Adherence to recommendations of Barrett’s esophagus surveillance guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background Guidelines aim to reduce treatment variation and improve quality of care. In the literature there is large variation in the reported rates of adherence to recommendations of surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus (BE). The aim of this systematic review was to identify explanatory parameters determining these differences in adherence rates.

Methods Embase, Medline Epub, and Web of Science were searched. Studies reporting adherence in at least one of five domains were selected: general domain, surveillance interval, biopsy protocol, landmark identification, and histopathological information. Adherence was expressed as the proportion of endoscopies or endoscopists being in accordance with guideline recommendations. Variation in adherence was evaluated by 1) meta-regression of adherence rates in random effects meta-analysis to define subgroups, and 2) compiling an overview of the most reported explanatory parameters for (non)adherence.

Results 56 studies, including 14 002 BE patients and 4932 endoscopists, were included. Subgroup analysis showed that variation in rates of adherences to surveillance interval recommendations (I ² = 98 % – 99 %) was explained by difference in country (43 %), by practice type (90 %), and by year of publication (11 %). Variation in adherence to the Seattle protocol was explained by difference in country (14 %). Factors most frequently reported to be associated with better adherence were shorter BE length, salaried employment, surveillance in university hospitals, and dedicated programs.

Conclusions This study provides insight into the variability of rates of adherence to BE surveillance recommendations between studies. Better adherence in university hospitals and dedicated programs indicate that persistent alertness of guidelines is important.

• References

• 1 Rice TW, Blackstone EH, Goldblum JR. et al. Superficial adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001; 122: 1077-1090
• 2 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: 216-222
• 3 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
• 4 Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG. et al. ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 30-50
• 5 Spechler SJ, Sharma P, Souza RF. American Gastroenterological Association. et al. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on the management of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 1084-1091
• 6 Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A. et al. Potential benefits, limitations and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ 1999; 318: 527-530
• 7 Abrams JA, Kapel RC, Lindberg GM. et al. Adherence to biopsy guidelines for Barrett's esophagus surveillance in the community setting in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 736-742
• 8 Peters FP, Curvers WL, Rosmolen WD. et al. Surveillance history of endoscopically treated patients with early Barrett’s neoplasia: nonadherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol leads to sampling error. Dis Esophagus 2008; 21: 475-479
• 9 Kastelein F, van Olphen S, Steyerberg EW. et al. Surveillance in patients with long-segment Barrett’s oesophagus: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Gut 2015; 64: 864-871
• 10 Menezes A, Tierney A, Yang YX. et al. Adherence to the 2011 American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement for the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus. Dis Esophagus 2015; 28: 538-546
• 11 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
• 12 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The role of endoscopy in the surveillance of premalignant conditions of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Gastrointest Endosc 1998; 48: 663-668
• 13 Evans JA, Early DS. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. et al. The role of endoscopy in Barrett’s esophagus and other premalignant conditions of the esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 1087-1094
• 14 Beck IT, Champion MC, Lemire S. et al. The Second Canadian Consensus Conference on the Management of Patients with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease. Can J Gastroenterol 1997; 11: 7B-20B
• 15 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
• 16 Boyer J, Robaszkiewicz M. Guidelines of the French Society of Digestive Endoscopy: Monitoring of Barrett’s esophagus. The Council of the French Society of Digestive Endoscopy. Endoscopy 2000; 32: 498-499
• 17 Cohen J, Safdi MA, Deal SE. et al. Quality indicators for esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: S10-15
• 18 Dent J, Bremner CG, Collen MJ. Working party report to the World Congresses of Gastroenterology, Sydney 1990; Barrett’s esophagus. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1991; 6: 1-22
• 19 di Pietro M, Fitzgerald RC. BSG Barrett’s Guidelines Working Group. Revised British Society of Gastroenterology recommendation on the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s oesophagus with low-grade dysplasia. Gut 2018; 67: 392-393
• 20 Hirota WK, Zuckerman MJ, Adler DG. et al. ASGE guideline: the role of endoscopy in the surveillance of premalignant conditions of the upper GI tract. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 570-580
• 21 Kahrilas PJ, Shaheen NJ, Vaezi MF. et al. American Gastroenterological Association Medical Position Statement on the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1383-1391
• 22 Katelaris P, Holloway R, Talley N. et al. Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in adults: guidelines for clinicians. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002; 17: 825-833
• 23 Sampliner RE. Practice guidelines on the diagnosis, surveillance, and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus. The Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol 1998; 93: 1028-1032
• 24 Sampliner RE. Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Updated guidelines for the diagnosis, surveillance, and therapy of Barrett's esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1888-1895
• 25 Siersema PD, Bergman JJGHM, Van Berge HenegouwenMI. et al. Guideline Barrett’s esophagus. article in Dutch 2017 Available from: https://www.mdl.nl/sites/www.mdl.nl/files/richlijnen/Richtlijnen%20Barrett%20oesofagus%20-%20jan%202018%20-%20tbv%20website.pdf
• 26 Wang KK, Sampliner RE. Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Updated guidelines 2008 for the diagnosis, surveillance and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 788-797
• 27 Wang KK, Wongkeesong M, Buttar NS. et al. American Gastroenterological Association Medical Position Statement: Role of the gastroenterologist in the management of esophageal carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2005; 128: 1468-1470
• 28 Watson A, Heading RC, Shepherd NA. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s columnar-lined oesophagus. A report of the working party of the British Society of Gastroenterology. London: BSG; 2005
• 29 Whiteman DC, Appleyard M, Bahin FF. et al. Australian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus and early esophageal adenocarcinoma. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 30: 804-820
• 30 Hayden JA, van der Windt DA, Cartwright JL. et al. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Ann Intern Med 2013; 158: 280-286
• 31 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557-560
• 32 Ament SM, de Groot JJ, Maessen JM. et al. Sustainability of professionals’ adherence to clinical practice guidelines in medical care: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2015; 5: e008073
• 33 Cnossen MC, Scholten AC, Lingsma HF. et al. Adherence to guidelines in adult patients with traumatic brain injury: a living systematic review. J Neurotrauma 2016; 33: 1-14
• 34 Montano DE, Phillips WR. Cancer screening by primary care physicians: a comparison of rates obtained from physician self-report, patient survey, and chart audit. Am J Public Health 1995; 85: 795-800
• 35 Abela JE, Going JJ, Mackenzie JF. et al. Systematic four-quadrant biopsy detects Barrett's dysplasia in more patients than nonsystematic biopsy. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 850-855
• 36 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
• 37 Ghuman S, Ashgar K, Evans J. et al. Real world surveillance of Barrett’s oesophagus does it make a difference using the Prague classification or following Seattle biopsy protocol?. Gut 2015; 64: PTH-028
• 38 Inadomi JM, Somsouk M, Madanick RD. et al. A cost–utility analysis of ablative therapy for Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 2101-2114
• 39 Gordon LG, Mayne GC, Hirst NG. et al. Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance of non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 242-256