Ramirez, Francisco C.

INTRODUCTION: Ongoing surveillance after successful endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett's esophagus (BE)-related neoplasia is essential to detect and manage recurrence. Despite established surveillance interval recommendations after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM), patient compliance with repeat endoscopy is frequently suboptimal. Understanding patient drivers to adherence is essential to inform interventions that address the high rates of overdue surveillance and loss to follow-up. METHODS: Patients with BE-related neoplasia who achieved CE-IM were eligible for inclusion and classified as delayed or on-time for endoscopic surveillance. Patients were prospectively enrolled and participated in structured virtual interviews designed to explore barriers and facilitators to on-time care. A rapid qualitative analysis approach was applied, continuing until thematic saturation was reached. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were interviewed: 22 (56.4%) were delayed, and 17 (43.6%) were on-time for surveillance. Patients in the delayed group had longer mean BE segment lengths and a higher prevalence of tobacco use. Geographic distance from the treatment center was the most frequently cited barrier to follow-up (n = 17; 43.5%). Other common barriers were access limitations, financial concerns, misunderstanding of disease course, and test-related anxiety. DISCUSSION: Patient-related drivers of delay in postendoscopic eradication therapy surveillance are largely logistical, socioeconomical, and psychological in nature. Solutions to reduce the significant burden on the patient and achieve timely surveillance may include transitioning patients back to their local endoscopists after CE-IM or incorporating nonendoscopic surveillance methods through patient centered approaches.

Abstract Aberrant DNA methylation and copy-number alterations (CNA) drive Barrett’s esophagus progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma; however, their combined utility for early detection is unclear. We aimed to identify and validate methylated DNA markers (MDM) and CNAs to distinguish esophageal adenocarcinoma/high-grade dysplasia (HGD) from nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (NDBE). In this multiphase, multicenter study, we discovered and validated MDMs and quantified CNAs utilizing whole-genome methylation sequencing of esophageal brushings. DNA biomarkers identified from discovery were further validated in independent patients with paired esophageal brushing and swallowed capsule sponge samples. MDMs were filtered against a reduced representation bisulfite sequencing dataset obtained from independent tissue samples to advance only concordant candidates. CNA burden was quantified using ichorCNA-derived aneuploidy scores (AS). Two hundred MDMs discovered in HGD (N = 18) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (N = 18) versus NDBE brushing samples (N = 18) were tested in independent samples (N = 146). A 52-MDM panel achieved a cross-validated AUC of 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82–0.95]; the addition of AS improved discrimination of HGD/esophageal adenocarcinoma from NDBE to 0.91 (95% CI, 0.86–0.97) AUC. At 80% specificity, the combined model detected 93% of esophageal adenocarcinoma and 88% of HGD cases. In paired capsule sponge samples, a 58-MDM panel achieved a cross-validated AUC of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66–0.88); a combined 58-MDM and AS model achieved AUC 0.80 (95% CI, 0.7–0.9). MDMs and AS discerned HGD/esophageal adenocarcinoma from normal esophagus/NDBE in endoscopic brushing and capsule sponge samples. This approach may improve Barrett’s esophagus surveillance. Prevention Relevance: This study demonstrates that combining epigenetic and genomic biomarkers across minimally invasive sampling methods can accurately distinguish HGD/esophageal adenocarcinoma from nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus, offering promising, less invasive strategies to improve BE surveillance and enable endoscopic therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma prevention and treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is standard of care for T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, data on outcomes in high-risk T1a EAC are limited. We assessed and compared outcomes after EET of low-risk and high-risk T1a EAC, including intraluminal EAC recurrence, extraesophageal metastases, and overall survival. METHODS: Patients who underwent EET for T1a EAC at 3 referral Barrett's esophagus endotherapy units between 1996 and 2022 were included. Patients with submucosal invasion, positive deep margins, or metastases at initial diagnosis were excluded. High-risk T1a EAC was defined as T1a EAC with poor differentiation and/or lymphovascular invasion, with low-risk disease being defined without these features. All pathology was systematically assessed by expert gastrointestinal pathologists. Baseline and follow-up endoscopy and pathology data were abstracted. Time-to-event analyses were performed to compare outcomes between groups. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-eight patients with T1a EAC were included (high risk, n = 45; low risk, n = 143) with a median age of 70 years, and 84% were men. Groups were comparable for age, sex, Barrett's esophagus length, lesion size, and EET technique. Rates of delayed extraesophageal metastases (11.1% vs 1.4%) were significantly higher in the high-risk group ( P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the rates of intraluminal EAC recurrence ( P = 0.79) and overall survival ( P = 0.73) between the 2 groups. DISCUSSION: Patients with high-risk T1a EAC undergoing successful EET had a substantially higher rate of extraesophageal metastases compared with those with low-risk T1a EAC on long-term follow-up. These data should be factored into discussions with patients while selecting treatment approaches. Additional prospective data in this area are critical.

AbstractBackground and AimEndoscopy featured water‐aided colonoscopy (WAC) as novel in the Innovation Forum in 2011. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy published a modified Delphi consensus review (MDCR) that supports WAC for clinical practice in 2021. We tested the hypothesis that experience was an important predictor of WAC use, either as water immersion (WI), water exchange (WE), or a combination of WI and WE.MethodsA questionnaire was sent by email to the MDCR authors with an in‐depth knowledge of WAC. They responded and also invited colleagues and trainees without in‐depth knowledge to respond. Logistic regression analysis was used with the reasons for WAC use treated as the primary outcome. Reports related to WAC post MDCR were identified.ResultsOf 100 respondents, > 80% indicated willingness to adopt and modify practice to accommodate WAC. Higher adenoma detection rate (ADR) incentivized WE use. Procedure time slots ≤ 30 and > 30 min significantly predicted WI and WE use, respectively. Co‐authors of the MDCR were significantly more likely to perform WAC (odds ratio [OR] = 7.5, P = 0.037). Unfamiliarity with (OR = 0.11, P = 0.02) and absence of good experience (OR = 0.019, P = 0.002) were associated with colonoscopists less likely to perform WAC. Reports related to WAC post MDCR revealed overall and right colon WE outcomes continued to improve. Network meta‐analyses showed that WE was superior to Cap and Endocuff. On‐demand sedation with WE shortened nursing recovery time.ConclusionsAn important predictor of WAC use was experience. Superior outcomes continued to be reported with WE.