barrett’s esophagus: diagnosis, surveillance, and ... vol. 19, no. 12 december 2012 jcom 565...

www.jcomjournal.com Vol. 19, No. 12 December 2012 JCOM 563

ABSTRACT • Objective: To discuss diagnosis, surveillance, and

managementstrategiesforBarrett’sesophagus.• Methods:Literaturereview.• Results:Barrett’sesophagushasgainedrecognitionas

thepremalignantprecursorforesophagealadenocar-cinoma.TheprogressionofBarrett’sesophagusmayinvolve the development of low-grade dysplasia andhigh-gradedysplasiabeforetheeventualdevelopmentof a neoplasm.The challenges to screening includethe inability to predict who has Barrett’s esophaguspriortoendoscopy,thelackofevidencedemonstratingimprovedmortalityandthecost-effectivenessofendo-scopicscreening.Therecommendationforendoscopicsurveillance of Barrett’s esophagus is based on thepoor overall survival rate for esophageal adenocar-cinomawhen it isdiagnosedata latestage.CurrenttreatmentoptionsforBarrett’sesophagusincludesur-veillance, endoscopic resection, endoscopic ablationtherapyandsurgicalresection.

• Conclusion:Esophageal adenocarcinomahas beenrapidly increasing in incidence in the United Statesandothercountriesoverthelast30to40years.Con-troversystillsurroundsthescreeningandsurveillanceguidelines,butgiventhepoorsurvivalrateforesopha-geal adenocarcinoma, surveillance endoscopy isendorsed by all major professional gastrointestinalsocieties.Atthecurrenttime,patientswhoarefoundtohaveBarrett’sesophaguswithhigh-gradedyspla-sia or intramucosal esophageal neoplasia have theoptionofchoosingminimallyinvasiveendoscopicpro-cedures,whichappeartohavecomparableefficacytosurgery.

Esophageal adenocarcinoma is rapidly increasing in incidence in the United States and other coun-tries. Population-based cohort studies examin-

ing the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma report a 300% to 500% increase throughout the last 30 to

40 years [1]. Barrett’s esophagus has gained recognition as the premalignant lesion for adenocarcinoma and is be-lieved to be the major risk factor, with a 20-fold increased risk in the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma when compared to patients without the condition [2-4]. The reported rate of progression of Barrett’s esophagus to esophageal adenocarcinoma range from 0.12% to 0.5% per year [3,5–7].

Barrett’s esophagus is diagnosed in approximately 10% to 15% of patients with reflux symptoms who are under-going endoscopy [1]. Barrett’s esophagus is defined as a change in the distal esophageal epithelium of any length that can be recognized as columnar type mucosa at en-doscopy (Figure 1) and is confirmed to have intestinal metaplasia by biopsy of the esophagus (Figure 2). If the characteristic “salmon-colored” tongues of Barrett’s esophagus are observed on standard light endoscopy, 4-quadrant biopsies should be taken every 1 to 2 cm throughout the Barrett’s segment [8]. The progression of Barrett’s esophagus may involve the development of low-grade dysplasia and high-grade dysplasia before the eventual development of a neoplasm. Because the average age at diagnosis of esophageal adenocarcinoma is in the sixth and seventh decades of life [9], a clear understand-ing of the diagnosis and treatment options of Barrett’s esophagus is essential in the care of the aging population.

CASE STUDYInitial Presentation

A 68-year-old man with a body mass index of 33 is referred to a gastroenterologist for evalu-

ation of gastroesophageal reflux disease. He endorses a history of intermittent substernal burning sensation for the last 6 years.

Barrett’s Esophagus: Diagnosis, Surveillance, and Endoscopic ManagementCase Study and Commentary, Michelle H. Lee, MD, and Sharmila Anandasabapathy, MD

From the Division of Gastroenterology, The Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY.

CASE-BASED REVIEW

564 JCOM December 2012 Vol. 19, No. 12 www.jcomjournal.com

BARRETT’S ESOPHAGUS

• What are indications for screening for Bar-rett’sesophagus?

Screening

A screening test should have the ability to detect a prema-lignant or early malignant lesion, thereby offering the op-portunity for intervention and reduced morbidity and mor-tality. While screening for Barrett’s esophagus in selected patients has been endorsed by certain gastrointestinal soci-eties [10], the challenges to screening include the inability to predict who has Barrett’s esophagus prior to endoscopy, the lack of evidence demonstrating improved mortality and the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic screening. The rationale supporting screening for Barrett’s esophagus has been based on decision- and cost-analysis studies [11,12] but is limited by the absence of controlled, supportive data.

Although attempts have been made to identify the ap-propriate screening population for Barrett’s esophagus, no guidelines have been established. Studies have attempted to predict Barrett’s esophagus with clinical and demo-graphic features comparing patients with the disease to controls with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)

[13]. Age greater than 50 [14], GERD [8], longer dura-tion of GERD symptoms [15–19], male gender [20], and white race [21] have been associated with Barrett’s esopha-gus, although recently, rates of Barrett’s esophagus have been rising in females [22]. While the only consistent pre-dictor across various studies was the presence of heartburn, the sensitivity remains poor [13]. Furthermore, studies demonstrate that up to 40% of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma do not experience reflux symptoms and therefore would not be included in the targeted screening population [23–25]. Moreover, a Veterans Administration study noted that older patients with Barrett’s esophagus had significantly lower symptom severity scores when compared with younger patients with similar pathology, with scores similar to those of asymptomatic controls [26]. This atypical clinical presentation further complicates the determination of appropriate screening groups. Addition-ally, there is conflicting evidence supporting a mortal-ity benefit from screening and surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus [8]. Some retrospective studies have suggested a survival benefit in patients undergoing endoscopy prior to diagnosis of adenocarcinoma [27–34], while other stud-ies have failed to demonstrate an overall mortality benefit in patients undergoing Barrett’s surveillance [35–39].

