To study Barrett’s esophagus (BE) in cirrhosis and assess progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) compared to non-cirrhotic BE controls.METHODSCirrhotic patients who were found to have endoscopic evidence of B...To study Barrett’s esophagus (BE) in cirrhosis and assess progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) compared to non-cirrhotic BE controls.METHODSCirrhotic patients who were found to have endoscopic evidence of BE confirmed by the presence of intestinal metaplasia on histology from 1/1/2000 to 12/1/2015 at Cleveland Clinic were included. Cirrhotic patients were matched 1:4 to BE controls without cirrhosis. Age, gender, race, BE length, hiatal hernia size, Child-Pugh (CP) class and histological findings were recorded. Cases and controls without high-grade dysplasia (HGD)/EAC and who had follow-up endoscopies were studied for incidence of dysplasia/EAC and to assess progression rates. Univariable conditional logistic regression was done to assess differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups.RESULTSA total of 57 patients with cirrhosis and BE were matched with 228 controls (BE without cirrhosis). The prevalence of dysplasia in cirrhosis and controls were similar with 8.8% vs 12% with low grade dysplasia (LGD) and 12.3 % vs 19.7% with HGD or EAC (P = 0.1). In the incidence cohort of 44 patients with median follow-up time of 2.7 years [interquartile range 1.0, 4.8], there were 7 cases of LGD, 2 cases of HGD, and 2 cases of EAC. There were no differences in incidence rates of HGD/EAC in nondysplastic BE between cirrhotic cases and noncirrhotic controls (1.4 vs 1.1 per 100 person- years, P = 0.8). In LGD, cirrhotic patients were found to have higher rates of progression to HGD/EAC compared to control group though this did not reach statistical significance (13.7 vs 8.1 per 100 person- years, P = 0.51). A significant association was found between a higher CP class and neoplastic progression of BE in cirrhotic patients (HR =7.9, 95%CI: 2.0-30.9, P = 0.003).CONCLUSIONCirrhotics with worsening liver function are at increased risk of progression of BE. More frequent endoscopic surveillance might be warranted in such patients.展开更多
AIM To elucidate longitudinal changes of an endoscopic Barrett esophagus(BE), especially of short segment endoscopic BE(SSBE). METHODS This study comprised 779 patients who underwent two or more endoscopies between Ja...AIM To elucidate longitudinal changes of an endoscopic Barrett esophagus(BE), especially of short segment endoscopic BE(SSBE). METHODS This study comprised 779 patients who underwent two or more endoscopies between January 2009 and December 2015. The intervals between the first and the last endoscopy were at least 6 mo. The diagnosis of endoscopic BE was based on the criteria proposed by the Japan Esophageal Society and was classified as long segment(LSBE) and SSBE, the latter being further divided into partial and circumferential types. The potential background factors that were deemed to affect BE change included age, gender, antacid therapy use, gastroesophageal reflux disease-suggested symptoms, esophagitis, and hiatus hernia. Time trends of a new appearance and complete regression were investigated by Kaplan-Meier curves. The factors that may affect appearance and complete regression were investigated by χ~2 and Student-t tests, and multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS Incidences of SSBE and LSBE were respectively 21.7% and 0%, with a mean age of 68 years. Complete regression of SSBE was observed in 61.5% of initial SSBE patients, while 12.1% of initially disease free patients experienced an appearance of SSBE. Complete regressions and appearances of BE occurred constantly over time, accounting for 80% and 17% of 5-year cumulative rates. No LSBE development from SSBE was observed. A hiatus hernia was the only significant factor that facilitated BE development(P = 0.03) or hampered(P = 0.007) BE regression. CONCLUSION Both appearances and complete regressions of SSBE occurred over time. A hiatus hernia was the only significant factor affecting the BE story.展开更多
AIM To evaluate annual incidence of low grade dysplasia(LGD) progression to high grade dysplasia(HGD) and/or esophageal adenocarcinoma(EAC) when diagnosis was made by two or more expert pathologists.METHODS Studies ev...AIM To evaluate annual incidence of low grade dysplasia(LGD) progression to high grade dysplasia(HGD) and/or esophageal adenocarcinoma(EAC) when diagnosis was made by two or more expert pathologists.METHODS Studies evaluating the progression of LGD to HGD or EAC were included. The diagnosis of LGD must be made by consensus of two or more expert gastrointestinal pathologists. Articles were searched in Medline, Pubmed, and Embase. Pooled proportions were calculated using fixed and random effects model. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS Initial search identified 721 reference articles, of which 53 were selected and reviewed. Twelve studies(n = 971) that met the inclusion criteria were included in this analysis. Among the total original LGD diagnoses in the included studies, only 37.49% reached the consensus LGD diagnosis after review by two or more expert pathologists. Total follow up period was 1532 patient-years. In the pooled consensus LGD patients, the annual incidence rate(AIR) of progression to HGD and or EAC was 10.35%(95%CI: 7.56-13.13) and progression to EAC was 5.18%(95%CI: 3.43-6.92). Among the patients down staged from original LGD diagnosis to No-dysplasia Barrett's esophagus, the AIR of progression to HGD and EAC was 0.65%(95%CI: 0.49-0.80). Among the patients down staged to Indefinite for dysplasia, the AIR of progression to HGD and EAC was 1.42%(95%CI: 1.19-1.65). In patients with consensus HGD diagnosis, the AIR of progression to EAC was 28.63%(95%CI: 13.98-43.27). CONCLUSION When LGD is diagnosed by consensus agreement of two or more expert pathologists, its progression towards malignancy seems to be at least three times the current estimates, however it could be up to 20 times the current estimates. Biopsies of all Barrett's esophagus patients with LGD should be reviewed by two expert gastroenterology pathologists. Follow-up strict surveillance programs should be in place for these patients.展开更多
