Wani, Sachin

INTRODUCTION: The risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus (BE) increases with advancing degrees of dysplasia. There is a critical need to improve the diagnosis of BE dysplasia, given substantial interobserver variability and overcalls of dysplasia during manual community pathologist reads. We aimed to externally validate a previously cross-validated BE dysplasia diagnosis deep learning model (BEDDLM) that predicts dysplasia grade on whole slide images (WSIs). METHODS: We digitized nondysplastic BE (NDBE), low-grade (LGD), and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) histology slides from 3 external academic centers. A consensus read by 2 expert study pathologists was used as the criterion standard. Slide stain characteristics were normalized using cycle-generative adversarial networks. WSIs were assessed by BEDDLM using an ensemble approach, combining a “You Only Look Once” model followed by a ResNet101 classifier model. RESULTS: We included 489 WSIs. Consensus histopathology revealed 232 NDBE, 117 LGD, and 140 HGD WSIs. The mean age (SD) was 66.9 (11.4) years; 413 (84.7%) were men. Using the BEDDLM ensemble model, sensitivity and specificity for NDBE were 73.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 67.09%–78.85%) and 93.4% (95% CI: 89.62%–96.10%); for LGD, 84.6% (95% CI: 76.78%–90.62%) and 80.6% (95% CI: 76.26%–84.54%); and for HGD, 80.7% (95% CI: 73.19%–86.89%) and 94.8% (95% CI: 91.97%–96.91%), respectively. The F1 score was 0.81, 0 0.69, and 0.83 for NDBE, LGD, and HGD, respectively. DISCUSSION: Our externally validated deep learning model demonstrates substantial accuracy for the diagnosis of BE dysplasia grade on WSIs.

INTRODUCTION: Current guidelines recommend endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) but do not account for competing mortality unrelated to esophageal cancer (EC). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate EC and non-EC mortality risk in BE patients. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies reporting mortality in BE. We included population-based studies providing standardized mortality ratio (SMR). The primary outcome was SMR from all causes and EC and non-EC etiologies. SMR was calculated by dividing the observed mortality over the expected mortality. Logarithmic form of SMRs was pooled using random-effects model. RESULTS: Our search yielded 2,826 articles, of which 7 studies (n = 34,454) were included. All-cause mortality was elevated in BE patients compared with population controls (pooled SMR 1.24, 95% confident interval [CI] 1.01–1.53) driven in part by increased EC mortality risk (SMR 8.98, 95 CI 5.12–15.77). The mortality risk was still increased but attenuated after excluding EC mortality (SMR 1.21, 95% CI 1–1.46). There was no increased mortality risk of non-EC malignancies (SMR 1.22, 95% CI 0.82–1.82) or mortality due to noncancer etiologies (SMR 1.13, 95% CI 0.90–1.43). Death due to cardiovascular diseases was higher in BE (SMR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02–1.33). BE patients were 10 times more likely to die from noncancer etiologies than EC (risk ratio 10.71, 95% CI 5.98–19.16). Subgroup analysis of studies that excluded prevalent EC at baseline (3 studies) also showed increased all-cause (SMR 1.12, 95% CI 1.07–1.18) and EC mortality (SMR 4.7, 95% CI 3.58–6.17) among BE patients. DISCUSSION: BE patients exhibit a higher all-cause mortality, driven in part by risk of EC mortality. A personalized approach to surveillance, mitigating risk of EC while recognizing the broader mortality risks, is warranted.