Given the inability to identify high-risk groups, as well as the lack of proven benefit of endoscopic surveil-lance in patients in whom Barrett’s esophagus is identi-fied, screening for Barrett’s esophagus in the general population is not recommended at this time (Table 1). The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) recommends tailoring screening for Barrett’s esopha-gus to patients based on risk factors rather than reflux symptoms alone [8]. On the other hand, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy recommends that screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy should be considered in patients with chronic, longstanding GERD (> 5 years) [10]. The American College of Gastroenterol-ogy guidelines state that the use of screening in selective populations at higher risk remains to be established and should therefore be individualized [13]. However, alarm symptoms such as dysphagia, weight loss and anemia should prompt primary care physicians to refer patients to a gastroenterologist for an endoscopic evaluation.

• Howshouldendoscopicsurveillancebecon-ducted?

Figure 1. Barrett’sesophagusonendoscopy.


Surveillance

Although there is a lack of randomized trials supporting the value of surveillance endoscopy in patients with Barrett’s esophagus, it is still practiced by the vast majority of endoscopists and endorsed by all major professional gas-trointestinal societies [13]. The recommendation for en-doscopic surveillance is based on the poor overall survival rate for esophageal adenocarcinoma when it is diagnosed at a late stage [40]. Moreover, multiple cohort studies have demonstrated that esophageal cancers detected in patients in surveillance protocol are associated with lon-ger survival than those diagnosed on an initial endoscopy for alarm symptoms [8].

Patients undergoing surveillance endoscopy should be maintained on proton pump inhibitors, with the goal of decreasing esophageal inflammation and enabling better endoscopic and pathological examination of Bar-rett’s esophagus [41]. If initial pathologic examination demonstrates Barrett’s esophagus without dysplasia, a second endoscopy should be performed within 2 years. Subsequent surveillance can be performed at 3- to 5-year intervals (Table 2) [42]. Patients are maintained on proton pump inhibitors based on the hypothesis that neutralization of esophageal acid exposure would remove mucosal irritation, and subsequently reduce the risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia or adeno-carcinoma [39]. In addition, some studies have dem-onstrated that antireflux surgery can provide control over GERD symptoms in Barrett’s esophagus [43,44]. Studies have demonstrated that more than 20% of cancers reported in prospective surveillance studies arose in patients lacking dysplasia on initial endoscopy;

thus, continued surveillance is recommended even in the absence of dysplasia on both baseline endoscopies [45].

When biopsies demonstrate low-grade dysplasia, re-peat endoscopy should be done within 6 months, with biopsies taken every 1 cm to ensure that a higher grade of dysplasia is not present. Low-grade dysplasia warrants annual endoscopies. If no dysplasia is noted on 2 con-secutive studies, then a 3-year interval can be followed [13]. Low-grade dysplasia should be confirmed by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist, secondary to the high degree of inter-observer variation [46]. The endoscopic treatment of non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus is not generally recommended. Low-grade dysplasia is a more controversial area. While some studies have demonstrated eradication of low-grade dysplasia with ablative therapy [47], the long-term efficacy and benefits have not been demonstrated [8].

High-grade dysplasia in f lat mucosa should be confirmed by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist and a repeat endoscopy should be performed within 3 months, with biopsies taken every 1 cm. However, high-grade dysplasia with mucosal irregularity should undergo endoscopic mucosal resection due to the in-creased likelihood of cancer existing in nodularity. In high-grade dysplasia, the 5-year risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma has been shown to range from 16% to 56%; hence, intervention (endoscopic or surgical) is usually recommended for subjects with high-grade dysplasia [13]. Patients with high-grade dys-plasia should be advised on various therapeutic options including intensive surveillance, esophagectomy or abla-

CASE-BASED REVIEW

Figure 2. Histologic appearance of Bar-rett’sepithelium.Normalsquamousepithe-lium(L)andBarrett’sglandularmucosa(R).

L R



tive therapies. Recent guidelines support the endoscopic eradication of high-grade dysplasia with radiofrequency ablation, photodynamic therapy or endoscopic mucosal resection preferentially over surveillance of high-grade dysplasia [8,48].

In patients without dysplasia on surveillance studies, the recommended follow up should be based upon the highest grade of dysplasia previously confirmed. Patients who have undergone ablative treatment should have bi-opsies over the entire area of ablation, in time intervals indicated for their prior grade of dysplasia until there are 3 negative consecutive studies [13]. Additionally, continued surveillance is still recommended, as Barrett’s esophagus is known to reoccur. Currently there are studies underway evaluating the impact of surveillance endoscopy, with re-sults that should be available in the next few years.

There are some caveats to surveillance protocols. While cost-utility studies have demonstrated that screening may have some benefits, continued surveillance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus is an expensive practice [11]. Addition-ally, these patients appear to greatly overestimate their risk of develop adenocarcinoma [49], which can be a source of anxiety and decrease overall quality of life.

