3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Diagnosis and management of Barrett esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Main Recommendations

          MR1 ESGE recommends the following standards for Barrett esophagus (BE) surveillance:

          – a minimum of 1-minute inspection time per cm of BE length during a surveillance endoscopy

          – photodocumentation of landmarks, the BE segment including one picture per cm of BE length, and the esophagogastric junction in retroflexed position, and any visible lesions

          – use of the Prague and (for visible lesions) Paris classification

          – collection of biopsies from all visible abnormalities (if present), followed by random four-quadrant biopsies for every 2-cm BE length.

          Strong recommendation, weak quality of evidence.

          MR2 ESGE suggests varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance are advised.

          Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence.

          MR3 ESGE suggests that, if a patient has reached 75 years of age at the time of the last surveillance endoscopy and/or the patient’s life expectancy is less than 5 years, the discontinuation of further surveillance endoscopies can be considered. Weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence.

          MR4 ESGE recommends offering endoscopic eradication therapy using ablation to patients with BE and low grade dysplasia (LGD) on at least two separate endoscopies, both confirmed by a second experienced pathologist.

          Strong recommendation, high level of evidence.

          MR5 ESGE recommends endoscopic ablation treatment for BE with confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD) without visible lesions, to prevent progression to invasive cancer.

          Strong recommendation, high level of evidence.

          MR6 ESGE recommends offering complete eradication of all remaining Barrett epithelium by ablation after endoscopic resection of visible abnormalities containing any degree of dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).

          Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

          MR7 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection as curative treatment for T1a Barrett’s cancer with well/moderate differentiation and no signs of lymphovascular invasion.

          Strong recommendation, high level of evidence.

          MR8 ESGE suggests that low risk submucosal (T1b) EAC (i. e. submucosal invasion depth ≤ 500 µm AND no [lympho]vascular invasion AND no poor tumor differentiation) can be treated by endoscopic resection, provided that adequate follow-up with gastroscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and computed tomography (CT)/positrion emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in expert centers.

          Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence.

          MR9 ESGE suggests that submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (tumor invasion > 500 µm into the submucosa), and/or (lympho)vascular invasion, and/or a poor tumor differentiation should be considered high risk. Complete staging and consideration of additional treatments (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and/or surgery) or strict endoscopic follow-up should be undertaken on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.

          Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

          MR10 a ESGE recommends that the first endoscopic follow-up after successful endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) of BE is performed in an expert center.

          Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence.

          b ESGE recommends careful inspection of the neo-squamocolumnar junction and neo-squamous epithelium with high definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy during post-EET surveillance, to detect recurrent dysplasia.

          Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence.

          c ESGE recommends against routine four-quadrant biopsies of neo-squamous epithelium after successful EET of BE.

          Strong recommendation, low level of evidence.

          d ESGE suggests, after successful EET, obtaining four-quadrant random biopsies just distal to a normal-appearing neo-squamocolumnar junction to detect dysplasia in the absence of visible lesions.

          Weak recommendation, low level of evidence.

          e ESGE recommends targeted biopsies are obtained where there is a suspicion of recurrent BE in the tubular esophagus, or where there are visible lesions suspicious for dysplasia.

          Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence.

          MR11 After successful EET, ESGE recommends the following surveillance intervals:

          – For patients with a baseline diagnosis of HGD or EAC:at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.

          – For patients with a baseline diagnosis of LGD:at 1, 3, and 5 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

          Related collections

          Most cited references182

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

          Users of clinical practice guidelines and other recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the recommendations. Systematic and explicit methods of making judgments can reduce errors and improve communication. We have developed a system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts. In this article we present a summary of our approach from the perspective of a guideline user. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation require consideration of the balance between benefits and harms, the quality of the evidence, translation of the evidence into specific circumstances, and the certainty of the baseline risk. It is also important to consider costs (resource utilisation) before making a recommendation. Inconsistencies among systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations reduce their potential to facilitate critical appraisal and improve communication of these judgments. Our system for guiding these complex judgments balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Endoscopic management of Barrett's esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement.

