles using PubMed and Google searches. The search was concentrated on Barrett's esophagus screening and management guidelines. Comprehensive literature searches that highlight potential deficiencies or controversies regarding the current approach to Barrett's esophagus were employed. Esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence is rapidly increasing and this malignancy usually presents in an advanced and unresectable state. This is despite the significant expenditure of resources and time in endoscopic screening for and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus. Thus, more widespread screening for Barrett's esophagus may be considered. In addition, there are apparent inefficiencies and precision lack in the performance of endoscopic surveillance. This relates mainly to the lack of endoscopic cues for dysplasia. On the other hand, relatively low-risk subjects have frequent screening or surveillance procedures increasing cost. Lastly, endoscopic ablation for Barrett's with dysplasia has moderately good efficacy, especially for eradication of dysplasia, but mandates intensive post-therapy endoscopic surveillance. There is some concern for subsurface development of advanced Barrett's lesions. Fortunately, there is intense research in improving Barrett's esophagus diagnosis and treatment. Our narrative review will delineate deficiencies and potential measures to remedy them. In conclusion, screening for Barrett's esophagus and surveillance in Barrett's subjects have minimal established benefits, but proposed changes in screening practices and innovations in Barrett's esophagus endoscopic surveillance and dysplasia therapy have great promise.

Patient Knowledge, Risk Perception, and Barriers to Barrett's Esophagus Screening.

Most patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) do not have a previous diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus (BE), demonstrating a failure of current screening practices. An understanding of patient attitudes and barriers is essential to develop and implement interventions to improve BE screening adherence. We conducted a Web-based survey of patients aged >50 years with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease at 3 academic medical centers and 1 affiliated safety net health systems. Survey domains included patient characteristics, endoscopy history, familiarity with screening practices, perceived BE/EAC risk, and barriers to screening. We obtained a response rate of 22.6% (472/2,084) (74% men, mean age 67.9 years). Self-identified race and ethnicity of participants was 66.5% non-Hispanic White, 20.0% non-Hispanic Black, 13.4% other race, and 7.1% Hispanic. Screening for BE was recommended in only 13.2%, and only 5.3% reported previous screening. Respondents had notable gaps in knowledge about screening indications; only two-thirds correctly identified BE risk factors and only 19.5% believed BE screening was needed for gastroesophageal reflux disease. More than 1 in 5 respondents believed they would get BE (31.9%) or EAC (20.2%) but reported barriers to screening. Compared with White respondents, more Black respondents were concerned about getting BE/EAC and interested in screening but report higher barriers to screening. Patients at risk for BE, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, are worried about developing EAC but rarely undergo screening and have poor understanding of screening recommendations.

Expanding beyond endoscopy: A review of non-invasive modalities in Barrett's esophagus screening and surveillance.

Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is a condition that results from replacement of the damaged normal squamous esophageal mucosa to intestinal columnar mucosa and is the most significant predisposing factor for development of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Current guidelines recommend endoscopic evaluation for screening and surveillance based on various risk factors which has limitations such as invasiveness, availability of a trained specialist, patient logistics and cost. Trans-nasal endoscopy is a less invasive modality but still has similar limitations such as limited availability of trained specialist and costs. Non-endoscopic modalities, in comparison, require minimal intervention, can be done in an office visit and has the potential to be a more ideal choice for mass public screening and surveillance, particularly in patents at low risk for BE. These include newer generations of esophageal capsule endoscopy which provides direct visualization of BE, and tethered capsule endomicroscopy which can obtain high-resolution images of the esophagus. Various cell collection devices coupled with biomarkers have been used for BE screening. Cytosponge, in combination with TFF3, as well as EsophaCap and EsoCheck have shown promising results in various studies when used with various biomarkers. Other modalities including circulatory microRNAs and volatile organic compounds that have demonstrated favorable outcomes. Use of these cell collection methods for BE surveillance is a potential area of future research.

Low Prevalence of Endoscopic Screening for Barrett's Esophagus in a Screening-Eligible Primary Care Population.