AdvancedSurveillanceTechnology

The current practice of endoscopic surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus has limitations in that biopsies are

performed randomly and samples may miss metaplasia, dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma because of the patchy distribution of a Barrett’s segment [50,51]. Ad-vanced endoscopic optical imaging techniques have been developed with the objective of improving the overall accuracy of endoscopic biopsies of Barrett’s epithelium. Narrow-band imaging (electronic chromoendoscopy) uses spectral narrow-band optical filters with a predomi-nance of blue light that highlights mucosal and vascular patterns characteristic of neoplastic tissue [52]. Studies by Kara and Sharma suggest that narrow-band imaging (NBI) has a high sensitivity and specificity for the detec-tion of Barrett’s associated neoplasia: 94% and 75%, and 100% and 99%, respectively [53,54]. However, studies by Curvers and by Herrero have shown that NBI does not improve inter-observer agreement or accuracy over high-definition white light endoscopy, independent of expertise [55, 56].

Confocal laser endomicroscopy integrates a confocal laser microscope into the tip of a standard videoen-doscope, allowing for real-time histology during the procedure [57]. In a prospective study by Kiesslich et al, patients with Barrett’s esophagus underwent endo-scope-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (eCLE) ex-amination [57]. Barrett’s associated neoplasia could be predicted with a sensitivity of 92.9% and a specificity of 98.4%. Sharma et al published results of a multicenter,

Table 2.DysplasiaGradeandSurveillanceIntervalofBarrett’sEsophagus

Dysplasia Grade First Year Follow-up

None Twoendoscopieswithbiopsieswithin1styear

Endoscopyevery3–5years

Lowgrade Repeatendoscopywithbiopsieswithin6–12months

One-yearintervalsuntilnodysplasiaon2endoscopies

Highgrade Repeatendoscopywithbiopsieswithin3months

Endoscopicresectionorablation

Continued3-monthsurveillanceorintervention

Esophagectomy

Table 1.ScreeningRecommendations

American College of Gastroenterology [13]

American Gastroenterological Association [8,42]

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy [10]

ScreeningforBarrett'sesophagusremainscontroversial.Thehighestyieldisinolder(≥50yr)Caucasianmaleswithlongstandingheartburn.

Recommendstailoringscreeningbasedonmultipleriskfactors,notjustonrefluxsymptomsalone

RecommendsscreeningEGDbeconsideredinpatientswithchronic,longstandingGERD


prospective, randomized controlled study in patients with Barrett’s esophagus and associated high-grade dys-plasia and adenocarcinoma designed to determine the accuracy of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) [58]. The sensitivity and specificity for high-definition white light endoscopy with pCLE was 68.3% and 87.8%, respectively [58]. Multimodality imaging involves the use of more than one advanced imaging modality simultaneously, with the purpose of improving the detection of high-grade dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma. The techniques that have been used in combination are NBI, autofluorescence imaging and high-resolution endoscopy. However the use of these imaging modalities has not been recommended in cur-rent guidelines [8].

PatientWorkup

The patient undergoes an endoscopic evalua-tion that demonstrates 4 cm of salmon-colored

mucosa with no ulcerations or nodules. Random biopsies confirm the diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus with low-grade dysplasia and multifocal high-grade dysplasia.

• HowisBarrett’sesophagusmanaged?

In the past, esophagectomy was the standard treatment for Barrett’s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia. Vari-ous minimally invasive techniques have been developed, but esophageal resection may still carry a high risk of complications. Esophagectomy has been correlated with a mortality rate which may be as high as 20% in centers with low-frequency esophagectomies [59,60]. However, the mortality rate may be significantly reduced to less than 2% in experienced, high-volume medical cen-ters [61,62]. Various endoscopic therapies have evolved (Table 3), and subsequently, patients now have alterna-tives to surgical resection for the treatment of high-grade dysplasia or early intramucosal cancers. Furthermore, the efficacy of endoscopic ablation has been demonstrated in multicenter, randomized controlled trials [63–65].

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) involves the re-moval of the mucosa and typically partial excision of the submucosa [66]. The most commonly used technique is the ER-cap method. The targeted mucosal tissue is elevated by submucosal injection of fluid and the lesion is sucked into the tip of the endoscope, and then re-

sected with a snare. Another option is the ligate-and-cut technique, which does not require submucosal injection and uses a band-ligating device, similar to variceal liga-tion device. The ER-cap technique allows for large tissue samples, while the band ligation method is faster and less expensive for multiple resections [67].

EMR can be performed to remove focal visible areas of high-grade dysplasia within a Barrett’s segment. It car-ries the advantage of being both a diagnostic tool, as well as a treatment modality for both high-grade dysplasia and early esophageal adenocarcinoma. Compared to standard endoscopic biopsy methods, EMR enables more precise characterization of neoplasia, less inter-observer varia-tion among pathologists, and more precise evaluation of dysplasia grades and the depths of invasion [48,68,69]. Additionally, EMR can provide more precise staging of submucosal invasion when compared to endoscopic ultrasound [70,71].

Ell et al conducted a single-center prospective study evaluating the efficacy and safety of EMR in patients with low-risk adenocarcinoma of the esophagus arising from Barrett’s epithelium. The primary outcome was complete local remission in a mean follow-up period of 36.7 months. Complete local remission was achieved in 99 of the 100 patients. The study also demonstrated that endoscopic therapy appeared to be superior to surgery with regard to mortality and morbidity, as there were no major complications among the 100 patients. The calcu-lated 5-year survival rate was 98% [72].

