Leiman, David A.

INTRODUCTION: The adjunctive use of p53 immunohistochemistry has been proposed as a potential tool to improve risk stratification in Barrett's esophagus (BE) with conflicting results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of p53 in predicting progression to advanced neoplasia (high-grade dysplasia [HGD] and esophageal adenocarcinoma [EAC]) among patients with BE. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies that evaluated the use of aberrant p53 in esophageal biopsies among patients with BE and reported progression rates to HGD/EAC. The outcomes were p53 test characteristics and incidence and risk ratio (RR) for progression to HGD/EAC in patients with and without aberrant p53 using random effects models. RESULTS: Among the 27 included studies, the proportion of patients with aberrant p53 expression at baseline was 20% (95% CI: 14%, 27%). The rate of progression with and without aberrant p53 was 8 per 100 person-years (95% CI: 6, 11) and 0.3 per 100 person-years (95% CI: 0.1, 0.6), respectively. Compared with patients without aberrant p53 expression, those with aberrant p53 had a higher risk for progression to HGD/EAC in cohort studies (RR = 10.2 [95% CI: 6.9, 15.0]) and case control studies (RR = 3.3 [95% CI: 2.5, 4.4]). The sensitivity for progression for non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus and low-grade dysplasia/indefinite for dysplasia was 42% and 77% and specificity was 96% and 76%, respectively. DISCUSSION: While aberrant p53 expression has been associated with an increased risk of progression to advanced neoplasia in patients with BE undergoing surveillance, the diagnostic characteristics are suboptimal precluding uniform clinical adoption. Prospective studies with standardized grading protocols are needed to determine whether p53-guided surveillance strategies can meaningfully improve patient outcomes.

Background: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease-specific questions intended to encourage question-asking by patients and enhance patient-physician communication. To date, an EoE-specific QPL has not been developed for EoE patients. Aim: To develop a preliminary QPL specific to adults with EoE by incorporating input from international esophageal experts. Methods: Sixteen experts were invited to generate QPL content through a modified Delphi (RAND/University of California, Los Angeles, CA) method consisting of 2 rounds of independent ratings. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts “what general questions should patients ask when being seen for EoE?” and “what questions do I not hear patients asking but given my experience, I believe they should be asking?” In round 2, experts rated each question on a 5-point Likert scale, and responses rated as “essential” or “important” (determined by an a priori median threshold of ≥ 4.0) were accepted for the EoE QPL. Results: Ten esophageal experts participated in both rounds. Round 1 generated 100 questions. Questions were combined and modified to reduce redundancy, yielding 57 questions. After round 2, 51 questions (85%) were accepted for inclusion (median value ≥ 4.0) in the final QPL. Questions were then divided into 4 themes based on disease domains: (1) “What is EoE?,” (2) “Treatment Options,” (3) “Follow-up Surveillance and Long-term Risks,” and (4) “Allergy and Genetic Testing.” The largest number of questions covered was “What is EoE?” (16/51 or 31%). Questions with the highest agreement median (5.0) included examples such as “what should I do if I get a food impaction?” and “what are the treatment options?” Conclusion: This is the first preliminary EoE QPL developed in the field of medicine. We hope implementation enhances effective patient-physician communication by encouraging patients to ask relevant questions that experts prioritized. Future studies will aim to modify this communication tool by incorporating patient perspectives

Goals: Develop quality indicators for ineffective esophageal motility (IEM). Background: IEM is identified in up to 20% of patients undergoing esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) based on the Chicago Classification. The clinical significance of this pattern is not established and management remains challenging. Study: Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Methods, we employed a modified-Delphi approach for quality indicator statement development. Quality indicators were proposed based on prior literature. Experts independently and blindly scored proposed quality statements on importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility in a 3-round iterative process. Results: All 10 of the invited esophageal experts in the management of esophageal diseases invited to participate rated 12 proposed quality indicator statements. In round 1, 7 quality indicators were rated with mixed agreement, on the majority of categories. Statements were modified based on panel suggestion, modified further following round 2’s virtual discussion, and in round 3 voting identified 2 quality indicators with comprehensive agreement, 4 with partial agreement, and 1 without any agreement. The panel agreed on the concept of determining if IEM is clinically relevant to the patient’s presentation and managing gastroesophageal reflux disease rather than the IEM pattern; they disagreed in all 4 domains on the use of promotility agents in IEM; and had mixed agreement on the value of a finding of IEM during anti-reflux surgical planning. Conclusion: Using a robust methodology, 2 IEM quality indicators were identified. These quality indicators can track performance when physicians identify this manometric pattern on HRM. This study further highlights the challenges met with IEM and the need for additional research to better understand the clinical importance of this manometric pattern.

