Endoscopic Screening and Surveillance: Indications and Standards

Author(s):  
Frieder Berr ◽  
Thierry Ponchon ◽  
Tsuneo Oyama
2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-92
Author(s):  
Stuart Jon Spechler ◽  
Rhonda F. Souza

During the past several decades, while the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has risen dramatically, our primary EAC-prevention strategies have been endoscopic screening of individuals with GERD symptoms for Barrett’s esophagus (BE), and endoscopic surveillance for those found to have BE. Unfortunately, current screening practices have failed to identify most patients who develop EAC, and the efficacy of surveillance remains highly questionable. We review potential reasons for failure of these practices including recent evidence that most EACs develop through a rapid genomic doubling pathway, and recent data suggesting that many EACs develop from segments of esophageal intestinal metaplasia too short to be recognized as BE. We highlight need for a biomarker to identify BE patients at high risk for neoplasia (who would benefit from early therapeutic intervention), and BE patients at low risk (who would not benefit from surveillance). Promising recent efforts to identify such a biomarker are reviewed herein.


2002 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. 541-545 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naoki Chiba

The issue of whether to screen individuals for Barrett’s esophagus (BE) to prevent esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is highly controversial. Important considerations are that BE is not highly prevalent in the general population and that not many patients with BE develop or die from EAC. Studies that suggest an improved prognosis from surveillance programs are susceptible to lead-time bias. Most of the principles for effective screening, as outlined by the World Health Organization, are not met by endoscopic screening and surveillance protocols. The diagnosis of BE (and dysplasia) is often unclear. Most patients with BE are not identified by screening, and few deaths would be prevented by surveillance. A decision analysis found that the most cost effective screening protocol would be every five years, but the costs associated with prolongation of life are very high, even if a group at high risk for EAC could be identified.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 175628482094166 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Canakis ◽  
Ethan Pani ◽  
Monica Saumoy ◽  
Shailja C. Shah

Aims: Gastric cancer (GC) is the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide, but the burden of disease is not distributed evenly. GC screening routinely occurs in some high-incidence regions/countries and is generally cost-effective, which is attributed largely to the associated GC mortality reduction. In regions of low–intermediate incidence, less is known about the outcomes of GC screening and gastric precancer surveillance, including cost-effectiveness, since there are no comparative clinical studies. Decision analytic studies are informative in such instances where logistical limitations preclude “gold standard” study designs. We therefore aimed to conduct a systematic review of decision model analyses focused on endoscopic GC screening or precancer surveillance. Methods: We identified decision model analyses, including cost effectiveness and cost utility studies, of GC screening or preneoplasia surveillance. At minimum, articles were evaluated for: study country; analytic design; population and health states; time horizon; model assumptions; outcomes; threshold value(s) for “cost-effective” determination; and sensitivity analyses. Quality appraisal was performed using a modified Drummond’s analytic scoring system. Data sources were PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library Results: We identified 17 studies (8 screening, 4 surveillance, and 5 screening and surveillance) that met full inclusion criteria. Endoscopic screening in countries of high GC incidence was cost-effective across all studies; targeted screening of high-risk populations within otherwise low-intermediate incidence countries was also generally cost-effective. Surveillance of gastric precancer, including atrophic gastritis or gastric intestinal metaplasia, was generally cost-effective. Most studies had high appraisal scores, with 4 (24%) studies achieving perfect scores on the Drummond scale. Conclusion: Decision model analyses offer a unique mechanism with which to efficiently explore the cost benefit of various prevention and early detection strategies. Based on this comprehensive systematic review, upper endoscopy for GC screening and gastric precancer surveillance might be cost-effective depending on the population and protocol. Focused efforts are especially needed not only to define the optimal approach, but also to define the populations within otherwise low-intermediate regions/countries who might benefit most.


1989 ◽  
Vol 69 (6) ◽  
pp. 1205-1225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas L. Dent ◽  
John S. Kukora ◽  
Brian R. Buinewicz

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kunal Jajoo ◽  
Sravanya Gavini

Barrett esophagus is the condition in which normal stratified squamous epithelium of the esophagus is replaced by metaplastic columnar epithelium, which may predispose to development of malignancy. This metaplasia is thought to be a reparative mechanism to cope with reflex esophagitis induced by chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Barrett esophagus is associated with an increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), although the more recent studies have shown that the risk of progression to malignancy is lower than was initially postulated. Endoscopic screening and surveillance are still warranted for early detection of dysplasia and neoplasia and prevention of EAC. This review looks at Barrett esophagus in detail, including its epidemiology and risk factors, etiology and pathogenesis, clinical presentation and symptoms, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, treatment, complications, and prognosis. Figures show images of Barret esophagus, endoscopic mucosal resection of nodule associated with Barrett esophagus, and focal radiofrequency ablation; a schematic of using Prague circumferential (C) and maximal extent (M) criteria to classify and report Barrett esophagus; and a proposed management algorithm for patients with Barrett esophagus. Tables list risk factors associated with Barrett esophagus and neoplastic progression to EAC, guidelines for screening and surveillance, and endoscopic eradication therapies. A list of useful Web sites relating to Barrett esophagus is also presented. This review contains ­5 highly rendered figures, 3 tables, and 33 references. 


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-31
Author(s):  
Srinadh Komanduri ◽  
Domenico A. Farina

Barrett’s esophagus (BE) can progress to Esophageal Adenocarcinoma (EAC), which has associated high morbidity and mortality. As such, societal guidelines suggest endoscopic screening in select individuals with multiple BE risk factors. However, cheaper and less invasive new technologies may allow for more widespread BE screening practices in the future. In patients with established BE, endoscopic surveillance is recommended with intervals based primarily on histology and to a lesser degree, BE segment length. Similar to BE screening, endoscopic surveillance can further be optimized with improved techniques, innovative technology, and further understanding of risk stratification for EAC.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document