Endosc Int Open 2016; 04(01): E36-E41
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1393247
Original article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

ESGE Survey: worldwide practice patterns amongst gastroenterologists regarding the endoscopic management of Barrett’s esophagus

Simon J. Dunn
1   South Tyneside District Hospital, South Shields, UK
2   Northern Region Endoscopy Group, UK
,
Laura J. Neilson
1   South Tyneside District Hospital, South Shields, UK
2   Northern Region Endoscopy Group, UK
,
Cesare Hassan
3   Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Catholic University, Department of General Surgery, Rome, Italy
,
Prateek Sharma
4   Veteran Affairs Medical Centre, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kansas City, Missouri, USA
,
Claire Guy
5   European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Munich, Germany
,
Colin J. Rees
1   South Tyneside District Hospital, South Shields, UK
2   Northern Region Endoscopy Group, UK
6   School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, University of Durham, Stockton on Tees, UK
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 25 May 2015

accepted after revision 16 September 2015

Publication Date:
14 January 2016 (online)

Background and study aims: Barrett’s esophagus is a common condition that is widely encountered in clinical practice. This European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) survey aimed to determine practice patterns amongst European clinicians with regard to the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus.

Methods: Clinicians attending the ESGE learning area at the United European Gastroenterology Week in 2014 were invited to complete a 10-question survey. This survey was programed on to two Apple iPads. Information was gathered with regard to demographics, practice settings, and diagnosis and management strategies for Barrett’s esophagus.

Results: In total, 163 responses were obtained. Over half of respondents (61 %) were based in university hospitals, the majority (78 %) were aged 30 – 50 and half had more than 10 years’ experience; 66 % had attended courses on Barrett’s esophagus and more than half (60 %) used the Prague C & M classification. Advanced imaging was used by 73 % of clinicians and 72 % of respondents stated that their group practiced ablation therapy. Most (76 %) practiced surveillance for non-dysplastic Barrett’s, 6 % offered ablation therapy in some situations, and 18 % offered no intervention. For low grade dysplasia, 56 % practiced surveillance, 19 % ablated some cases and 15 % ablated all cases. In total, 32 % of clinicians referred high grade dysplasia to expert centers, with 20 % referring directly for surgery and 46 % using ablation therapy in certain cases. Endoscopic mucosal resection was the most commonly used ablation technique (44 %).

Conclusions: There has been reasonable uptake of the Prague C & M classification for describing Barrett’s esophagus, and ablation is widely practiced. However, practice patterns for Barrett’s esophagus vary widely between clinicians with clear guidance and quality standards required.

 
  • References

  • 1 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
  • 2 Spechler SJ, Sharma P, Souza RF et al. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on the management of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 1084-1091
  • 3 Bosetti C, Levi F, Ferlay J et al. Trends in oesophageal cancer incidence and mortality in Europe. Int J Cancer 2008; 122: 1118-1129
  • 4 Sharma P, Dent J, Armstrong D et al. The development and validation of an endoscopic grading system for Barrett’s esophagus: the Prague C & M criteria. Gastroenterology 2006; 131: 1392-1399
  • 5 Abela J-E, Going J, Mackenzie J et al. Systematic four-quadrant biopsy detects Barrett’s dysplasia in more patients than nonsystematic biopsy. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 850-855
  • 6 Levine D, Haggitt R, Blount P et al. An endoscopic biopsy protocol can differentiate high-grade dysplasia from early adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 1993; 105: 40-50
  • 7 Qumseya BJ, Wang H, Badie N et al. Advanced imaging technologies increase detection of dysplasia and neoplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11: 1562-1570.e1-2
  • 8 Boyer J, Laugier R, Chemali M et al. French Society of Digestive Endoscopy SFED guideline: monitoring of patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 840-842
  • 9 Phoa KN, Pouw RE, Bisschops R et al. Multimodality endoscopic eradication for neoplastic Barrett oesophagus: results of an European multicentre study (EURO-II). Gut 2015; DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309298: gutjnl-2015-309298.
  • 10 Pech O, May A, Manner H et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection for patients with mucosal adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Gastroenterology 2014; 146: 652-660.e651
  • 11 Singh M, Gupta N, Gaddam S et al. Practice patterns among US gastroenterologists regarding endoscopic management of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 689-695
  • 12 Sharma P, Hawes RH, Bansal A et al. Standard endoscopy with random biopsies versus narrow band imaging targeted biopsies in Barrett’s oesophagus: a prospective, international, randomised controlled trial. Gut 2013; 62: 15-21
  • 13 Milashka M, Calomme A, Van Laethem JL et al. Sixteen-year follow-up of Barrett’s esophagus, endoscopically treated with argon plasma coagulation. UEG J 2014; 2: 367-373
  • 14 Phoa KN, van Vilsteren FG, Weusten BL et al. Radiofrequency ablation vs endoscopic surveillance for patients with Barrett esophagus and low-grade dysplasia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014; 311: 1209-1217
  • 15 Almond L, Hodson J, Barr H. Meta‐analysis of endoscopic therapy for low‐grade dysplasia in Barrett’s oesophagus. Br J Surg 2014; 101: 1187-1195