Before endoscopic therapy can be considered a cura-tive treatment, the extent of the neoplastic involvement must be determined. Esophageal resections performed on intramucosal carcinomas that do not invade the muscularis mucosae have revealed a less than 5% rate of metastases to lymph nodes [73–76]. Therefore, when neoplastic tissue is confined to the mucosa, endoscopic therapy may be a definitive treatment. Thus, EMR has not only a key role in staging early esophageal neoplasms, but also has a role in determining whether endoscopic therapy is appropriate. Prior to undergoing endoscopic therapy, patients should be made aware of complications such as bleeding, perforation, stricture formation and the possibility of residual metaplasia. Moreover, given re-ported recurrence rates of adenocarcinoma in 10% to 30% [72,77–83], patients should be informed of the necessity of surveillance after endoscopic therapy.

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) uses radiofrequency energy emitted from an endoscopic balloon catheter or

CASE-BASED REVIEW



a focal ablation device to destroy Barrett’s epithelium. First, the endoscopist determines the diameter of the esophagus with a balloon-measuring device, then an ablation balloon, which is covered with electrodes, is po-sitioned over the esophageal segment to be ablated. Ra-diofrequency energy is released through the electrodes, producing heat that destroys metaplastic tissue in the muscularis mucosa and superficial submucosa. RFA also has the ability to treat long segments of Barrett’s esopha-gus [66]. Patients typically return 2 to 3 months after the initial RFA treatment for endoscopic assessment, and any remaining metaplastic tissue is removed using the focal ablation device [66]. There have been an increasing number of studies aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of RFA in both dysplastic and nondysplastic Bar-rett’s epithelium [64,84,85].

A study by Shaheen et al was the first randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of RFA in eradication of dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus [86]. In this multicenter, sham-controlled trial, 127 patients with Barrett’s esophagus with low- or high-grade dys-plasia were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive

either RFA or a sham procedure and were surveyed with interval endoscopies for a total of 12 months. Primary outcome was complete eradication of dysplasia and in-testinal metaplasia at 12 months. Complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia was found in 77.4% of patients in the RFA group, as compared with 2.3% in the control group (P < 0.001). Among patients with low-grade dys-plasia, complete eradication of dysplasia was observed in 90.5% of patients in the treatment group versus 22.7% of those in the control group (P < 0.001). Among patients with high-grade dysplasia, there was complete eradication of dysplasia in 81% in the ablation group compared with 19% in the control group (P < 0.001). The study was not designed to detect a difference in dis-ease progression, yet progression was observed in 16.3% of patients in the control group, as compared with 3.6% of patients in the ablation group (P = 0.03). Esophageal neoplasia developed in significantly more patients in the control group (9.3%) when compared to patients in the ablation group (1.2%, P = 0.045). The investigators ex-tended their initial findings by following this cohort for a mean 3.05 years in a subsequent study [87]. Patients

Table 3.EndoscopicManagementofBarrett’sEsophagus

Treatment Description Benefits Limitations

Endoscopicmucosalresection[72,82,83,87]

Resectionofmucosalandsubmucosaltissue,allowingforhistologicalevaluation

Sparesnormaltissue

Allowsforprecisecancerstaging

Mayrequirerepeattreatment

Riskofperforation,bleedingandstrictureformation

Usedonvisiblelesions

Radiofrequencyablation[64,86,87]

Radiofrequencyenergyemittedfromendoscopicballooncath-eterorfocalablationdevice

Lowside-effectprofile Requiresmultiplesessions

Requiresflatsurfaceforsuccessfulablation

Lackoflong-termremissiondata

Photodynamictherapy[63,89] Photochemicalenergygeneratedwithlaserlightandphotosensitizer

Treatmentinsinglesession Significantpostproceduremorbidity

Multipolarelectrocoagulation[90,91]

Thermalenergyappliedtomucosa

Welltolerated

Easytouse

Notusedintreatmentofhigh-gradedysplasiaanddifficulttouseinlongersegments

Argonplasmacoagulation[92] Ionizedargongasdeliversmonopolarenergy

Easytouse Limitedevidenceinhigh-gradedysplasia

Riskofresidualmetaplasia

Cryotherapy[94] Endoscopicallydeliveredcryogen(liquidnitrogenorcarbondioxide)

Welltolerated Onlylimited,earlyclinicaltrialdataavailable


were followed for as long as 5 years, depending on their eradication status at 2 years post-ablation. Crossover was permitted between the control and RFA treatment group. After 2 years, 101 of 106 subjects had complete eradication of all dysplasia (95%). Among subjects with initial low-grade dysplasia, dysplasia was eradicated in 51 of 52 (98%) and in those with initial high-grade dys-plasia, dysplasia was eradicated in 50 of 54 (93%). After 3 years, dysplasia was eradicated in 55 of 56 of subjects (98%). Kaplan–Meier analysis demonstrated that eradi-cation persists in greater than 85% of patients, without maintenance RFA. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 of 119 subjects (3.4%) with a rate of stricture of 7.6%. This study, as well as others [63,86,88], demon-strates comparable efficacy of RFA compared to other modalities. Additionally, the low complication rate and side effect profile make RFA an appealing treatment option for high-grade dysplasia, especially in elderly pa-tients with multiple comorbidities for whom the risk of surgery may be too high. Furthermore, if ablation does not eradicate high-grade dysplasia, surgery and EMR remain an option.