Despite societal recommendations supporting Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening, it is unknown what proportion of eligible patients is screened in primary care. We assessed the proportion of BE screening- eligible patients evaluated in the primary care setting receiving upper esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and identified factors associated with undergoing EGD. This was a retrospective study of BE screening-eligible patients, as defined by the American College of Gastroenterology's BE guidelines, in a multipractice healthcare network consisting of 64 internal medicine practices and 94 family medicine (FM) practices. The proportion undergoing EGD, prevalence of BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in this group, and patient and provider factors associated with undergoing EGD were assessed. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of undergoing EGD. Of 1,127 screening-eligible patients, the mean age was 65.2 ± 8.6 years; 45% were obese; and 61% were smokers. Seventy-three percent were seeing FM; 94% were on proton pump inhibitors; and 44% took ≥1 gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) medication. Only 39% of patients (n = 436) had undergone EGD. The overall prevalence of BE or EAC was 9.9%. Of 39 (9%) referred for BE screening as the primary indication, BE/EAC prevalence was 35.1%. Factors associated with increased odds of having EGD were symptomatic GERD despite treatment (odds ratio [OR] 12.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 9.1-16.3), being on ≥1 GERD medication (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-1.9), and being an FM patient (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.1). In this large, primary care population, only 39% of screening-eligible patients underwent EGD. Most of the examinations were triggered by refractory symptoms rather than screening referrals, highlighting a need for improved dissemination and implementation of BE screening.

Limitations of Heartburn and Other Societies’ Criteria in Barrett’s Screening for Detecting De Novo Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

Despite extensive Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening efforts, most patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) present de novo. It is unclear how much of this problem is the result of insensitivity or poor applications of current screening guidelines. We aimed to evaluate the sensitivity of guidelines by determining the proportion of prevalent EAC cases that meet the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) or the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines for BE screening and determine whether changes to criteria would enhance detection. A retrospective single-center cohort from the United States (n= 663) and a prospective multicenter cohort from the United Kingdom (n= 645) were collected and analyzed independently. Screening eligibility was determined as patients with chronic reflux and at least 2 or more risk factors as defined by the guidelines. We calculated the proportion of screening-eligible patients and then compared BE/EAC risk factors between screening-eligible and screening-ineligible patients using the chi-squared or Student t test as appropriate. In the Mayo clinic cohort there were 54.9% EAC cases and in the UK cohort there were 38.9% EAC cases that were not identified by ACG or BSG screening criteria, respectively. Among patients who did not meet the screening criteria, lack of heartburn was observed in 86.5% in the Mayo clinic cohort and in 61.4% in the UK cohort. Other risk factors that were lacking included obesity (defined as a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m2) and family history of EAC. Eliminating chronic reflux from the ACG/BSG criteria improved eligibility for screening from 45.1% to 81.3% (P < .001) in the Mayo Clinic cohort and from 61.1% (n= 394) to 81.5% (n= 526; P < .001) in the UK cohort. However, reflux may be difficult to ascertain from the history, and by including proton pump inhibitor use status in addition to the BSG criteria, screening eligibility improved by 10.0% in the UK cohort (n= 459; P < .001). ACG/BSG BE screening guidelines have limited our ability to detect prevalent EAC. An optimized approach to identifying the individuals most suitable for EAC screening needs to be implemented, particularly one that does not rely on chronic reflux symptoms.

S3260 WATS in a Brush? Assessing Adoption of the WATs-3D Brush for Barrett's Esophagus Screening and Surveillance Amongst Gastroenterologists

S3260 WATS in a Brush? Assessing Adoption of the WATs-3D Brush for Barrett's Esophagus Screening and Surveillance Amongst Gastroenterologists

Characterization of Prevalent, Post-Endoscopy, and Incident Esophageal Cancer in the United States: A Large Retrospective Cohort Study

Efforts to assess and improve the effectiveness of Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening and surveillance are ongoing in the United States. Currently, there are limited population-based data in the United States to guide these efforts. We performed a retrospective cohort study using data from large commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans in the United States from 2004 - 2019. We identified individuals with BE and analyzed the proportion who developed EAC. EACs were classified as prevalent EAC (diagnosed within 30 days of index endoscopy), post-endoscopy esophageal adenocarcinoma (PEEC, diagnosed 30 - 365 days after index endoscopy), and incident EAC (diagnosed 365 days or more after index endoscopy). Using this cohort, we performed a nested case-control study to identify factors associated with prevalent EAC at BE diagnosis and study healthcare utilization prior to BE diagnosis. We identified 50,817 individuals with incident BE. Of the 366 who developed EAC, 67.2%, 13.7%, and 19.1% were diagnosed with prevalent EAC, PEEC, and incident EAC respectively. Factors positively associated with prevalent EAC versus BE without prevalent EAC included male sex, dysphagia, weight loss, and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score. In those with prevalent EAC, most patients with dysphagia or weight loss had their symptoms first recorded within three months of EAC diagnosis. Healthcare utilization rates were similar between those with and without prevalent EAC. Two-thirds of EACs among individuals with BE are diagnosed at the time of BE diagnosis. Additionally, PEEC accounts for 14% of these EACs. These results may guide future research studies that investigate novel BE diagnostic strategies that reduce the morbidity and mortality of EAC.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: prevalence of prior and concurrent Barrett's oesophagus in oesophageal adenocarcinoma patients.

