Ramirez, Francisco

Abstract Topic Benign Disease: Gastro-Esophageal Reflux and Hiatal Hernia Background Ambulatory reflux monitoring (wireless pH or catheter-based pH-impedance) performed off acid suppression is the gold standard for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Barium esophagram (BE), commonly used to evaluate esophageal symptoms, routinely assesses reflux, yet its diagnostic accuracy relative to ambulatory monitoring remains unclear. Existing studies are limited, relied on outdated reflux criteria, and demonstrated poor concordance with BE-based GERD diagnoses. We aimed to determine whether BE reliably identifies GERD compared with ambulatory reflux monitoring interpreted using updated Lyon 2.0 consensus criteria. Methods Retrospective analysis of adult patients that underwent BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring (wireless pH or pH-impedance) off PPI within an 8-month interval. Patients with a history of fundoplication were excluded. Esophagram was performed with standard technique and reported by radiology, considered positive for GERD if there was reflux above the thoracic inlet with or without provocative maneuvers. Reflux monitoring studies were considered positive or negative for GERD based on Lyon consensus 2.0 recommendations. Inter-rater reliability, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and received operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were calculated for esophagram, with reflux monitoring diagnosis as the gold standard. Results 64 patients were included, 31 % male, mean age = 60 years, mean Body Mass Index = 26. GERD was diagnosed by esophagram in 20 patients (31%), and by reflux monitoring in 19 (30%). Compared to reflux monitoring, BE had sensitivity: 47%, specificity: 76%, PPV: 45%, NPV: 77%, and area under the ROC curve: 0.61 (Figure 1). Inter-rater reliability between BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring was poor (Cohen's Kappa = 0.226). Conclusion There was poor concordance between BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring for diagnosing GERD. BE overall had suboptimal diagnostic performance, with low sensitivity, and moderate specificity. Furthermore, the area under the ROC curve indicates limited ability to distinguish correctly between patients with and without GERD. These findings indicate that barium esophagram should not be relied upon as a diagnostic tool for GERD.

Abstract Topic Benign Disease: Other Background Lichen planus is a chronic immune-mediated skin disease that may involve the esophagus. Esophageal lichen planus (ELP) is considered rare, but likely underdiagnosed. Lack of published guidelines for ELP results in significant treatment variability. Given heterogeneous practice patterns and emerging treatments, further outcome data are needed. Methods A retrospective cohort of ELP patients was assembled from 3 academic centers. Patients ≥ 18 years old were identified by ICD10 code search (L43.8) in the electronic health record, from 2006 to 2025. Patients were included if they had initial endoscopy, histology, and follow-up endoscopy showing features of LP, and excluded if there was diagnostic uncertainty, unavailable procedural documentation, or other esophageal diseases. Endoscopic findings were assessed qualitatively by manual review of reports. Data abstracted included demographics, presenting symptoms, endoscopic/histologic findings, treatment, and clinical outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed in R. Results 193 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age at index endoscopy was 65 years, 86% were female, 98% were non-Hispanic Caucasian, 39% were ever smokers, and mean BMI was 26. Dysphagia was the most common presenting symptom (90%). Strictures were common (73%), 58% underwent dilation during initial endoscopy. Endoscopic findings included presence of sloughing (20%), exudate (22%) and friability (23%). Histology showed lymphocytic infiltrate (47%), parakeratosis/dyskeratosis (42%) and Civatte bodies (17%). Topical steroids (71%) and PPIs (63%) were used most frequently for treatment. Immunosuppressives (tacrolimus, systemic steroids, mycophenolate, methotrexate, hydroxychloroquine, cyclosporine, azathioprine, JAK inhibitor) were used in 54% of patients. Endoscopic improvement was seen in 66%, with highest response rates in tacrolimus (100%), hydroxychloroquine (100%), and a JAK inhibitor (100%). Symptom improvement was seen in 63%, with the greatest benefit seen in patients treated with a JAK inhibitor (100%) and hydroxychloroquine (86%). Conclusion In this large, multisite cohort, ELP demonstrated significant morbidity, with high rates of dysphagia, strictures, and inflammatory changes. Dilation appeared to be safe, with only a single iatrogenic perforation identified. Esophageal squamous cell cancer risk was low but present, at 4%. Despite heterogeneous treatment practices, several therapies – tacrolimus, hydroxychloroquine, and JAK inhibitors – were associated with marked endoscopic and symptomatic improvement. Prospective studies are needed to clarify the optimal approach to pharmacological management of ELP.