Consensus statement by the AGA recommends that RFA, with or without EMR, should be considered as a therapeutic option in select patients with non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus who are at increased risk for progres-sion of disease [8,42]. However, specific criteria defining that population have not yet been defined.

Other ablative techniques include photodynamic therapy (PDT), cryotherapy, multipolar electrocoagu-lation (MPEC) and argon plasma coagulation (APC). PDT is an ablation technique that uses photochemical energy generated through the interaction of laser light and an intravenously-administered photosensitizer. This interaction leads to the formation of toxic, singlet oxy-gen molecules that destroy neoplastic tissue. Common side effects of PDT include photosensitivity reactions in > 60%, and stricture formation in up to 36% [63,89]. Because of this side effect profile, PDT is less frequently used as first line treatment for high-grade dysplasia. MPEC involves the application of thermal energy to the mucosa using an electrode-tipped catheter that is ad-vanced through the working channel of the endoscope [90, 91]. MPEC is not practical for ablating large areas of mucosa. Additionally, there is a lack of data establish-ing the efficacy of MPEC on the treatment of neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. Likewise, APC is a non-contact technique that delivers monopolar energy to the tissue

by using ionized argon gas [66]. However, the recur-rence rate of Barrett’s esophagus after APC has been reported to be as high as 66% [92]. Given the newer ablation techniques such as RFA and PDT, both APC and MPEC have fallen out of favor for the eradication of Barrett’s esophagus [66].

The newest technology available is cryotherapy, which involves the use of an endoscopically delivered cryogen to inflict tissue injury [92]. Two systems exist utilizing either liquid nitrogen or carbon dioxide. Tis-sue destruction occurs in 2 phases: an immediate phase, caused by freezing of the cells, followed by a delayed phase where cells undergo apoptosis [93]. Cryotherapy can be sprayed without direct contact to mucosal sur-faces and therefore may be beneficial for application to uneven surfaces. While data on cryotherapy is still lim-ited, long-term clinical trials are underway.

PatientTreatmentandFollow-up

The patient is started on a proton pump in-hibitor and undergoes RFA for the treatment of

high-grade dysplasia. Follow-up endoscopy demonstrates eradication of high-grade dysplasia.

CONCLUSION

While the survival rate from esophageal adenocarcinoma has improved in recent years, the 5-year survival rate is still only 15% to 20% [45]. Physicians caring for the aging population must maintain a high index of suspicion for Barrett’s esophagus in patients experiencing longstanding symptoms of reflux, and it is crucial for the physician to refer any patient in whom they suspect Barrett’s esophagus or a possible gastrointestinal malignancy to a gastroen-terologist. The benefits of screening remain controversial despite continued widespread clinical practice, given the inability to identify high-risk groups, as well as the lack of proven benefit of endoscopic surveillance in patients in whom Barrett’s esophagus is identified. Further studies are needed to clearly define the populations that would benefit from screening protocols. Patients with dysplasia or cancer should be seen in a center with expertise in the disease. Current treatment options for Barrett’s esophagus include surveillance, endoscopic resection, endoscopic ablation therapy and surgical resection. The treatment needs to be individualized and patient factors such as age, coexisting medical conditions and personal preference, as well as the expertise available in the patient’s community must be taken into consideration. Esophageal characteristics such

CASE-BASED REVIEW



as the length of Barrett’s segment, presence of visible le-sions and the presence of multifocal lesions will also guide treatment options [66]. At the current time, patients who are found to have Barrett’s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal esophageal neoplasia have the option of choosing minimally invasive procedures, which appear to have comparable efficacy to surgery, with the benefits of lower morbidity and mortality.

Corresponding author: Sharmila Anandasabapathy, MD, Div. of Gastroenterology, The Mount Sinai Medical Cen-ter, One Gustave Levy Place, Unit 1069, New York, NY 10029, [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

REFERENCES 1 . Shaheen N, Ransohoff DF. Gastroesophageal reflux, Bar-

rett’s esophagus, and esophageal cancer: scientific review. JAMA 2002;287:1972–81.

2. Jung KW, Talley NJ, Romero Y, et al. Epidemiology and natural history of intestinal metaplasia of the gastroesopha-geal junction and Barrett’s esophagus: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:1447–55.

3. Hvid-Jensen F, Pedersen L, Drewes AM, et al. Incidence of adenocarcinoma among patients with Barrett’s esophagus. N Engl J Med 2011;365:1375–83.

4. Solaymani-Dodaran M, Logan RF, West J, et al. Risk of oesophageal cancer in Barrett’s oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal reflux. Gut 2004;53:1070–4.

5. Bhat S, Coleman HG, Yousef F, et al. Risk of malig-nant progression in Barrett’s esophagus patients: results from a large population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:1049–57.

6. Desai TK, Krishnan K, Samala N, et al. The incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma in non-dysplastic Barrett’s oesophagus: a meta-analysis. Gut 2012;61:970–6.

7. Alcedo J, Ferrandez A, Arenas J, et al. Trends in Barrett’s esophagus diagnosis in Southern Europe: implications for surveillance. Dis Esophagus 2009;22:239–48.

8. Spechler SJ, Sharma P, Souza RF, et al. American Gastroen-terological Association technical review on the management of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2011;140:e18-52.

9. Crane SJ, Richard Locke G 3rd, Harmsen WS, et al. The changing incidence of oesophageal and gastric adenocar-cinoma by anatomic sub-site. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007;25:447–53.

