The burden of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with Barrett’s esophagus

Background and study aims: Patients with Barrett’s esophagus are recommended to undergo regular surveillance with upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, an invasive procedure that may cause anxiety, pain, and discomfort. We assessed to what extent patients perceived this procedure as burdensome.
Patients and methods: A total of 192 patients with Barrett’s esophagus were asked to fill out questionnaires at 1 week and immediately before endoscopy, and at 1 week and 1 month afterwards. Four variables were assessed: (i) pain and discomfort experienced during endoscopy; (ii) symptoms; (iii) psychological burden, i. e., anxiety, depression and distress levels (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, Impact of Event Scale); and (iv) perceived risk of developing adenocarcinoma.
Results: At least one questionnaire was returned by 180 patients (94 %), 151 completed all four (79 %). Of all patients, only 14 % experienced the endoscopy as painful. However, 59 % reported it to be burdensome. Apart from an increase in throat ache (47 % after endoscopy versus 12 % before), the procedure did not cause physical symptoms. Patients’ anxiety, depression, and distress levels were significantly increased in the week before endoscopy compared with the week after. Patients perceiving their risk of developing adenocarcinoma as high reported higher levels of psychological distress and that the procedure was a greater burden.
Conclusions: Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is burdensome for many patients with Barrett’s esophagus and causes moderate distress. Perception of a high risk of adenocarcinoma may increase distress and the burden experienced from the procedure. The benefits of endoscopic surveillance for patients with Barrett’s esophagus should be weighed against its drawbacks, including the short-term burden for patients.

References

• 1 Bollschweiler E, Wolfgarten E, Gutschow C. et al . Demographic variations in the rising incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in white males.  Cancer. 2001;  92 549-555
• 2 Botterweck A A, Schouten L J, Volovics A. et al . Trends in incidence of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus and gastric cardia in ten European countries.  Int J Epidemiol. 2000;  29 645-654
• 3 Bytzer P, Christensen P B, Damkier P. et al . Adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and Barrett’s esophagus: a population-based study.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;  94 86-91
• 4 Devesa S S, Blot W J, Fraumeni J F Jr. Changing patterns in the incidence of esophageal and gastric carcinoma in the United States.  Cancer. 1998;  83 2049-2053
• 5 Shaheen N J, Crosby M J, Bozymski E M. et al . Is there publication bias in the reporting of cancer risk in Barrett’s esophagus?.  Gastroenterology. 2000;  119 333-338
• 6 Sampliner R E. Updated guidelines for the diagnosis, surveillance, and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus?.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;  97 1888-1895
• 7 Cullen J, Schwartz M D, Lawrence W F. et al . Short-term impact of cancer prevention and screening activities on quality of life.  J Clin Oncol. 2004;  22 943-952
• 8 van der Burgh A, Dees J, Hop W C. et al . Oesophageal cancer is an uncommon cause of death in patients with Barrett’s oesophagus.  Gut. 1996;  39 5-8
• 9 Hage M, Siersema P D, van Dekken H. et al . Oesophageal cancer incidence and mortality in patients with long-segment Barrett’s oesophagus after a mean follow-up of 12. 7 years.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 2004;  39 1175-1179
• 10 Conio M, Blanchi S, Lapertosa G. et al . 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
• 11 Spechler S J. Managing Barrett’s oesophagus.  BMJ. 2003;  326 892-894
• 12 Chang J T, Katzka D A. Gastroesophageal reflux disease, Barrett esophagus, and esophageal adenocarcinoma.  Arch Intern Med. 2004;  164 1482-1488
• 13 Tytgat G N, Van Sandick J W, Lanschot J J. et al . Role of surveillance in intestinal metaplasia of the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction.  World J Surg. 2003;  27 1021-1025
• 14 Craanen M E, Blok P, Meijer G A. et al . Surveillance in Barrett’s oesophagus: a critical reappraisal.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 2002;  236 Suppl 4-8
• 15 Provenzale D, Schmitt C, Wong J B. Barrett’s esophagus: a new look at surveillance based on emerging estimates of cancer risk.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;  94 2043-2053
• 16 Provenzale D, Kemp J A, Arora S. et al . A guide for surveillance of patients with Barrett’s esophagus.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1994;  89 670-680
• 17 Inadomi J M, Sampliner R, Lagergren J. et al . Screening and surveillance for Barrett esophagus in high-risk groups: a cost-utility analysis.  Ann Intern Med. 2003;  138 176-186
• 18 Essink-Bot M L, Rijnsburger A J, Van Dooren S. et al . Women’s acceptance of MRI in breast cancer surveillance because of a familial or genetic predisposition.  The Breast,. submitted 2005; 
• 19 Essink-Bot M L, de Koning H J, Nijs H G. et al . Short-term effects of population-based screening for prostate cancer on health-related quality of life.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;  90 925-931
• 20 Spinhoven P, Ormel J, Sloekers P P. et al . A validation study of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in different groups of Dutch subjects.  Psychol Med. 1997;  27 363-370
• 21 Zigmond A S, Snaith R P. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.  Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;  67 361-370
• 22 Brom D, Kleber R J. De Schok Verwerkings Lijst.  Ned Tijdschr Psychol. 1985;  40 164-168
• 23 Horowitz M, Wilner N, Alvarez W. Impact of Event Scale: a measure of subjective stress.  Psychosom Med. 1979;  41 209-218
• 24 Chemtob C M, Tomas S, Law W. et al . Postdisaster psychosocial intervention: a field study of the impact of debriefing on psychological distress.  Am J Psychiatr. 1997;  154 415-417
• 25 van Dooren S, Rijnsburger A J, Seynaeve C. et al . Psychological distress in women at increased risk for breast cancer: the role of risk perception.  Eur J Cancer. 2004;  40 2056-2063
• 26 The EuroQol Group . EuroQol - a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. The EuroQol Group.  Health Policy. 1990;  16 199-208
• 27 Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play.  Health Policy. 1996;  37 53-72
• 28 Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states.  Med Care. 1997;  35 1095-1108
• 29 Ren J, Xie P, Lang I M. et al . Deterioration of the pharyngo-UES contractile reflex in the elderly.  Laryngoscope. 2000;  110 1563-1566
• 30 Schwartz C E, Sprangers A G (eds). Adaptation to changing health. Response shift in quality-of-life research. 1st edn. Washington DC; American Psychological Association 2000