The proportions of patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) diagnosed by Barrett's oesophagus surveillance or with pre-existing Barrett's oesophagus are unclear. To estimate the prevalence of prior and concurrent Barrett's oesophagus diagnosis among patients with OAC or oesophagogastric junction adenocarcinomas (OGJAC). We searched PubMed and Embase to identify studies published 1966-1/8/2020 that examined the prevalence of prior (≥6months) or concurrent Barrett's diagnosis (at cancer diagnosis) among OAC and OGJAC patients. Random effects models estimated overall and stratified pooled prevalence rates. A total of 69 studies, including 33002 OAC patients (53 studies) and 2712 patients with OGJAC (28 studies) were included. The pooled prevalence of prior Barrett's oesophagus diagnosis in OAC was 11.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.4%-15.6%). The prevalence of prior Barrett's oesophagus diagnosis was higher in single-centre resection studies (16.0%, 95% CI 8.7%-24.9%) than population-based cancer registry studies (8.4%, 95% CI 5.5%-11.9%). The prevalence of concurrent Barrett's oesophagus in OAC was 56.6% (95% CI 48.5%-64.6%). Studies with 100% early stage OAC had higher prevalence of concurrent Barrett's oesophagus (91.3%, 95% CI 82.4%-97.6%) than studies with <50% early OAC (39.7%, 95% CI 33.7%-45.9%). In OGJAC, the prevalence of prior and concurrent Barrett's oesophagus was 23.2% (95% CI 7.5%-44.0%) and 26.3% (95% CI 17.8%-35.7%), respectively. Most patients with OAC have Barrett's oesophagus. Our meta-analysis found ~12% of OAC patients had prior Barrett's diagnosis, but concurrent Barrett's oesophagus was found in ~57% at the time of OAC diagnosis. This represents a considerable missed opportunity for Barrett's oesophagus screening.

2867 Barrett's Esophagus Screening: A Survey of Primary Care Physicians to Assess Knowledge Gaps

INTRODUCTION: Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is a condition in which metaplastic columnar epithelium with goblet cells replaces the stratified squamous epithelium normally found in the distal esophagus. It is a precursor for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), however screening for BE remains a controversial topic and any guidelines that exist may not be well known among primary care physicians (PCPs). The transformation from nondysplastic BE to EAC has a slow rate of progression, giving screening for BE the potential to identify patients earlier via endoscopic visualization and confirmatory biopsy. A prior study found that less than 5% of patients undergoing resection for EAC had a prior diagnosis of BE, 1 indicating potential missed opportunities for screening of appropriate patients. Newer data recommends selective screening via stratification of patients based on risk factors. PCPs are often a patients first line of contact within the healthcare system; therefore, they should have an thorough understanding of the risk factors for BE and be comfortable in identifying appropriate patients to refer for screening. METHODS: We conducted a survey of PCPs (n = 63) at a large urban university hospital. The survey consisted of eight questions regarding risk factors, screening recommendations and physician comfort in identifying appropriate patients for BE screening. RESULTS: Collectively, PCPs scored 60%, suggesting a significant lack of knowledge regarding BE, with only 13% of participants answering all questions correctly. In regards to identifying risk factors, only 25% answered correctly. 41% of respondents indicated they are comfortable identifying appropriate patients for screening. Comfortability was assessed on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being not comfortable at all. The average response was 3.02, reflecting neutrality in physician comfort. CONCLUSION: Our survey found that knowledge of risk factors among PCPs may be inadequate. Additionally, PCPs acknowledge they are not comfortable identifying appropriate patients for screening. This may stem from not being familiar with known risk factors or not being up to date with screening guidelines. Those in practice longer said they are more comfortable, however were not more knowledgeable in risk factors and screening guidelines, indicating that increased education is necessary throughout a physician's career. 1. Dulai, Gareth S., et al. "Preoperative prevalence of Barrett's esophagus in esophageal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review." Gastroenterology (2002): 26-33.

Use of the Electronic Health Record to Target Patients for Non-endoscopic Barrett's Esophagus Screening.

