Neoplasia Detection Rate in Barrett's Esophagus and Its Impact on Missed Dysplasia: Results from a Large Population-Based Database.
Accuracy
Disease Progression
Esophageal Cancer
Pathology
Journal
Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association
ISSN: 1542-7714
Titre abrégé: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101160775
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2021
05 2021
Historique:
received:
07
05
2020
revised:
12
07
2020
accepted:
16
07
2020
pubmed:
25
7
2020
medline:
19
8
2021
entrez:
25
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
It is a challenge to detect dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinomas (EACs) are missed in 25%-33% of cases. The neoplasia detection rate (NDR), defined as the rate of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or EAC detection during initial surveillance endoscopy, has been proposed as a quality metric for endoscopic evaluation of patients with BE. However, current estimates are from referral center cohorts, which might overestimate NDR. Effects on rates of missed dysplasia are also unknown. We analyzed data from a large cohort of patients with BE to estimate the NDR and factors associated with it, and assess the effects of the NDR on the rate of missed dysplasia. We analyzed data from 1066 patients in the Rochester Epidemiology Project-linked medical record system, a population-based cohort of patients with BE (confirmed by review of the endoscopic and histologic reports) from 11 southeastern Minnesota counties from 1991 through 2019. Biopsies reported to contain dysplasia were confirmed by expert gastrointestinal pathologists. The NDR was calculated as the rate of HGD or EAC detected by histologic analyses of biopsies collected during the first surveillance endoscopy. Patients without HGD or EAC at their initial endoscopy (n = 391) underwent repeat endoscopy within 12 months; HGD or EAC detected at the repeat endoscopy were considered to be missed on index endoscopy. Factors associated with NDR and missed dysplasia were identified using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. The NDR was 4.9% (95% CI, 3.8-6.4); 3.1% of patients had HGD, 1.8% had EAC, and 10.6% had low-grade dysplasia. Factors associated with higher rates of detection of neoplasia included older age, male sex, smoking, increasing length of BE, and surveillance endoscopies by gastroenterologists. This NDR was associated with a substantially lower rate of missed dysplasia (13%). In an analysis of 1066 patients with BE in a population-based cohort, we found a lower NDR and lower rate of missed dysplasia than previously reported. NDR may have value as a quality metric in BE surveillance if validated in other cohorts.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND & AIMS
It is a challenge to detect dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinomas (EACs) are missed in 25%-33% of cases. The neoplasia detection rate (NDR), defined as the rate of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or EAC detection during initial surveillance endoscopy, has been proposed as a quality metric for endoscopic evaluation of patients with BE. However, current estimates are from referral center cohorts, which might overestimate NDR. Effects on rates of missed dysplasia are also unknown. We analyzed data from a large cohort of patients with BE to estimate the NDR and factors associated with it, and assess the effects of the NDR on the rate of missed dysplasia.
METHODS
We analyzed data from 1066 patients in the Rochester Epidemiology Project-linked medical record system, a population-based cohort of patients with BE (confirmed by review of the endoscopic and histologic reports) from 11 southeastern Minnesota counties from 1991 through 2019. Biopsies reported to contain dysplasia were confirmed by expert gastrointestinal pathologists. The NDR was calculated as the rate of HGD or EAC detected by histologic analyses of biopsies collected during the first surveillance endoscopy. Patients without HGD or EAC at their initial endoscopy (n = 391) underwent repeat endoscopy within 12 months; HGD or EAC detected at the repeat endoscopy were considered to be missed on index endoscopy. Factors associated with NDR and missed dysplasia were identified using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models.
RESULTS
The NDR was 4.9% (95% CI, 3.8-6.4); 3.1% of patients had HGD, 1.8% had EAC, and 10.6% had low-grade dysplasia. Factors associated with higher rates of detection of neoplasia included older age, male sex, smoking, increasing length of BE, and surveillance endoscopies by gastroenterologists. This NDR was associated with a substantially lower rate of missed dysplasia (13%).
CONCLUSIONS
In an analysis of 1066 patients with BE in a population-based cohort, we found a lower NDR and lower rate of missed dysplasia than previously reported. NDR may have value as a quality metric in BE surveillance if validated in other cohorts.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32707339
pii: S1542-3565(20)30996-4
doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.07.034
pmc: PMC7854811
mid: NIHMS1614734
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
922-929.e1Subventions
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : R01 AG034676
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA241164
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Mar 16;11(3):239-248
pubmed: 30918589
Gut. 2018 Feb;67(2):392-393
pubmed: 28389530
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan;81(1):31-53
pubmed: 25480100
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 May;87(5):1189-1194
pubmed: 28958906
Am J Gastroenterol. 2011 Aug;106(8):1447-55; quiz 1456
pubmed: 21483461
Cureus. 2019 Oct 26;11(10):e6003
pubmed: 31807390
Gastroenterology. 2018 Apr;154(5):1222-1226
pubmed: 29510131
Int J Epidemiol. 2012 Dec;41(6):1614-24
pubmed: 23159830
Arch Surg. 2000 Jul;135(7):831-5; discussion 836
pubmed: 10896378
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Mar;87(3):778-786.e5
pubmed: 28866456
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Jul;7(7):736-42; quiz 710
pubmed: 19268726
Am J Gastroenterol. 1998 Jul;93(7):1028-32
pubmed: 9672324
Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Mar;67(3):394-8
pubmed: 18045592
Am J Gastroenterol. 2019 Aug;114(8):1197-1198
pubmed: 31306150
Gut. 2017 May;66(5):783-793
pubmed: 26801885
Dig Dis Sci. 2016 Jan;61(1):158-67
pubmed: 25956705
Int J Epidemiol. 2018 Apr 1;47(2):368-368j
pubmed: 29346555
Cancer. 2013 Mar 15;119(6):1149-58
pubmed: 23303625
Am J Gastroenterol. 2000 May;95(5):1152-7
pubmed: 10811320
Gastroenterology. 2016 Mar;150(3):599-607.e7; quiz e14-5
pubmed: 26619962
United European Gastroenterol J. 2018 May;6(4):519-528
pubmed: 29881607
Am J Gastroenterol. 2017 Aug;112(8):1256-1264
pubmed: 28374815
Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Sep;90(3):335-359.e2
pubmed: 31439127
Gut. 2019 Dec;68(12):2122-2128
pubmed: 30872393
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 Mar;8(3):275-9
pubmed: 19879970
CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 Jan;69(1):7-34
pubmed: 30620402
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 May;87(5):1195-1197
pubmed: 29655434
Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 Jan;111(1):30-50; quiz 51
pubmed: 26526079
Gastroenterology. 2020 Jan;158(1):9-13
pubmed: 31626753
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Oct;7(10):1055-61
pubmed: 19577011