10. Hirota WK, Zuckerman MJ, Adler DG, et al. ASGE guide-line: the role of endoscopy in the surveillance of premalig-nant conditions of the upper GI tract. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63:570–80.

11. Inadomi JM, Sampliner R, Lagergren J, et al. Screening and surveillance for Barrett esophagus in high-risk groups: a cost-utility analysis. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:176–86.

12. Eloubeidi MA, Homan RK, Martz MD, et al. A cost

analysis of outpatient care for patients with Barrett’s esophagus in a managed care setting. Am J Gastroenterol 1999;94:2033–6.

13. Wang KK, Sampliner RE. Updated guidelines 2008 for the diagnosis, surveillance and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:788–97.

14. Rubenstein JH, Scheiman JM, Sadeghi S, et al. Esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence in individuals with gastro-esophageal reflux: synthesis and estimates from population studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:254–60.

15. Eloubeidi MA, Provenzale D. Clinical and demographic predictors of Barrett’s esophagus among patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a multivariable analysis in veterans. J Clin Gastroenterol 2001;33:306–9.

16. Eisen GM, Sandler RS, Murray S, Gottfried M. The rela-tionship between gastroesophageal reflux disease and its complications with Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroen-terol 1997;92:27–31.

17. Avidan B, Sonnenberg A, Schnell TG, Sontag SJ. Hiatal hernia and acid reflux frequency predict presence and length of Barrett’s esophagus. Dig Dis Sci 2002;47:256–64.

18. Smith KJ, O’Brien SM, Smithers BM, et al. Interactions among smoking, obesity, and symptoms of acid reflux in Barrett’s esophagus. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:2481–6.

19. Lieberman DA, Oehlke M, Helfand M. Risk factors for Barrett’s esophagus in community-based practice. GORGE consortium. Gastroenterol Outcomes Res Group Endos-copy. Am J Gastroenterol 1997;92:1293–7.

20. Gerson LB, Edson R, Lavori PW, Triadafilopoulos G. Use of a simple symptom questionnaire to predict Barrett’s esophagus in patients with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:2005–12.

21. Corley DA, Kubo A, Levin TR, et al. Race, ethnicity, sex and temporal differences in Barrett’s oesophagus diag-nosis: a large community-based study, 1994-2006. Gut 2009;58:182-8.

22. Anandasabapathy S, Jhamb J, Davila M, et al. Clinical and endoscopic factors predict higher pathologic grades of Bar-rett dysplasia. Cancer 2007;109:668–74.

23. Lagergren J, Bergstrom R, Lindgren A, Nyren O. Symp-tomatic gastroesophageal reflux as a risk factor for esopha-geal adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 1999;340:825–31.

24. Farrow DC, Vaughan TL, Sweeney C, et al. Gastroesopha-geal reflux disease, use of H2 receptor antagonists, and risk of esophageal and gastric cancer. Cancer Causes Control 2000;11:231–8.

25. Chow WH, Finkle WD, McLaughlin JK, et al. The relation of gastroesophageal reflux disease and its treatment to ad-enocarcinomas of the esophagus and gastric cardia. JAMA 1995;274:474–7.

26. Triadafilopoulos G, Sharma R. Features of symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease in elderly patients. Am J Gastroenterol 1997;92:2007–11.

27. Corley DA, Levin TR, Habel LA, et al. Surveillance and survival in Barrett’s adenocarcinomas: a population-based study. Gastroenterology 2002;122:633–40.


28. van Sandick JW, van Lanschot JJ, Kuiken BW, et al. Impact of endoscopic biopsy surveillance of Barrett’s oesophagus on pathological stage and clinical outcome of Barrett’s carcinoma. Gut 1998;43:216–22.

29. Fitzgerald RC, Saeed IT, Khoo D, et al. Rigorous surveil-lance protocol increases detection of curable cancers associ-ated with Barrett’s esophagus. Dig Dis Sci 2001;46:1892–8.

30. Streitz JM Jr, Andrews CW Jr, Ellis FH Jr. Endoscopic surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus. Does it help? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1993;105:383–7.

31. Peters JH, Clark GW, Ireland AP, et al. Outcome of adeno-carcinoma arising in Barrett’s esophagus in endoscopically surveyed and nonsurveyed patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1994;108:813–21.

32. Fountoulakis A, Zafirellis KD, Dolan K, et al. Effect of sur-veillance of Barrett’s oesophagus on the clinical outcome of oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg 2004;91:997–1003.

33. Cooper GS, Yuan Z, Chak A, Rimm AA. Association of prediagnosis endoscopy with stage and survival in ad-enocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia. Cancer 2002;95:32–8.

34. Cooper GS, Kou TD, Chak A. Receipt of previous diagno-ses and endoscopy and outcome from esophageal adeno-carcinoma: a population-based study with temporal trends. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104:1356–62.

35. Rubenstein JH, Sonnenberg A, Davis J, et al. Effect of a prior endoscopy on outcomes of esophageal adenocarci-noma among United States veterans. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:849–55.

36. Anderson LA, Murray LJ, Murphy SJ, et al. Mortality in Barrett’s oesophagus: results from a population based study. Gut 2003;52:1081–4.

37. Rana PS, Johnston DA. Incidence of adenocarcinoma and mortality in patients with Barrett’s oesophagus diagnosed between 1976 and 1986: implications for endoscopic sur-veillance. Dis Esoph 2000;13:28–31.

