Download PDF
Endoscopy 2022; 54(09): 881-889
DOI: 10.1055/a-1729-8066
Systematic review

Post-endoscopy Barrett’s neoplasia after a negative index endoscopy: a systematic review and proposal for definitions and performance measures in endoscopy

Madhav Desai
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, USA
2   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
,
David Lieberman
3   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
,
Sachin Srinivasan
2   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
,
Venkat Nutalapati
2   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
,
Abhishek Challa
2   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
,
Pankush Kalgotra
4   Raymond J. Harbert College of Business, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA
,
Suneha Sundaram 
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, USA
5   Department of Medicine, St. Peterʼs University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
,
Alessandro Repici
6   Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy
7   IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
,
Cesare Hassan
6   Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy
7   IRCCS Humanitas Research Hospital, Rozzano, Milan, Italy
,
Michal F. Kaminski
8   Department of Gastroenterological Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, and Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Oncology, Medical Centre for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland
9   Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
,
Prateek Sharma
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri, USA
2   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints


Referred to by:

Barrettʼs esophagus – screening or surveillance, and what about the quality of endoscopy?Endoscopy 2022; 54(09): 890-891
DOI: 10.1055/a-1835-2252

Referred to by:

Author commentary on Madhav Desai et al.Endoscopy 2022; 54(09): v30-v30
DOI: 10.1055/a-1737-1462

Abstract

Background A high rate of neoplasia, both high grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has been reported in Barrett’s esophagus at index endoscopy, but precise rates of post-endoscopy Barrett’s neoplasia (PEBN) are unknown.

Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed examining electronic databases (inception to October 2021) for studies reporting PEBN. Consistent with the definitions of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer proposed by the World Endoscopy Organization, we defined neoplasia (HGD/EAC) detected at index endoscopy and/or within 6 months of a negative index endoscopy as “prevalent” neoplasia, that detected after 6 months of a negative index endoscopy and prior to next surveillance interval (i. e. 3 years) as PEBN or “interval” neoplasia, and that detected after 36 months from a negative index endoscopy as “incident” neoplasia. The pooled incidence rates and proportions relative to total neoplasia were analyzed.

Results 11 studies (n = 59 795; 61 % men; mean [SD] age 62.3 [3.3] years) met the inclusion criteria. The pooled incidence rates were: prevalent neoplasia 4.5 % (95 %CI 2.2 %–8.9 %) at baseline and an additional 0.3 % (0.1 %–0.7 %) within the first 6 months, PEBN 0.52 % (0.46 %–0.58 %), and incident neoplasia 1.4 % (0.9 %–2.1 %). At 3 years from the index endoscopy, PEBN accounted for 3 % of total Barrett’s neoplasia, while prevalent neoplasia accounted for 97 %.

Conclusion Neoplasia detected at or within 6 months of index endoscopy accounts for most cases of Barrett’s neoplasia (> 90 %). PEBN accounts for ~3 % of cases and can be used for validation in future. This highlights the importance of a high quality index endoscopy in Barrett’s esophagus and the need to establish quality benchmarks to measure endoscopists’ performance.

Appendix 1 s, Tables 1 s–4 s, Figs. 1 s–3 s



Publication History

Received: 27 July 2021

Accepted after revision: 03 January 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
03 January 2022

Article published online:
25 March 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Wani S, Qumseya B. et al. Standards of Practice Committee. Endoscopic eradication therapy for patients with Barrett’s esophagus-associated dysplasia and intramucosal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 907-931.e9
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Qumseya B, Sultan S. et al. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. ASGE guideline on screening and surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 335-359.e2
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Shaheen NJ. ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Barrett’s Esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 30-50
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Parasa S. Estimating neoplasia detection rate (NDR) in patients with Barrett’s oesophagus based on index endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut 2019; 68: 2122-2128
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Visrodia K, Singh S, Krishnamoorthi R. et al. Magnitude of missed esophageal adenocarcinoma after Barrett’s esophagus diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 599-607.e7
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Desai M, Lieberman DA, Kennedy KF. et al. Increasing prevalence of high-grade dysplasia and adenocarcinoma on index endoscopy in Barrett’s esophagus over the past 2 decades: data from a multicenter U.S. consortium. . Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 257-263.e3
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Dhaliwal L, Codipilly DC, Gandhi P. et al. Neoplasia detection rate in Barrett’s esophagus and its impact on missed dysplasia: results from a large population-based database. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 19: 922-929.e1
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 van Putten M, Johnston BT, Murray LJ. et al. “Missed” oesophageal adenocarcinoma and high-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s oesophagus patients: A large population-based study. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2018; 6: 519-528
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 de Jonge PJF, van Blankenstein M, Looman CWN. et al. Risk of malignant progression in patients with Barrett’s oesophagus: a Dutch nationwide cohort study. Gut 2010; 59: 1030-1036
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Visrodia K, Iyer PG, Schleck CD. et al. Yield of repeat endoscopy in Barrett’s esophagus with no dysplasia and low-grade dysplasia: a population-based study. Dig Dis Sci 2016; 61: 158-167
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Rutter MD, Beintaris I, Valori R. et al. World Endoscopy Organization consensus statements on post-colonoscopy and post-imaging colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2018; 155: 909-925.e3
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015; 4: 1
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC. et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008-2012
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ. et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 10: ED000142
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D. et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Accessed: 10 January 2022. Available from: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
    PubMed
  • 16 Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010; 25: 603-605
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Schafer JL. Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data. New York: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 1997
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Miros M, Kerlin P, Walker N. Only patients with dysplasia progress to adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut 1991; 32: 1441-1446
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Williamson WA, Ellis FH, Gibb SP. et al. Barrett’s esophagus. Prevalence and incidence of adenocarcinoma. Arch Intern Med 1991; 151: 2212-2216
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Conio M. Long-term endoscopic surveillance of patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Incidence of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma: a prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 1931-1939
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Dulai GS, Shekelle PG, Jensen DM. et al. Dysplasia and risk of further neoplastic progression in a regional Veterans Administration Barrett’s cohort. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 775-783
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Vieth M, Schubert B, Lang-Schwarz K. et al. Frequency of Barrett’s neoplasia after initial negative endoscopy with biopsy: a long-term histopathological follow-up study. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 1201-1205
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Gladman L, Chapman W, Iqbal TH. et al. Barrett’s oesophagus: an audit of surveillance over a 17-year period. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 18: 271-276
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Martinek J, Benes M, Brandtl P. et al. Low incidence of adenocarcinoma and high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus: a prospective cohort study. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 711-716
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Rugge M, Zaninotto G, Parente P. et al. Barrett’s esophagus and adenocarcinoma risk: the experience of the North-Eastern Italian Registry (EBRA). Ann Surg 2012; 256: 788-794 ; discussion 794–795
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Basu KK, Pick B, de Caestecker JS. Audit of a Barrett’s epithelium surveillance database. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 16: 171-175
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Gupta N, Gaddam S, Wani SB. et al. Longer inspection time is associated with increased detection of high-grade dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 531-538
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Fitzgerald RC, di Pietro M, Ragunath K. et al. British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut 2014; 63: 7-42
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Singh S, Singh PP, Murad MH. et al. Prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of interval colorectal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 1375-1389
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar