Endoscopic management of Barrett’s esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement

Abstract

Current practices for the management of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) vary across Europe, as several national European guidelines exist. This Position Statement from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is an attempt to homogenize recommendations and, hence, patient management according to the best scientific evidence and other considerations (e.g. health policy). A Working Group developed consensus statements, using the existing national guidelines as a starting point and considering new evidence in the literature. The Position Statement wishes to contribute to a more cost-effective approach to the care of patients with BE by reducing the number of surveillance endoscopies for patients with a low risk of malignant progression and centralizing care in expert centers for those with high progression rates.

Main statements

MS1 The diagnosis of BE is made if the distal esophagus is lined with columnar epithelium with a minimum length of 1 cm (tongues or circular) containing specialized intestinal metaplasia at histopathological examination.

MS2 The ESGE recommends varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance is advised. For BE ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. Patients with limited life expectancy and advanced age should be discharged from endoscopic surveillance.

MS3 The diagnosis of any degree of dysplasia (including “indefinite for dysplasia”) in BE requires confirmation by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist.

MS4 Patients with visible lesions in BE diagnosed as dysplasia or early cancer should be referred to a BE expert center. All visible abnormalities, regardless of the degree of dysplasia, should be removed by means of endoscopic resection techniques in order to obtain optimal histopathological staging

MS5 All patients with a BE ≥ 10 cm, a confirmed diagnosis of low grade dysplasia, high grade dysplasia (HGD), or early cancer should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance and/or treatment. BE expert centers should meet the following criteria: annual case load of ≥10 new patients undergoing endoscopic treatment for HGD or early carcinoma per BE expert endoscopist; endoscopic and histological care provided by endoscopists and pathologists who have followed additional training; at least 30 supervised endoscopic resection and 30 endoscopic ablation procedures to acquire competence in technical skills, management pathways, and complications; multidisciplinary meetings with gastroenterologists, surgeons, oncologists, and pathologists to discuss patients with Barrett’s neoplasia; access to experienced esophageal surgery; and all BE patients registered prospectively in a database.

• References

• 1 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: 970-976
• 2 Dumonceau J-M, Hassan C, Riphaus A, Ponchon T. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline development policy. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 626-629
• 3 Verbeek RE, Leenders M, Ten Kate FJW. et al. Surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus and mortality from esophageal adenocarcinoma: a population-based cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 1215-1222
• 4 Kastelein F, van Olphen SH, Steyerberg EW. et al. Impact of surveillance for Barrett’s oesophagus on tumour stage and survival of patients with neoplastic progression. Gut 2016; 65: 548-554
• 5 Fitzgerald RC, di Pietro M, Ragunath K. et al. British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut 2014; 63: 7-42 Available from: http://gut.bmj.com/content/63/1/7.full.pdf+html
• 6 Koop H, Fuchs KH, Labenz J. et al. (S2k Guideline: Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Guided by the German Society of Gastroenterology AWMF Register No. 021-013). Z Gastroenterol 2014; 52: 1299-1346 Available from: https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/pdf/10.1055/s-0034-1385202.pdf
• 7 Sharma P, Bergman JJ, Goda K. et al. Development and validation of a classification system to identify high-grade dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus using narrow-band imaging. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 591-598
• 8 Pohl H, Pech O, Arash H. et al. Length of Barrett’s oesophagus and cancer risk: implications from a large sample of patients with early oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Gut 2016; 65: 196-201
• 9 Phoa KN, van Vilsteren FGI, Weusten BLAM. et al. Radiofrequency ablation vs endoscopic surveillance for patients with Barrett esophagus and low-grade dysplasia. JAMA 2014; 311: 1209-1217
• 10 Duits LC, Phoa KN, Curvers WL. et al. Barrett’s oesophagus patients with low-grade dysplasia can be accurately risk-stratified after histological review by an expert pathology panel. Gut 2015; 64: 700-706
• 11 Pimentel-Nunes P, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Ponchon T. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 829-854
• 12 Terheggen G, Horn EM, Vieth M. et al. A randomised trial of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for early Barrett’s neoplasia. Gut 2016; 1-11 Available from: http://gut.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310126
• 13 Small AJ, Araujo JL, Leggett CL. et al. Radiofrequency ablation is associated with decreased neoplastic progression in patients with Barrett’s esophagus and confirmed low-grade dysplasia. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 567-576.e3
• 14 Manner H, Pech O, Heldmann Y. et al. The frequency of lymph node metastasis in early-stage adenocarcinoma of the esophagus with incipient submucosal invasion (pT1b sm1) depending on histological risk patterns. Surg Endosc 2015; 29: 1888-1896