Goyal, Rohit

Purpose of review A substantial proportion of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) cases in Barrett's esophagus (BE) are diagnosed after a dysplasia-negative endoscopy before the next recommended surveillance interval. These are classified as postendoscopy esophageal carcinoma (PEEC) or postendoscopy esophageal neoplasia (PEEN) and represent critical failures of BE surveillance. This review summarizes current definitions, epidemiology, potential etiologies, and evolving strategies to reduce PEEC/PEEN and improve the quality of BE surveillance. Recent findings High-quality endoscopic examination using high-definition white-light endoscopy (HD-WLE) and virtual chromoendoscopy (CE), adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol, adequate inspection time, and training in the recognition of visible lesions harboring prevalent dysplasia/EAC, are critical in reducing PEEC/PEEN. Initial data on the use of adjunctive tools (wide-area transepithelial sampling) and molecular biomarkers (p53, DNA methylation panels, and Tissue Systems Pathology tests) demonstrate promising results for detecting prevalent dysplasia and for reducing PEEC and PEEN. BE surveillance quality metrics, such as cancer and neoplasia detection rates, have been shown to be inversely associated with PEEN. Summary PEEC and PEEN reflect critical gaps in the effectiveness of BE surveillance. Improving the quality of endoscopic surveillance is essential, including meticulous mucosal inspection, appropriate use of advanced imaging techniques, and adherence to systematic biopsy protocols, to minimize missed neoplasia.

ABSTRACT Histoplasmosis has a wide spectrum of presentations ranging from mild pulmonary disease to a more widespread infection leading to disseminated histoplasmosis. Gastrointestinal histoplasmosis is a rare form of disseminated histoplasmosis that most commonly causes nonspecific symptoms and rarely presents with serious symptoms. Duodenal involvement is further rare but can cause ulcerated lesions leading to upper gastrointestinal bleed. The potential for a nonspecific initial presentation quickly progressing to a fatal upper gastrointestinal bleed makes it important to keep Gastrointestinal histoplasmosis in our list of differentials, as timely initiation of appropriate antifungal therapy can significantly reduce the risk of severe complications and mortality.

In this brief review we discuss the potential reasons underlying and follow up of patients who have a positive non-endoscopic swallowable cell collection device+biomarker (such as TFF3) test but no evidence of Barrett’s esophagus on endoscopy. We discuss the potential role of careful examination of the gastroesophageal junction and targeted biopsies of any visible lesions, as well endoscopic follow up in 3-5 years in the absence of any alarm symptoms. Considerations of the use of new technologies such as wide area transepithelial sampling in this situation are also discussed.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) combining endoscopic resection (ER) with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) followed by ablation is the standard of care for the treatment of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE). We have previously shown comparable rates of complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) with both approaches. However, data comparing recurrence after CRIM are lacking. We compared rates of recurrence after CRIM with both techniques in a multicenter cohort. METHODS: Patients undergoing EET achieving CRIM at 3 academic institutions were included. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted. Outcomes included rates and predictors of any BE and dysplastic BE recurrence in the 2 groups. Cox-proportional hazards models and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis were used for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 621 patients (514 EMR and 107 ESD) achieving CRIM were included in the recurrence analysis. The incidence of any BE (15.7, 5.7 per 100 patient-years) and dysplastic BE recurrence (7.3, 5.3 per 100 patient-years) were comparable in the EMR and ESD groups, respectively. On multivariable analyses, the chances of BE recurrence were not influenced by ER technique (hazard ratio 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.51–1.49; P = 0.62), which was also confirmed by IPTW analysis (ESD vs EMR: hazard ratio 0.98; 95% confidence interval 0.56–1.73; P = 0.94). BE length, lesion size, and history of cigarette smoking were independent predictors of BE recurrence. DISCUSSION: Patients with BE dysplasia/neoplasia achieving CRIM, initially treated with EMR/ablation, had comparable recurrence rates to ESD/ablation. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these outcomes between the 2 ER techniques.