Rosalie C. Mallant-Hent

Low-Grade Dysplasia in Barrett's Esophagus: Overdiagnosed and Underestimated

OBJECTIVES:Published data on the natural history of low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barretts esophagus (BE) are inconsistent and difficult to interpret. We investigated the natural history of LGD in a large community-based cohort of BE patients after reviewing the original histological diagnosis by an expert panel of pathologists.METHODS:Histopathology reports of all patients diagnosed with LGD between 2000 and 2006 in six non-university hospitals were reviewed by two expert pathologists. This panel diagnosis was subsequently compared with the histological outcome during prospective endoscopic follow-up.RESULTS:A diagnosis of LGD was made in 147 patients. After pathology review, 85% of the patients were downstaged to non-dysplastic BE (NDBE) or to indefinite for dysplasia. In only 15% of the patients was the initial diagnosis LGD. Endoscopic follow-up was carried out in 83.6% of patients, with a mean follow-up of 51.1 months. For patients with a consensus diagnosis of LGD, the cumulative risk of progressing to high-grade dysplasia or carcinoma (HGD or Ca) was 85.0% in 109.1 months compared with 4.6% in 107.4 months for patients downstaged to NDBE (P<0.0001). The incidence rate of HGD or Ca was 13.4% per patient per year for patients in whom the diagnosis of LGD was confirmed. For patients downstaged to NDBE, the corresponding incidence rate was 0.49%.CONCLUSIONS:LGD in BE is an overdiagnosed and yet underestimated entity in general practice. Patients diagnosed with LGD should undergo an expert pathology review to purify this group. In case the diagnosis of LGD is confirmed, patients should undergo strict endoscopic follow-up or should be considered for endoscopic ablation therapy.

Barrett's oesophagus patients with low-grade dysplasia can be accurately risk-stratified after histological review by an expert pathology panel

Objective Reported malignant progression rates for low-grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barretts oesophagus (BO) vary widely. Expert histological review of LGD is advised, but limited data are available on its clinical value. This retrospective cohort study aimed to determine the value of an expert pathology panel organised in the Dutch Barretts Advisory Committee (BAC) by investigating the incidence rates of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) after expert histological review of LGD. Design We included all BO cases referred to the BAC for histological review of LGD diagnosed between 2000 and 2011. The diagnosis of the expert panel was related to the histological outcome during endoscopic follow-up. Primary endpoint was development of HGD or OAC. Results 293 LGD patients (76% men; mean 63 years±11.9) were included. Following histological review, 73% was downstaged to non-dysplastic BO (NDBO) or indefinite for dysplasia (IND). In 27% the initial LGD diagnosis was confirmed. Endoscopic follow-up was performed in 264 patients (90%) with a median follow-up of 39 months (IQR 16–72). For confirmed LGD, the risk of HGD/OAC was 9.1% per patient-year. Patients downstaged to NDBO or IND had a malignant progression risk of 0.6% and 0.9% per patient-year, respectively. Conclusions Confirmed LGD in BO has a markedly increased risk of malignant progression. However, the vast majority of patients with community LGD will be downstaged after expert review and have a low progression risk. Therefore, all BO patients with LGD should undergo expert histological review of the diagnosis for adequate risk stratification.

Endoscopic trimodal imaging versus standard video endoscopy for detection of early Barrett's neoplasia: a multicenter, randomized, crossover study in general practice

BACKGROUND Endoscopic trimodal imaging (ETMI) may improve detection of early neoplasia in Barretts esophagus (BE). Studies with ETMI so far have been performed in tertiary referral settings only. OBJECTIVE To compare ETMI with standard video endoscopy (SVE) for the detection of neoplasia in BE patients with an intermediate-risk profile. DESIGN Multicenter, randomized, crossover study. SETTING Community practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS BE patients with confirmed low-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (LGIN) underwent both ETMI and SVE in random order (interval 6-16 weeks). During ETMI, BE was inspected with high-resolution endoscopy followed by autofluorescence imaging (AFI). All visible lesions were then inspected with narrow-band imaging. During ETMI and SVE, visible lesions were sampled followed by 4-quadrant random biopsies every 2 cm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Overall histological yield of ETMI and SVE and targeted histological yield of ETMI and SVE. RESULTS A total of 99 patients (79 men, 63±10 years) underwent both procedures. ETMI had a significantly higher targeted histological yield because of additional detection of 22 lesions with LGIN/high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN)/carcinoma (Ca) by AFI. There was no significant difference in the overall histological yield (targeted+random) between ETMI and SVE. HGIN/Ca was diagnosed only by random biopsies in 6 of 24 patients and 7 of 24 patients, with ETMI and SVE, respectively. LIMITATIONS Inspection, with high-resolution endoscopy and AFI, was performed sequentially. CONCLUSION ETMI performed in a community-based setting did not improve the overall detection of dysplasia compared with SVE. The diagnosis of dysplasia is still being made in a significant number of patients by random biopsies. Patients with a confirmed diagnosis of LGIN have a significant risk of HGIN/Ca. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN91816824; NTR867.).

