Faculty Bibliography

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the only known precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma, one of the few cancers with increasing incidence in developed countries. The pathogenesis of BE is unclear with regard to either the cellular origin of this metaplastic epithelium or the manner in which malignant transformation occurs, although recent data indicate a possible junctional origin of stem cells for BE. Treatment of BE may be achieved using endoscopic eradication therapy; however, there is a lack of discriminatory tools to identify individuals at sufficient risk for cancer development in whom intervention is warranted. Reduction in gastroesophageal reflux of gastric contents including acid is mandatory to achieve remission from BE after endoscopic ablation, and can be achieved using medical or nonmedical interventions. Research topics of greatest interest include the mechanism of BE development and transformation to cancer, risk stratification methods to identify individuals who may benefit from ablation of BE, optimization of eradication therapy, and surveillance methods to ensure that remission is maintained after eradication is achieved.

Esophageal adenocarcinoma is increasing in frequency in the United States. Barrett's esophagus is the strongest risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma making evaluation for Barrett's esophagus of utmost importance. Currently screening and surveillance are accomplished with regular white light endoscopy; however, new advances in both population screening and surveillance are being developed. This review will cover selecting the appropriate patient population for Barrett's esophagus screening, available and upcoming technologies for screening and surveillance, and lastly treatment of Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine needle aspiration (FNA) is the standard of care for tissue sampling of solid lesions adjacent to the GI tract. Fine needle biopsy (FNB) may provide higher diagnostic yield with fewer needle passes. The aim of this study was to assess the difference in diagnostic yield between FNA and FNB. METHODS: This is a multicenter, prospective randomized clinical trial from six large tertiary care centers. Patients referred for tissue sampling of solid lesions were randomized to either FNA or FNB of the target lesion. Demographics, size, location, number of needle passes, and final diagnosis were recorded. RESULTS: After enrollment, 135 patients were randomized to FNA (49.3%) and 139 patients were randomized to FNB (50.7%).The following lesions were sampled: mass (n=210; 76.6%), lymph nodes (n=46, 16.8%), submucosal tumors (n=18, 6.6%). Final diagnosis was malignancy (n=192, 70.1%), reactive lymphadenopathy (n=30, 11.0%), and spindle cell tumors (n=24, 8.8%). FNA had a diagnostic yield of 91.1% compared to 88.5% for FNB (p=0.48). There was no difference between FNA and FNB when stratified by the presence of on-site cytopathology or by type of lesion sampled A median of 1 needle pass was needed to obtain a diagnostic sample for both needles. CONCLUSION: FNA and FNB obtained a similar diagnostic yield with a comparable number of needle passes. Based on these results, there is no significant difference in the performance of FNA compared to FNB in the cytological diagnosis of solid lesions adjacent to the GI tract. (ClincalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01698190).

BACKGROUND:Devices used to improve polyp detection during colonoscopy have seldom been compared with each other. METHODS:We performed a 3-center prospective randomized trial comparing high-definition (HD) forward-viewing colonoscopy alone to HD with Endocuff to HD with EndoRings to the Full Spectrum Endoscopy (FUSE) system. Patients were age ≥50 years and had routine indications and intact colons. The study colonoscopists were all proven high-level detectors. The primary endpoint was adenomas per colonoscopy (APC) RESULTS: Among 1,188 patients who completed the study, APC with Endocuff (APC Mean ± SD 1.82 ± 2.58), EndoRings (1.55 ± 2.42), and standard HD colonoscopy (1.53 ± 2.33) were all higher than FUSE (1.30 ± 1.96,) (p<0.001 for APC). Endocuff was higher than standard HD colonoscopy for APC (p=0.014) . Mean cecal insertion times with FUSE (468 ± 311 seconds) and EndoRings (403 ± 263 seconds) were both longer than with Endocuff (354 ± 216 seconds) (p=0.006 and 0.018, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:For high-level detectors at colonoscopy, forward-viewing HD instruments dominate the FUSE system, indicating that for these examiners image resolution trumps angle of view. Further, Endocuff is a dominant strategy over EndoRings and no mucosal exposure device on a forward-viewing HD colonoscope.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS/OBJECTIVE:The need to increase the adenoma detection rate (ADR) for colorectal cancer screening has ushered in devices that mechanically or optically improve conventional colonoscopy. Recently, new technology devices (NTDs) have become available. We aimed to compare the ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), and adenoma miss rate (AMR) between NTDs and conventional colonoscopy and between mechanical and optical NTDs. METHODS:MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception through September 2017 for articles or abstracts reporting ADR, PDR, and AMR with NTDs. Randomized controlled trials and case-control studies with >10 subjects were included. Primary outcomes included ADR, PDR, and AMR odds ratio (OR) between conventional colonoscopy and NTDs. Secondary outcomes included cecal intubation rates, adverse events, cecal intubation time, and total colonoscopy time. RESULTS:From 141 citations, 45 studies with 20,887 subjects were eligible for ≥1 analyses. Overall, the ORs for ADR (1.35; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24-1.47; P < .01) and PDR (1.51; 95% CI, 1.37-1.67; P < .01) were higher with NTDs. Higher ADR (OR, 1.52 vs 1.25; P = .035) and PDR (OR, 1.63 vs 1.10; P ≤ .01) were observed with mechanical NTDs. The overall AMR with NTDs was lower compared with conventional colonoscopy (OR, .19; 95% CI, .14-.26; P < .01). Mechanical NTDs had lower AMRs compared with optical NTDs (OR, .10 vs .33; P < .01). No differences in cecal intubation rates, cecal intubation time, or total colonoscopy time were found. CONCLUSIONS:Newer endoscopic technologies are an effective option to improve ADR and PDR and decrease AMR, particularly with mechanical NTDs. No differences in operability and safety were found.