Clinical prediction models targeting patients for Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening include data obtained by interview, questionnaire, and body measurements. A tool based on electronic health records (EHR) data could reduce cost and enhance usability, particularly if combined with non-endoscopic BE screening methods. To determine whether EHR-based data can identify BE patients. We performed a retrospective review of patients ages 50-75 who underwent a first-time esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Data extracted from the EHR included demographics and BE risk factors. Endoscopy and pathology reports were reviewed for histologically confirmed BE. Screening criteria modified from clinical guidelines were assessed for association with BE. Subsequently, a score based on multivariate logistic regression was developed and assessed for its ability to identify BE subjects. A total of 2931 patients were assessed, and BE was found in 1.9%. Subjects who met screening criteria were more likely to have BE (3.3% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.001), and the criteria predicted BE with an AUROC of 0.65 (95% CI 0.59-0.71). A score based on logistic regression modeling included gastroesophageal reflux disease, sex, body mass index, and ever-smoker status and identified BE subjects with an AUROC of 0.71 (95% CI 0.64-0.77). Both prediction tools produced higher AUROCs in women than in men. EHR-based BE risk prediction tools identify BE patients with fair accuracy. While these tools may improve the efficiency of patient targeting for BE screening in the primary care setting, challenges remain to identify high-risk patients for non-invasive BE screening in clinical practice.

Over-Utilization of Repeat Upper Endoscopy in Patients with Non-dysplastic Barrett's Esophagus: A Quality Registry Study.

Guidelines recommend that patients with non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE) undergo surveillance endoscopy every 3-5 years. Using a national registry, we assessed compliance to recommended surveillance intervals in patients with NDBE and identified factors associated with compliance. We analyzed data from the GI Quality Improvement Consortium registry. Data abstracted include procedure indication, demographics, endoscopy/pathology results, and recommendations for future endoscopy. Patients with an indication of Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening or surveillance, or an endoscopic finding of BE, with non-dysplastic intestinal metaplasia on pathological examination, were included. Compliance was defined as a recommendation to undergo subsequent endoscopy between 3 and 5 years. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to assess variables associated with compliance. Of 786,712 endoscopies assessed, 58,709 (7.5%) endoscopies in 53,541 patients met inclusion criteria (mean age 61.3 years, 60.4% men, 90.2% white, mean BE length was 2.3 cm). Most cases were performed by Gastroenterologists (92.3%) with propofol (78.7%). A total of 29,978 procedures (55.8%) resulted in pathology-confirmed BE. Among procedures with NDBE (n = 25,945), 29.9% were noncompliant with the 3-year threshold; most (26.9%) recommended surveillance at 1- to 2-year intervals. Patient factors such as extremes of age, black race, geographic region, type of sedation, and increasing BE length were associated with noncompliance. Approximately 30% of patients with NDBE are recommended to undergo surveillance endoscopy too soon. Patient factors associated with inappropriate utilization include extremes of age, black race, and increasing BE length. Compliance with appropriate endoscopic follow-up as a quality measure in BE is poor.

Comparative Assessment of Patient Preferences and Tolerability in Barrett Esophagus Screening: Results From a Randomized Trial.

To determine patient preference for the Barrett esophagus (BE) screening techniques. Sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (sEGD) and unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) are both potential techniques for BE screening. However, systematic assessment of patient preference for these 2 techniques is lacking. As part of a comparative effectiveness randomized trial of BE screening modalities, we measured short-term patient preferences for the following approaches: in-clinic uTNE (huTNE), mobile-based uTNE (muTNE), and sEGD using a novel assessment instrument. Consenting community patients without known BE were randomly assigned to receive huTNE, muTNE, or sEGD, followed by a telephone administered preference and tolerability assessment instrument 24 hours after study procedures. Patient preference was measured by the waiting trade-off method. In total, 201 patients completed screening with huTNE (n=71), muTNE (n=71), or sEGD (n=59), and a telephone interview. Patients' preferences for sEGD and uTNE using the waiting trade-off method were comparable (P=0.51). Although tolerability scores were superior for sEGD (P<0.001) compared with uTNE, scores for uTNE examinations were acceptable. Patient preference is comparable between sEGD and uTNE for diagnostic examinations conducted in an endoscopy suite or in a mobile setting. Given acceptable tolerability, uTNE may be a viable alternative to sEGD for BE screening.

