Original articleAlimentary tractAssociation Between Length of Barrett's Esophagus and Risk of High-grade Dysplasia or Adenocarcinoma in Patients Without Dysplasia
Section snippets
Patients
The BE Study (BEST) is a multicenter outcomes project that includes 5 tertiary care referral centers with an interest in BE. These include the Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Kansas City, MO), the Southern Arizona Veterans Affairs Health Care System (Tucson, AZ), the Cleveland Clinic (Cleveland, OH), the Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Portland, OR), and the Bethesda Naval Medical Center (Bethesda, MD). The study was approved by the institutional review board at each institution.
Patients
Results
Of the total number of 3515 patients in the database, 1175 patients met the inclusion criteria. The flow of patients in this study and reasons for exclusion are highlighted in Figure 1.
The mean age of this cohort was 59.2 years (standard deviation standard deviation [SD], 11.7 y). The vast majority were Caucasians (93.1%) and males (88%). The mean follow-up period was 5.5 years (SD, 3.94 y), with a total of 6463 patient-years of follow-up evaluation. The mean BE length was 3.6 cm (SD, 3.1 cm).
Discussion
The results of this large multicenter cohort of 1175 patients with NDBE with a mean follow-up period of 5.5 years (6426 patient-years) show that the annual risk of HGD/EAC increases with an increase in the length of the Barrett's segment. The annual risk for the combined end point of HGD/EAC was 0.31%/y for Barrett's length of 3 cm or less, but increased to 2.41%/y for Barrett's length of 13 cm or longer. Our study highlights the increase in the risk of developing of HGD/EAC with increasing
Conclusions
The results from this large multicenter cohort show that BE length is a significant predictor of progression to HGD/EAC. These results provide support for the development of a risk-stratification scheme for NDBE patients using the length of the BE segment. Surveillance intervals for patients with shorter segments could be extended beyond the conventional 3 to 5 years.
Acknowledgments
Presented in part at the Barrett's Esophagus Research Forum at Digestive Diseases Week, May 7–10, 2011, Chicago, IL.
References (26)
- et al.
A critical review of the diagnosis and management of Barrett's esophagus: the AGA Chicago Workshop
Gastroenterology
(2004) - et al.
Risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma and mortality in patients with Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
(2010) - et al.
Total cancer incidence and overall mortality are not increased among patients with Barrett's esophagus
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
(2011) - et al.
Hiatal hernia size, Barrett's length, and severity of acid reflux are all risk factors for esophageal adenocarcinoma
Am J Gastroenterol
(2002) - et al.
Prospective multivariate analysis of factors predictive of complete regression of Barrett's esophagus
Am J Gastroenterol
(1999) - et al.
Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus: a reaffirmation
Hum Pathol
(2001) - et al.
Dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease: standardized classification with provisional clinical applications
Hum Pathol
(1983) - et al.
Protective association of aspirin/NSAIDs and esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Gastroenterology
(2003) - et al.
Medications (NSAIDs, statins, proton pump inhibitors) and the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett's esophagus
Gastroenterology
(2010) - et al.
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of neoplastic progression in Barrett's oesophagus: a prospective study
Lancet Oncol
(2005)
The role of overdiagnosis and reclassification in the marked increase of esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence
J Natl Cancer Inst
Updated guidelines 2008 for the diagnosis, surveillance and therapy of Barrett's esophagus
Am J Gastroenterol
Clinical practice. Barrett's esophagus
N Engl J Med
Cited by (109)
The concordance between wide-area transepithelial sampling with computer-assisted 3-dimensional analysis (WATS-3D) and standard endoscope biopsy in the detection of Barrett's esophagus and esophageal dysplasia
2022, Annals of Diagnostic PathologyCitation Excerpt :Based on the Prague C & M criteria, short segment BE was defined as BE less than 3 cm in length, while BE longer than 3 cm in length was defined as long segment BE [16]. Prior studies have shown that the risk of neoplastic progression increases by a factor of 1.11 to 1.39 with every additional 1 cm of BE length [17,18]. There was a strong concordance between forceps biopsy and WATS-3D.
Barrett's Esophagus: Diagnosis, Management, and Key Updates
2021, Gastroenterology Clinics of North AmericaCitation Excerpt :Furthermore, the use of the Seattle protocol for biopsy along with Prague criteria for endoscopic description has resulted in a standard method for endoscopists to characterize and biopsy BE seen at esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD).21,22 Accurate representation and biopsy of the BE segment is important as increasing BE length is associated with an increased risk of progression to dysplasia and EAC.23 Overall BE prevalence in the general population is not clearly known across the world as many with it are not symptomatic.24
A Pilot Study on Automatic Three-Dimensional Quantification of Barrett's Esophagus for Risk Stratification and Therapy Monitoring
2021, GastroenterologyCitation Excerpt :Existing clinical studies indicate that an accurate and more systematic assessment of the Barrett’s area would be of clinical value. Anaparthy et al16 demonstrated that with every centimeter increase in M score of Barrett’s, the risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia or EAC increases by 28% (P = 0.01). Barrett’s segment ≥3 cm showed significantly greater prevalence of dysplasia (23% vs 9%; P = 0.0001).17
Optimizing Outcomes with Radiofrequency Ablation of Barrett's Esophagus: Candidates, Efficacy and Durability
2021, Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North AmericaCitation Excerpt :Furthermore, long-term follow-up after ablation in patients with NDBE cannot be abandoned because of a recurrence of intestinal metaplasia in approximately 20% of cases after ablation.32 Even if RFA cannot be recommended in patients with NDBE, its place in high-lifetime risk of cancer (familial history of EAC, young patients with long segments of BE) or biomarker-driven risk stratification is still debated and can be considered.20,32,36–39 There were controversies about the natural history of LGD during the early previous decade due to a variable reported risk of progression to EAC/HGD, ranging between a risk similar to NDBE and HGD.33,40–42
Conflicts of interest The authors disclose no conflicts.