38. Macdonald CE, Wicks AC, Playford RJ. Final results from 10 year cohort of patients undergoing surveil-lance for Barrett’s oesophagus: observational study. BMJ 2000;321:1252–5.

39. Conio M, Blanchi S, Lapertosa G, et al. Long-term endo-scopic surveillance of patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Incidence of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma: a prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:1931–9.

40. Eloubeidi MA, Mason AC, Desmond RA, El-Serag HB. Temporal trends (1973-1997) in survival of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma in the United States: a glimmer of hope? Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:1627–33.

41. Gilani N, Gerkin RD, Ramirez FC, et al. Prevalence of Bar-rett’s esophagus in patients with moderate to severe erosive esophagitis. World J Gastroenterol 2008;14:3518–22.

42. Spechler SJ, Sharma P, Souza RF, et al. American Gastro-enterological Association medical position statement on the management of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2011;140:1084–91.

43. Lundell L, Miettinen P, Myrvold HE, et al. Continued (5-year) followup of a randomized clinical study compar-

ing antireflux surgery and omeprazole in gastroesophageal reflux disease. J Am Coll Surg 2001;192:172–9.

44. Yau P, Watson DI, Devitt PG, et al. Laparoscopic antireflux surgery in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux in pa-tients with Barrett esophagus. Arch Surg 2000;135:801–5.

45. Sharma P, McQuaid K, Dent J, et al. A critical review of the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus: the AGA Chicago Workshop. Gastroenterology 2004;127:310–30.

46. Gross CP, Canto MI, Hixson J, Powe NR. Management of Barrett’s esophagus: a national study of practice pat-terns and their cost implications. Am J Gastroenterol 1999;94:3440–7.

47. Shaheen NJ, Sharma P, Overholt BF, et al. Radiofrequency ablation in Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia. N Engl J Med 2009;360:2277–88.

48. Bennett C, Vakil N, Bergman J, et al. Consensus state-ments for management of barrett’s dysplasia and early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma, based on a delphi process. Gastroenterology 2012;143:336–46.

49. Shaheen NJ, Green B, Medapalli RK, et al. The perception of cancer risk in patients with prevalent Barrett’s esophagus enrolled in an endoscopic surveillance program. Gastroen-terology 2005;129:429-–36.

50. Vieth M, Ell C, Gossner L, et al. Histological analysis of endoscopic resection specimens from 326 patients with Barrett’s esophagus and early neoplasia. Endoscopy 2004;36:776–81.

51. Tschanz ER. Do 40% of patients resected for barrett esophagus with high-grade dysplasia have unsuspected ad-enocarcinoma? Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005;129:177–80.

52. Gono K, Obi T, Yamaguchi M, et al. Appearance of en-hanced tissue features in narrow-band endoscopic imaging. J Biomed Optics 2004;9:568–77.

53. Sharma P, Bansal A, Mathur S, et al. The utility of a novel narrow band imaging endoscopy system in patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;64:167–75.

54. Kara MA, Peters FP, Fockens P, et al. Endoscopic video-autofluorescence imaging followed by narrow band imag-ing for detecting early neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;64:176–85.

55. Kwon RS, Wong Kee Song LM, Adler DG, et al. Endocy-toscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70:610–3.

56. Kodashima S, Fujishiro M, Takubo K, et al. Ex-vivo study of high-magnification chromoendoscopy in the gastrointes-tinal tract to determine the optimal staining conditions for endocytoscopy. Endoscopy 2006;38:1115–21.

57. Kiesslich R, Gossner L, Goetz M, et al. In vivo histology of Barrett’s esophagus and associated neoplasia by confo-cal laser endomicroscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;4:979–87.

58. Sharma P, Meining AR, Coron E, et al. Real-time increased detection of neoplastic tissue in Barrett’s esophagus with probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy: final results of an international multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:465–72.

59. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl

CASE-BASED REVIEW



J Med 2002;346:1128–37.60. Birkmeyer, JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, et al. Surgeon vol-

ume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2117–27.

61. Smith JW, Shiu MH, Kelsey L, Brennan MF. Morbidity of radical lymphadenectomy in the curative resection of gastric carcinoma. Arch Surg 1991;126:1469–73.

62. Sano T, Sasako M, Yamamoto S, et al. Gastric cancer sur-gery: morbidity and mortality results from a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing D2 and extended para-aortic lymphadenectomy--Japan Clinical Oncology Group study 9501. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:2767–73.

63. Overholt BF, Lightdale CJ, Wang KK, et al. Photodynamic therapy with porfimer sodium for ablation of high-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: international, partially blinded, randomized phase III trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;62:488–98.

64. Fleischer DE, Overholt BF, Sharma VK, et al. Endo-scopic ablation of Barrett’s esophagus: a multicenter study with 2.5-year follow-up. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:867–76.

65. Inadomi JM, Somsouk M, Madanick RD, et al. A cost-utility analysis of ablative therapy for Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2009;136:2101–14.

66. Spechler SJ, Fitzgerald RC, Prasad GA, Wang KK. History, molecular mechanisms, and endoscopic treatment of Bar-rett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2010;138:854–69.

67. Peters FP, Kara MA, Curvers WL, et al. Multiband muco-sectomy for endoscopic resection of Barrett’s esophagus: feasibility study with matched historical controls. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;19:311–5.