INTRODUCTION: Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) is effective for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk cases, but the optimal technical approach to this intervention remains uncertain. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of 787 clinical trial patients who underwent successful stent placement, we studied the impact of (i) whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP or naturally during the conduct of the case, (ii) the amount of effort expended on PSP, (iii) stent length, (iv) stent diameter, and (v) guidewire caliber. We used logistic regression models to examine the adjusted association between each technical factor and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). RESULTS: Ninety-one of the 787 patients experienced PEP. There was no clear association between PEP and whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP (vs occurring naturally; odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–1.84), whether substantial effort expended on stent placement (vs nonsubstantial effort; OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.73–3.45), stent length (>5 vs ≤5 cm; OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63–1.61), stent diameter (≥5 vs <5 Fr; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.65–1.96), or guidewire caliber (0.035 vs 0.025 in; 0.83, 95% CI 0.49–1.41). DISCUSSION: The 5 modifiable technical factors studied in this secondary analysis of large-scale randomized trial data did not appear to have a strong impact on the benefit of prophylactic PSP in preventing PEP after high-risk ERCP. Within the limitations of post hoc subgroup analysis, these findings may have important implications in procedural decision making and suggest that the benefit of PSP is robust to variations in technical approach.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted endoscopy practices, creating unprecedented decreases in cancer screening and surveillance services. We aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on the proportion of patients diagnosed with Barrett's esophagus (BE) and BE-related dysplasia and adherence to established quality indicators. METHODS: Data from all esophagogastroduodenoscopies in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium, a national repository of matched endoscopy and pathology data, were analyzed from January 2018 to December 2022. Four cohorts were created based on procedure date and COVID-19 data: pre-pandemic (January 2018 to February 2020), pandemic-phase I (March 2020 to July 2020), pandemic-phase II (August 2020 to May 2021), and pandemic-phase III (June 2021 to December 2022). Observed and expected number of BE and BE-related dysplasia cases per month and adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol and recommended surveillance intervals for nondysplastic BE (NDBE) were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 2,446,857 esophagogastroduodenoscopies performed during the study period, 104,124 (4.3%) had pathology-confirmed BE. The histologic distribution was 87.4% NDBE, 1.8% low-grade dysplasia, 2.4% indefinite for dysplasia, and 1.4% high-grade dysplasia. The number of monthly BE (−47.9% pandemic-phase I, −21.5% pandemic-phase II, and −19.0% pandemic-phase III) and BE-related dysplasia (high-grade dysplasia: 41.2%, −27.7%, and −19.0%; low-grade dysplasia: 49.1%, −35.3%, and −26.5%; any dysplasia: 46.7%, −32.3%, and −27.9%) diagnoses were significantly reduced during the pandemic phases compared with pre-pandemic data. Adherence rates to the Seattle protocol and recommended surveillance intervals for NDBE did not decline during the pandemic. DISCUSSION: There was a significant decline in the number of BE and BE-related dysplasia diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an approximately 50% reduction in the number of cases of dysplasia diagnosed in the early pandemic. The absence of a compensatory increase in diagnoses in the pandemic-phase II and III periods may result in deleterious downstream effects on esophageal adenocarcinoma morbidity and mortality.

Background Methods: The question prompt list content was derived through a modified Delphi process consisting of 3 rounds. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts “What general questions should patients ask when given a new diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus” and “What questions do I not hear patients asking, but given my expertise, I believe they should be asking?” Questions were reviewed and categorized into themes. In round 2, experts rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale. In round 3, experts rerated questions modified or reduced after the previous rounds. Only questions rated as “essential” or “important” were included in Barrett’s esophagus question prompt list (BE-QPL). To improve usability, questions were reduced to minimize redundancy and simplified to use language at an eighth-grade level (Fig. 1). Results: Twenty-one esophageal medical and surgical experts participated in both rounds (91% males; median age 52 years). The expert panel comprised of 33% esophagologists, 24% foregut surgeons, and 24% advanced endoscopists, with a median of 15 years in clinical practice. Most (81%), worked in an academic tertiary referral hospital. In this 3-round Delphi technique, 220 questions were proposed in round 1, 122 (55.5%) were accepted into the BE-QPL and reduced down to 76 questions (round 2), and 67 questions (round 3). These 67 questions reached a Flesch Reading Ease of 68.8, interpreted as easily understood by 13 to 15 years olds. Conclusions: With multidisciplinary input, we have developed a physician-derived BE-QPL to optimize patient-physician communication. Future directions will seek patient feedback to distill the questions further to a smaller number and then assess their usability.

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a common condition associated with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease. BE is the only known precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma, a highly lethal cancer with an increasing incidence over the last 5 decades. These revised guidelines implement Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to propose recommendations for the definition and diagnosis of BE, screening for BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma, surveillance of patients with known BE, and the medical and endoscopic treatment of BE and its associated early neoplasia. Important changes since the previous iteration of this guideline include a broadening of acceptable screening modalities for BE to include nonendoscopic methods, liberalized intervals for surveillance of short-segment BE, and volume criteria for endoscopic therapy centers for BE. We recommend endoscopic eradication therapy for patients with BE and high-grade dysplasia and those with BE and low-grade dysplasia. We propose structured surveillance intervals for patients with dysplastic BE after successful ablation based on the baseline degree of dysplasia. We could not make recommendations regarding chemoprevention or use of biomarkers in routine practice due to insufficient data.