Abstract Topic Benign Disease: Gastro-Esophageal Reflux and Hiatal Hernia Background Ambulatory reflux monitoring off acid suppression is the gold standard for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Barium esophagram (BE) routinely evaluates reflux, but its diagnostic accuracy remains uncertain. We assessed whether BE reliably identifies GERD compared with ambulatory reflux monitoring interpreted using updated Lyon 2.0 consensus criteria. Methods Retrospective analysis of adult patients that underwent BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring (wireless pH or pH-impedance) off PPI within an 8-month interval. Patients with a history of fundoplication were excluded. Esophagram was performed with standard technique and reported by radiology, considered positive for GERD if there was reflux above the thoracic inlet with or without provocative maneuvers. Reflux monitoring studies were considered positive or negative for GERD based on Lyon consensus 2.0 recommendations. Inter-rater reliability, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and received operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were calculated for esophagram, with reflux monitoring diagnosis as the gold standard. Results 64 patients were included, 31 % male, mean age = 60 years, mean Body Mass Index = 26. GERD was diagnosed by esophagram in 20 patients (31%), and by reflux monitoring in 19 (30%). Compared to reflux monitoring, BE had sensitivity: 47%, specificity: 76%, PPV: 45%, NPV: 77%, and area under the ROC curve: 0.61 (Figure 1). Inter-rater reliability between BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring was poor (Cohen's Kappa = 0.226). Conclusion There was poor concordance between BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring for diagnosing GERD. BE overall had suboptimal diagnostic performance, with low sensitivity, and moderate specificity. Furthermore, the area under the ROC curve indicates limited ability to distinguish correctly between patients with and without GERD. These findings indicate that barium esophagram should not be relied upon as a diagnostic tool for GERD.

Objective Surveillance interval protocols after complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) post radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in Barrett’s oesophagus (BE) are currently empiric and not based on substantial evidence. We aimed to assess the timeline, location and patterns of recurrence following CRIM to inform these guidelines. Design Data on patients undergoing RFA for BE were obtained from prospectively maintained databases of five (three USA and two UK) tertiary referral centres. RFA was performed until CRIM was confirmed on two consecutive endoscopies. Results 594 patients achieved CRIM as of 1 May 2017. 151 subjects developed recurrent BE over a median (IQR) follow-up of 2.8 (1.4–4.4) years. There was 19% cumulative recurrence risk of any BE within 2 years and an additional 49% risk over the next 8.6 years. There was no evidence of a clinically meaningful change in the recurrence hazard rate of any BE, dysplastic BE or high-grade dysplasia/cancer over the duration of follow-up, with an estimated 2% (95% CI −7% to 12%) change in recurrence rate of any BE in a doubling of follow-up time. 74% of BE recurrences developed at the gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) (24.1% were dysplastic) and 26% in the tubular oesophagus. The yield of random biopsies from the tubular oesophagus, in the absence of visible lesions, was 1% (BE) and 0.2% (dysplasia). Conclusions BE recurrence risk following CRIM remained constant over time, suggesting that lengthening of follow-up intervals, at least in the first 5 years after CRIM, may not be advisable. Sampling the GOJ is critical to detecting recurrence. The requirement for random biopsies of the neosquamous epithelium in the absence of visible lesions may need to be re-evaluated.