            Current practices for the management of Barrett's esophagus (BE) vary across Europe, as several national European guidelines exist. This Position Statement from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is an attempt to homogenize recommendations and, hence, patient management according to the best scientific evidence and other considerations (e.g. health policy). A Working Group developed consensus statements, using the existing national guidelines as a starting point and considering new evidence in the literature. The Position Statement wishes to contribute to a more cost-effective approach to the care of patients with BE by reducing the number of surveillance endoscopies for patients with a low risk of malignant progression and centralizing care in expert centers for those with high progression rates.Main statements MS1 The diagnosis of BE is made if the distal esophagus is lined with columnar epithelium with a minimum length of 1 cm (tongues or circular) containing specialized intestinal metaplasia at histopathological examination. MS2 The ESGE recommends varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance is advised. For BE ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. Patients with limited life expectancy and advanced age should be discharged from endoscopic surveillance. MS3 The diagnosis of any degree of dysplasia (including "indefinite for dysplasia") in BE requires confirmation by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist. MS4 Patients with visible lesions in BE diagnosed as dysplasia or early cancer should be referred to a BE expert center. All visible abnormalities, regardless of the degree of dysplasia, should be removed by means of endoscopic resection techniques in order to obtain optimal histopathological staging MS5 All patients with a BE ≥ 10 cm, a confirmed diagnosis of low grade dysplasia, high grade dysplasia (HGD), or early cancer should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance and/or treatment. BE expert centers should meet the following criteria: annual case load of ≥10 new patients undergoing endoscopic treatment for HGD or early carcinoma per BE expert endoscopist; endoscopic and histological care provided by endoscopists and pathologists who have followed additional training; at least 30 supervised endoscopic resection and 30 endoscopic ablation procedures to acquire competence in technical skills, management pathways, and complications; multidisciplinary meetings with gastroenterologists, surgeons, oncologists, and pathologists to discuss patients with Barrett's neoplasia; access to experienced esophageal surgery; and all BE patients registered prospectively in a database.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Safety of Proton Pump Inhibitors Based on a Large, Multi-Year, Randomized Trial of Patients Receiving Rivaroxaban or Aspirin

              Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective at treating acid-related disorders. These drugs are well tolerated in the short term, but long-term treatment was associated with adverse events in observational studies. We aimed to confirm these findings in an adequately powered randomized trial.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Endoscopy
                Endoscopy
                Georg Thieme Verlag KG
                0013-726X
                1438-8812
                November 28 2023
                December 2023
                October 09 2023
                December 2023
                : 55
                : 12
                : 1124-1146
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, St. Antonius Hospital Nieuwegein, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
                [3 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospitals Leuven, TARGID, Leuven, Belgium
                [4 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Porto Comprehensive Cancer Center, and RISE@CI-IPOP (Health Research Network), Porto Portugal
                [5 ]Early Cancer Institute, University of Cambridge and Department of Gastroenterology, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK
                [6 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Interventional Endoscopy, St. John of God Hospital, Regensburg, Germany
                [7 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
                [8 ]Advanced Endoscopy Center Carlos Moreira da Silva, Department of Gastroenterology, Pedro Hispano Hospital, Matosinhos, Portugal
                [9 ]Division of Medicine, Department of Upper Gastrointestinal Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
                [10 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology, Cochin Hospital and University of Paris, Paris, France
                [11 ]Institut des Maladies de l'Appareil Digestif, IMAD, Centre hospitalier universitaire Hôtel-Dieu, Nantes, Nantes, France
                [12 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital of Geneva (HUG), Geneva, Switzerland
                [13 ]Endoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Clínic of Barcelona, University of Barcelona, Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Biomedical Research Network on Hepatic and Digestive Diseases (CIBEREHD), Barcelona, Spain
                [14 ]Department of Histopathology, University College London Hospital NHS Trust, London, UK
                [15 ]Division of Gastroenterology, Maimonides Medical Center, New York, New York, USA
                [16 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Wollongong Hospital, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
                [17 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Gastroenterology, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [18 ]Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Propaedeutic Internal Medicine, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Attikon University General Hospital, Athens, Greece
                Article
                10.1055/a-2176-2440
                37813356
                f222f118-8ed6-44d0-a871-5c079299aa15
                © 2023
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article