Summary Background Upper endoscopy (EGD) is frequently performed in patients with esophageal complaints following anti-reflux surgery such as fundoplication. Endoscopic evaluation of fundoplication wrap integrity can be challenging. Our primary aim in this pilot study was to evaluate the accuracy and confidence of assessing Nissen fundoplication integrity and hiatus herniation among gastroenterology (GI) fellows, subspecialists, and foregut surgeons. Methods Five variations of post-Nissen fundoplication anatomy were included in a survey of 20 sets of EGD images that was completed by GI fellows, general GI attendings, esophagologists, and foregut surgeons. Accuracy, diagnostic confidence, and inter-rater agreement across providers were evaluated. Results There were 31 respondents in the final cohort. Confidence in pre-survey diagnostics significantly differed by provider type (mean confidence out of 5 was 1.8 for GI fellows, 2.7 for general GI attendings, 3.6 for esophagologists, and 3.6 for foregut surgeons, P = 0.01). The mean overall accuracy was 45.9%, which significantly differed by provider type with the lowest rate among GI fellows (37%) and highest among esophagologists (53%; P = 0.01). The accuracy was highest among esophagologists across all wrap integrity variations. Inter-rater agreement was low across wrap integrity variations (Krippendorf’s alpha <0.30), indicating low to no agreement between providers. Conclusion In this multi-center survey study, GI fellows had the lowest accuracy and confidence in assessing EGD images after Nissen fundoplication, whereas esophagologists had the highest. Diagnostic confidence varied considerably and inter-rater agreement was poor. These findings suggest experience may improve confidence, but highlight the need to improve the evaluation of fundoplication wraps.

Goals: The aim was to quantify proton pump inhibitor (PPI) practice habits among gastroenterology (GI) practitioners. Background: Reports of side effects have prompted patients and practitioners alike to discontinue PPI use. Emerging evidence-based literature on PPI risks and safety seek to guide practitioners, but the impact of this literature on PPI prescribing patterns has not been evaluated. Study: We performed an anonymous online survey of US GI practitioners across 6 academic and community affiliated medical centers. Demographic data including practice type and number of weekly gastroesophageal reflux disease patients seen were obtained. Survey questions evaluated practitioners’ monitoring for PPI side effects, dose adjustments, and sources of information about PPI risks. Results: The survey response rate was 60% (256/429). The majority of respondents were male (169, 66%) attending physicians (178, 70%) practicing general GI (63, 25%). There were 92 (36%) respondents who reported testing for PPI side effects at least once a year. Most respondents (143, 56%) reported discontinuing PPIs at least 50% of the time because of patients’ concerns about PPI side effects. The majority of respondents reported getting their information regarding PPI safety from published journals (239, 98%) as well as colleagues (222, 91%). Conclusions: Despite best available evidence suggesting safety of long-term PPI use without routine monitoring, stopping PPIs and monitoring for potential side effects occurs frequently, even within a cohort of mostly academic GI practitioners. Alternative strategies are needed to improve adherence to best practices, especially since gastroenterologists often serve as PPI experts.

AbstractBackgroundThe management of achalasia has improved due to diagnostic and therapeutic innovations. However, variability in care delivery remains and no established measures defining quality of care for this population exist. We aimed to use formal methodology to establish quality indicators for achalasia patients.MethodsQuality indicator concepts were identified from the literature, consensus guidelines and clinical experts. Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method, experts in achalasia independently ranked proposed concepts in a two‐round modified Delphi process based on 1) importance, 2) scientific acceptability, 3) usability, and 4) feasibility. Highly valid measures required strict agreement (≧ 80% of panelists) in the range of 7–9 for across all four categories.Key ResultsThere were 17 experts who rated 26 proposed quality indicator topics. In round one, 2 (8%) quality measures were rated valid. In round two, 19 measures were modified based on panel suggestions, and experts rated 10 (53%) of these measures as valid, resulting in a total of 12 quality indicators. Two measures pertained to patient education and five to diagnosis, including discussing treatment options with risk and benefits and using the most recent version of the Chicago Classification to define achalasia phenotypes, respectively. Other indicators pertained to treatment options, such as the use of botulinum toxin for those not considered surgical candidates and management of reflux following achalasia treatment.Conclusions & InferencesUsing a robust methodology, achalasia quality indicators were identified, which can form the basis for establishing quality gaps and generating fully specified quality measures.