Endosheath ultrathin transnasal endoscopy is a cost-effective method for screening for Barrett’s esophagus in patients with GERD symptoms

Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening is currently not considered to be cost effective in the general population but may be effective in high-risk subgroups, such as 50-year-old white men with chronic reflux disease (GERD). A new modality for screening is unsedated transnasal endoscopy using endosheath technology (uTNE), which has been shown to be safe and effective in clinical practice. In this study, we determined the cost-utility of uTNE in a high-risk subgroup compared with no screening or screening with standard endoscopy. A Markov model was used to simulate screening of 50-year-old white men with symptoms of GERD with either uTNE or standard endoscopy compared with no screening, over a lifetime horizon. Input variables were based on the literature and recent data on uTNE screening for BE. The study was designed from a healthcare payer perspective by using direct costs. Primary outcome measures were costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of uTNE and standard endoscopy compared with no screening. Sensitivity analysis was performed for several factors, such as prevalence of BE. Costs of uTNE, standard endoscopy, and no screening were estimated at, $2495, $2957, and $1436, respectively. Compared with no screening, uTNE screening resulted in an overall QALY increase of 0.039 (95% percentile 0.018; 0.063) and an ICUR of $29,446 per QALY gained (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.516-53.091), whereas standard endoscopy compared with no screening resulted in a QALY increase of 0.034 (95% CI, 0.015-0.056) and an ICUR of $47,563 (95% CI, 31,036-82,970). Both uTNE and standard endoscopy seem to be cost-effective screening methods in a screening cohort of 50-year-old white men with GERD at a willingness-to-pay cutoff of $50,000.

Acceptability, Accuracy, and Safety of Disposable Transnasal Capsule Endoscopy for Barrett's Esophagus Screening

Screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) with conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy (C-EGD) is expensive. We assessed the performance of a clinic-based, single use transnasal capsule endoscope (EG Scan II) for the detection of BE, compared to C-EGD as the reference standard. We performed a prospective multicenter cohort study of patients with and without BE recruited from 3 referral centers (1 in the United States and 2 in the United Kingdom). Of 200 consenting participants, 178 (89%) completed both procedures (11% failed EG Scan due to the inability to intubate the nasopharynx). The mean age of participants was 57.9 years and 67% were male. The prevalence of BE was 53%. All subjects underwent the 2 procedures on the same day, performed by blinded endoscopists. Patients completed preference and validated tolerability (10-point visual analogue scale [VAS]) questionnaires within 14 days of the procedures. A higher proportion of patients preferred the EG Scan (54.2%) vs the C-EGD (16.7%) (P < .001) and the EG Scan had a higher VAS score (7.2) vs the C-EGD (6.4) (P= .0004). No serious adverse events occurred. The EG Scan identified any length BE with a sensitivity value of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.96) and a specificity value of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82-0.96). The EG Scan identified long segment BE with a sensitivity value of 0.95 and short segment BE with a sensitivity values of 0.87. In a prospective study, we found the EG Scan to be safe and to detect BE with higher than 90% sensitivity and specificity. A higher proportion of patients preferred the EG Scan to C-EGD. This device might be used as a clinic-based tool to screen populations at risk for BE. ISRCTN registry identifier: 70595405; ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02066233.

Sa1643 - Feasibility of the Implementation of Cytosponge as a Triage Test for Reflux Symptoms in Primary Care: Barrett's Esophagus Screening Trial 3 (Best3)

Sa1643 - Feasibility of the Implementation of Cytosponge as a Triage Test for Reflux Symptoms in Primary Care: Barrett's Esophagus Screening Trial 3 (Best3)

Tu1113 - use of the Electronic Health Record to Target Patients for Non-Endoscopic Barrett's Esophagus Screening

Tu1113 - use of the Electronic Health Record to Target Patients for Non-Endoscopic Barrett's Esophagus Screening

Su1047 - Does Education Improve Knowledge of Acg Barrett's Esophagus Screening Guidelines?

Su1047 - Does Education Improve Knowledge of Acg Barrett's Esophagus Screening Guidelines?

Point-Counterpoint: Screening and Surveillance for Barrett's Esophagus, Is It Worthwhile?

The exponential rise in incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), paired with persistently poor survival, continues to drive efforts to improve and optimize screening and surveillance practices. While advancements in endoscopic therapy have generated a shift in management and significantly improved the outcomes of patients with early-stage EAC, the majority of prevalent EAC continues to be diagnosed at advanced stages, remaining ineligible for curative therapy. Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening, when applied to high-yield target populations, using minimally or noninvasive accurate tests, followed by endoscopic surveillance to detect prevalent or incident dysplasia/EAC (which can then be treated successfully) is the cornerstone of the current BE management paradigm. While supported by some empiric evidence and attractive, this approach faces a number of challenges, which are also balanced by numerous recent advances in these areas. In this manuscript, we review the rationale, supportive evidence, current challenges, and recent progress in BE screening and surveillance.

Su1048 - Barrett's Esophagus Screening and Surveillance is not Responsible for Improved Outcomes in Esophageal Cancer

Su1048 - Barrett's Esophagus Screening and Surveillance is not Responsible for Improved Outcomes in Esophageal Cancer