68. Peters FP, Brakenhoff KP, Curvers WL, et al. Histologic evaluation of resection specimens obtained at 293 endo-scopic resections in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest En-dosc 2008;67:604–9.

69. Mino-Kenudson M, Hull MJ, Brown I, et al. EMR for Bar-rett’s esophagus-related superficial neoplasms offers better diagnostic reproducibility than mucosal biopsy. Gastroin-test Endosc 2007;66:660–6.

70. Prasad GA, Buttar NS, Wongkeesong LM, et al. Sig-nificance of neoplastic involvement of margins obtained by endoscopic mucosal resection in Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:2380–6.

71. Larghi A, Lightdale CJ, Memeo L, et al. EUS followed by EMR for staging of high-grade dysplasia and early cancer in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;62:16–23.

72. Ell C, May A, Pech O, et al. Curative endoscopic resection of early esophageal adenocarcinomas (Barrett’s cancer). Gastrointest Endosc 2007;65:3–10.

73. Montgomery E, Bronner MP, Goldblum JR, et al. Repro-ducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus: a reaffirmation. Hum Pathol 2001;32:368–78.

74. Montgomery E, Goldblum JR, Greenson JK, et al. Dyspla-sia as a predictive marker for invasive carcinoma in Barrett esophagus: a follow-up study based on 138 cases from a diagnostic variability study. Hum Pathol 2001;32:379–88.

75. Lewis JT, Wang KK, Abraham SC. Muscularis mucosae

duplication and the musculo-fibrous anomaly in endo-scopic mucosal resections for barrett esophagus: implica-tions for staging of adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2008;32:566–71.

76. Stein HJ, Feith M, Bruecher BL, et al. Early esophageal cancer: pattern of lymphatic spread and prognostic factors for long-term survival after surgical resection. Ann Surg 2005;242:566-573.

77. Moss A, Bourke MJ, Hourigan LF, et al. Endoscopic resection for Barrett’s high-grade dysplasia and early esophageal adenocarcinoma: an essential staging procedure with long-term therapeutic benefit. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:1276–83.

78. Ell C, May A, Gossner L, et al. Endoscopic mucosal resec-tion of early cancer and high-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2000;118:670–7.

79. Ciocirlan M, Lapalus MG, Hervieu V, et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection for squamous premalignant and early ma-lignant lesions of the esophagus. Endoscopy 2007;39:24–9.

80. Esaki M, Matsumoto T, Hirakawa K, et al. Risk factors for local recurrence of superficial esophageal cancer after treatment by endoscopic mucosal resection. Endoscopy 2007;39:41–5.

81. May A, Gossner L, Pech O, et al. Local endoscopic therapy for intraepithelial high-grade neoplasia and early adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s oesophagus: acute-phase and intermediate results of a new treatment approach. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002;14:1085–91.

82. Pech O, Behrens A, May A, et al. Long-term results and risk factor analysis for recurrence after curative endoscopic therapy in 349 patients with high-grade intraepithelial neo-plasia and mucosal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s oesopha-gus. Gut 2008;57:1200–6.

83. Prasad GA, Wu TT, Wigle DA, et al. Endoscopic and surgical treatment of mucosal (T1a) esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2009;137:815–23.

84. Ganz RA, Overholt BF, Sharma VK, et al. Circumferential ablation of Barrett’s esophagus that contains high-grade dysplasia: a U.S. Multicenter Registry. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:35–40.

85. Sharma VK, Jae Kim H, Das A, et al. Circumferential and focal ablation of Barrett’s esophagus containing dysplasia. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104:310–7.

86. Shaheen NJ, Sharma P, Overholt BF, et al. Radiofrequency ablation in Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia. N Engl J Med 2009;360:2277–88.

87. Shaheen NJ, Overholt BF, Sampliner RE, et al. Durability of radiofrequency ablation in Barrett’s esophagus with dys-plasia. Gastroenterology 2011;141:460–8.

88. Gondrie JJ, Pouw RE, Sondermeijer CM, et al. Stepwise circumferential and focal ablation of Barrett’s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia: results of the first prospective series of 11 patients. Endoscopy 2008;40:359–69.

89. Prasad GA, Wang KK, Buttar NS, et al. Predictors of stricture formation after photodynamic therapy for high-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2007;65:60–6.


90. Sampliner RE, Faigel D, Fennerty MB, et al. Effective and safe endoscopic reversal of nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus with thermal electrocoagulation combined with high-dose acid inhibition: a multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;53:554–8.

91. Dulai GS, Jensen DM, Cortina G, et al. Randomized trial of argon plasma coagulation vs. multipolar electrocoagula-tion for ablation of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest En-dosc 2005;61:232–40.

92. Mork H, Al-Taie O, Berlin F, et al. High recurrence rate of Barrett’s epithelium during long-term follow-up after argon plasma coagulation. Scand J Gastroenterol 2007;42:23–7.

93. Gage AA, Baust J. Mechanisms of tissue injury in cryosur-gery. Cryobiology 1998;37:171–86.

94. Greenwald BD, Dumot JA, Horwhat JD, et al. Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of endoscopic low-pressure liquid nitrogen spray cryotherapy in the esophagus. Dis Esoph 2010;23:13–9.

Copyright 2012 by Turner White Communications Inc., Wayne, PA. All rights reserved.

CASE-BASED REVIEW

barrett’s esophagus: diagnosis, surveillance, and ... vol. 19, no. 12 december 2012 jcom 565...

Documents