文摘To study Barrett’s esophagus (BE) in cirrhosis and assess progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) compared to non-cirrhotic BE controls.METHODSCirrhotic patients who were found to have endoscopic evidence of BE confirmed by the presence of intestinal metaplasia on histology from 1/1/2000 to 12/1/2015 at Cleveland Clinic were included. Cirrhotic patients were matched 1:4 to BE controls without cirrhosis. Age, gender, race, BE length, hiatal hernia size, Child-Pugh (CP) class and histological findings were recorded. Cases and controls without high-grade dysplasia (HGD)/EAC and who had follow-up endoscopies were studied for incidence of dysplasia/EAC and to assess progression rates. Univariable conditional logistic regression was done to assess differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups.RESULTSA total of 57 patients with cirrhosis and BE were matched with 228 controls (BE without cirrhosis). The prevalence of dysplasia in cirrhosis and controls were similar with 8.8% vs 12% with low grade dysplasia (LGD) and 12.3 % vs 19.7% with HGD or EAC (P = 0.1). In the incidence cohort of 44 patients with median follow-up time of 2.7 years [interquartile range 1.0, 4.8], there were 7 cases of LGD, 2 cases of HGD, and 2 cases of EAC. There were no differences in incidence rates of HGD/EAC in nondysplastic BE between cirrhotic cases and noncirrhotic controls (1.4 vs 1.1 per 100 person- years, P = 0.8). In LGD, cirrhotic patients were found to have higher rates of progression to HGD/EAC compared to control group though this did not reach statistical significance (13.7 vs 8.1 per 100 person- years, P = 0.51). A significant association was found between a higher CP class and neoplastic progression of BE in cirrhotic patients (HR =7.9, 95%CI: 2.0-30.9, P = 0.003).CONCLUSIONCirrhotics with worsening liver function are at increased risk of progression of BE. More frequent endoscopic surveillance might be warranted in such patients.
文摘AIM To elucidate longitudinal changes of an endoscopic Barrett esophagus(BE), especially of short segment endoscopic BE(SSBE). METHODS This study comprised 779 patients who underwent two or more endoscopies between January 2009 and December 2015. The intervals between the first and the last endoscopy were at least 6 mo. The diagnosis of endoscopic BE was based on the criteria proposed by the Japan Esophageal Society and was classified as long segment(LSBE) and SSBE, the latter being further divided into partial and circumferential types. The potential background factors that were deemed to affect BE change included age, gender, antacid therapy use, gastroesophageal reflux disease-suggested symptoms, esophagitis, and hiatus hernia. Time trends of a new appearance and complete regression were investigated by Kaplan-Meier curves. The factors that may affect appearance and complete regression were investigated by χ~2 and Student-t tests, and multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS Incidences of SSBE and LSBE were respectively 21.7% and 0%, with a mean age of 68 years. Complete regression of SSBE was observed in 61.5% of initial SSBE patients, while 12.1% of initially disease free patients experienced an appearance of SSBE. Complete regressions and appearances of BE occurred constantly over time, accounting for 80% and 17% of 5-year cumulative rates. No LSBE development from SSBE was observed. A hiatus hernia was the only significant factor that facilitated BE development(P = 0.03) or hampered(P = 0.007) BE regression. CONCLUSION Both appearances and complete regressions of SSBE occurred over time. A hiatus hernia was the only significant factor affecting the BE story.
文摘AIM To evaluate annual incidence of low grade dysplasia(LGD) progression to high grade dysplasia(HGD) and/or esophageal adenocarcinoma(EAC) when diagnosis was made by two or more expert pathologists.METHODS Studies evaluating the progression of LGD to HGD or EAC were included. The diagnosis of LGD must be made by consensus of two or more expert gastrointestinal pathologists. Articles were searched in Medline, Pubmed, and Embase. Pooled proportions were calculated using fixed and random effects model. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS Initial search identified 721 reference articles, of which 53 were selected and reviewed. Twelve studies(n = 971) that met the inclusion criteria were included in this analysis. Among the total original LGD diagnoses in the included studies, only 37.49% reached the consensus LGD diagnosis after review by two or more expert pathologists. Total follow up period was 1532 patient-years. In the pooled consensus LGD patients, the annual incidence rate(AIR) of progression to HGD and or EAC was 10.35%(95%CI: 7.56-13.13) and progression to EAC was 5.18%(95%CI: 3.43-6.92). Among the patients down staged from original LGD diagnosis to No-dysplasia Barrett's esophagus, the AIR of progression to HGD and EAC was 0.65%(95%CI: 0.49-0.80). Among the patients down staged to Indefinite for dysplasia, the AIR of progression to HGD and EAC was 1.42%(95%CI: 1.19-1.65). In patients with consensus HGD diagnosis, the AIR of progression to EAC was 28.63%(95%CI: 13.98-43.27). CONCLUSION When LGD is diagnosed by consensus agreement of two or more expert pathologists, its progression towards malignancy seems to be at least three times the current estimates, however it could be up to 20 times the current estimates. Biopsies of all Barrett's esophagus patients with LGD should be reviewed by two expert gastroenterology pathologists. Follow-up strict surveillance programs should be in place for these patients.