Mucosal morphology in Barrett's esophagus: Interobserver agreement and role of narrow band imaging

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS We have recently proposed a classification of mucosal morphology in Barretts esophagus based on three criteria: regularity of mucosal pattern, regularity of vascular pattern, and presence of abnormal blood vessels. We aimed to evaluate the interobserver agreement with the proposed mucosal morphology classification and to assess the additional value of narrow band imaging (NBI) over high resolution white light endoscopy (HR-WLE). PATIENTS AND METHODS Five international experts in the field of Barretts imaging and seven community endoscopists with no expertise in this field independently evaluated magnified still images from 50 areas, obtained with HR-WLE and NBI, in Barretts esophagus patients. Visual analogue scales (VAS) were used for scoring imaging quality. Interobserver agreement for mucosal morphology and yield for identifying early neoplasia were assessed. RESULTS Imaging qualities of NBI were rated more highly than HR-WLE, when evaluated separately as well as in a side-by-side comparison. The interobserver agreement ranged from 0.40 to 0.56 and did not significantly differ between expert and non-expert endoscopists. The overall yield for correctly identifying images of early neoplasia was 81 % for HR-WLE, 72 % for NBI and 83 % for HR-WLE + NBI, with no significant difference between experts and non-experts. CONCLUSION Interobserver agreement for the classification of mucosal morphology was moderate. Although NBI was rated more highly than HR-WLE for imaging quality, this did not result in improved interobserver agreement or increased yield for identifying early neoplasia in Barretts esophagus. This applied to non-expert as well as expert endoscopists.

Combining Autofluorescence Imaging and Narrow-Band Imaging for the Differentiation of Adenomas from Non-Neoplastic Colonic Polyps Among Experienced and Non-Experienced Endoscopists

OBJECTIVES:Endoscopic tri-modal imaging incorporates high-resolution white-light endoscopy (HR-WLE), narrow-band imaging (NBI), and autofluorescence imaging (AFI). Combining these advanced techniques may improve endoscopic differentiation between adenomas and non-neoplastic polyps. In this study, we aimed to assess the interobserver variability and accuracy of HR-WLE, NBI, and AFI for polyp differentiation and to evaluate the combined use of AFI and NBI.METHODS:First, still images of 50 polyps (22 adenomas; median 3 mm) were randomly displayed to three experienced and four non-experienced endoscopists. All HR-WLE and NBI images were scored for Kudo classification and AFI images for color. Second, the combined AFI and NBI images were assessed using a newly developed algorithm by six additional non-experienced endoscopists.RESULTS:The outcomes measured were interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy using histopathology as reference standard. Experienced endoscopists had better interobserver agreement for NBI (κ=0.77) than for AFI (κ=0.33), whereas non-experienced endoscopists had better agreement for AFI (κ=0.58) than for NBI (κ=0.33). The accuracies of HR-WLE, NBI, and AFI among experienced endoscopists were 65, 70, and 74, respectively. Figures among non-experienced endoscopists were 57, 63, and 77. The algorithm was associated with a significantly higher accuracy of 85% among all observers (P<0.023). These figures were confirmed in the second evaluation study.CONCLUSIONS:Non-experienced endoscopists have better interobserver agreement and accuracy for AFI than for HR-WLE or NBI, indicating that AFI is easier to use for polyp differentiation in non-experienced setting. The newly developed algorithm, combining information of AFI and NBI together, had the highest accuracy and obtained equal results between experienced and non-experienced endoscopists.

Adenoma detection with Endocuff colonoscopy versus conventional colonoscopy: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Background and aims Colonoscopy is the current reference standard for the detection of colorectal neoplasia, but nevertheless adenomas remain undetected. The Endocuff, an endoscopic cap with plastic projections, may improve colonic visualisation and adenoma detection. The aim of this study was to compare the mean number of adenomas per patient (MAP) and the adenoma detection rate (ADR) between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and conventional colonoscopy (CC). Methods We performed a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in five hospitals and included fecal immonochemical test (FIT)-positive screening participants as well as symptomatic patients (>45 years). Consenting patients were randomised 1:1 to EAC or CC. All colonoscopies were performed by experienced colonoscopists (≥500 colonoscopies) who were trained in EAC. All colonoscopy quality indicators were prospectively recorded. Findings Of the 1063 included patients (52% male, median age 65 years), 530 were allocated to EAC and 533 to CC. More adenomas were detected with EAC, 722 vs 621, but the gain in MAP was not significant: on average 1.36 per patient in the EAC group versus 1.17 in the CC group (p=0.08). In a per-protocol analysis, the gain was 1.44 vs 1.19 (p=0.02), respectively. In the EAC group, 275 patients (52%) had one or more adenomas detected versus 278 in the CC group (52%; p=0.92). For advanced adenomas these numbers were 109 (21%) vs 117 (22%). The adjusted caecal intubation rate was lower with EAC (94% vs 99%; p<0.001), however when allowing crossover from EAC to CC, they were similar in both groups (98% vs 99%; p value=0.25). Interpretation Though more adenomas are detected with EAC, the routine use of Endocuff does not translate in a higher number of patients with one or more adenomas detected. Whether increased detection ultimately results in a lower rate of interval carcinomas is not yet known. Trial registration number http://www.trialregister.nl Dutch Trial Register: NTR3962.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus endoscopic mucosal resection for large rectal adenomas (TREND-study)

BackgroundRecent non-randomized studies suggest that extended endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is equally effective in removing large rectal adenomas as transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). If equally effective, EMR might be a more cost-effective approach as this strategy does not require expensive equipment, general anesthesia and hospital admission. Furthermore, EMR appears to be associated with fewer complications.The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of TEM and EMR for the resection of large rectal adenomas.Methods/designMulticenter randomized trial among 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with a rectal adenoma ≥ 3 cm, located between 1–15 cm ab ano, will be randomized to a TEM- or EMR-treatment strategy. For TEM, patients will be treated under general anesthesia, adenomas will be dissected en-bloc by a full-thickness excision, and patients will be admitted to the hospital. For EMR, no or conscious sedation is used, lesions will be resected through the submucosal plane in a piecemeal fashion, and patients will be discharged from the hospital. Residual adenoma that is visible during the first surveillance endoscopy at 3 months will be removed endoscopically in both treatment strategies and is considered as part of the primary treatment.Primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients with recurrence after 3 months. Secondary outcome measures are: 2) number of days not spent in hospital from initial treatment until 2 years afterwards; 3) major and minor morbidity; 4) disease specific and general quality of life; 5) anorectal function; 6) health care utilization and costs. A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of EMR against TEM for large rectal adenomas will be performed from a societal perspective with respectively the costs per recurrence free patient and the cost per quality adjusted life year as outcome measures.Based on comparable recurrence rates for TEM and EMR of 3.3% and considering an upper-limit of 10% for EMR to be non-inferior (beta-error 0.2 and one-sided alpha-error 0.05), 89 patients are needed per group.DiscussionThe TREND study is the first randomized trial evaluating whether TEM or EMR is more cost-effective for the treatment of large rectal adenomas.Trial registration number(trialregister.nl) NTR1422

Validation of the Prague C&M classification of Barrett’s esophagus in clinical practice

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS The Prague C&M classification for Barretts esophagus has found widespread acceptance but has only been validated by Barretts experts scoring video sequences. To date, validation has been lacking for its application in routine practice during real-time endoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate agreement between Barretts experts and community hospital endoscopists when using this classification to describe Barretts esophagus and hiatal hernia length during real-time endoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients underwent two consecutive endoscopies performed by different endoscopists. The study was performed in two cohorts: one cohort was seen by Barretts experts and the other cohort by community hospital endoscopists. Landmarks were recorded according to the Prague classification. Outcomes were interobserver agreement (assessed with intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]), absolute agreement, and relative agreement. RESULTS A total of 187 patients were included, with median extent of C3M5 (IQR C1 - 7 M4 - 9) for Barretts esophagus and 3 cm (IQR 2-5) for hiatal hernia length. ICC was 0.91 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.88-0.93) for maximum length, 0.92 (95% CI 0.90-0.94) for circumferential extent, and 0.59 (95% CI 0.49-0.68) for hiatal hernia length. Absolute agreement within ≤ 1 cm was 74% (95% CI 68-80) for circumference, 68% (95% CI 62-75) for length, and 63% (95% CI 56 - 70) for hiatal hernia length. Relative agreement was 91% for Barretts esophagus and 80 % for hiatal hernia length. Barretts experts and community hospital endoscopists showed no differences in agreement. Shorter Barretts segments (≤ 5 cm) had lower agreement compared with longer segments (> 5 cm). CONCLUSIONS Agreement was good for Barretts esophagus and reasonable for hiatal hernia length. These findings strengthen the value of the Prague C&M classification to describe Barretts esophagus and hiatal hernia length. Although absolute agreement during real-time endoscopy was high, one should anticipate that Barretts values may vary by 1 - 2 cm between two endoscopies.

Participation, yield, and interval carcinomas in three rounds of biennial FIT-based colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND The effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening programs based on the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) is influenced by program adherence during consecutive screening rounds. We aimed to evaluate the participation rate, yield, and interval cancers in a third round of biennial CRC screening using FIT and to compare those with the first and the second screening round. METHODS A total of 3566 average-risk individuals aged 50-75 years were invited to participate in a third round of biennial FIT-based CRC screening. All FIT positives were recommended to undergo colonoscopy. We merged our data with the national cancer registry in the Netherlands to identify all non-screen-detected cancers in our cohort. RESULTS Of the invitees, 2142 (60%) returned the FIT in this third screening round, compared to 56% in the second round and 57% in the first round. Overall, 153 of the third-round participants (7.1%) had a positive FIT result, versus 7.9% in the second round and 8.1% in the first round (P=0.05). Of all FIT positives, 123 (80%) underwent colonoscopy. Within this group, 33 persons had advanced neoplasia. The predictive value of FIT positivity for advanced neoplasia was 27% (33/123), compared to 42% in the second round and 54% in the first round - a significant decline (P<0.01). CONCLUSION In an FIT-based screening program, participation rates remained stable over consecutive biennial screening rounds, while the FIT positivity rate and positive predictive value for advanced neoplasia gradually declined. Cancers in non-participants are significantly more advanced in staging than cancers in participants in the first round of screening.

Derivation of genetic biomarkers for cancer risk stratification in Barrett’s oesophagus: a prospective cohort study

Objective The risk of developing adenocarcinoma in non-dysplastic Barretts oesophagus is low and difficult to predict. Accurate tools for risk stratification are needed to increase the efficiency of surveillance. We aimed to develop a prediction model for progression using clinical variables and genetic markers. Methods In a prospective cohort of patients with non-dysplastic Barretts oesophagus, we evaluated six molecular markers: p16, p53, Her-2/neu, 20q, MYC and aneusomy by DNA fluorescence in situ hybridisation on brush cytology specimens. Primary study outcomes were the development of high-grade dysplasia or oesophageal adenocarcinoma. The most predictive clinical variables and markers were determined using Cox proportional-hazards models, receiver operating characteristic curves and a leave-one-out analysis. Results A total of 428 patients participated (345 men; median age 60 years) with a cumulative follow-up of 2019 patient-years (median 45 months per patient). Of these patients, 22 progressed; nine developed high-grade dysplasia and 13 oesophageal adenocarcinoma. The clinical variables, age and circumferential Barretts length, and the markers, p16 loss, MYC gain and aneusomy, were significantly associated with progression on univariate analysis. We defined an ‘Abnormal Marker Count’ that counted abnormalities in p16, MYC and aneusomy, which significantly improved risk prediction beyond using just age and Barretts length. In multivariate analysis, these three factors identified a high-risk group with an 8.7-fold (95% CI 2.6 to 29.8) increased HR when compared with the low-risk group, with an area under the curve of 0.76 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.86). Conclusions A prediction model based on age, Barretts length and the markers p16, MYC and aneusomy determines progression risk in non-dysplastic Barretts oesophagus.