Kahn, Allon

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.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are immune-mediated disorders of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract that, despite involving different tissues, are increasingly recognized to coexist. Epidemiologic studies demonstrate a bidirectional association, with patients affected by one condition showing a higher-than-expected prevalence of the other, suggesting shared susceptibility rather than incidental overlap. Genetic and epigenetic data support partial convergence in immune regulatory pathways, while epithelial barrier dysfunction and antigen-driven immune activation emerge as common upstream features. Overlapping cytokine networks, including IL-4, IL-13, and IL-23 signaling, contribute to chronic inflammation in both diseases, although differences in tissue environment and immune dominance give rise to distinct inflammatory phenotypes and clinical behavior. Clinical outcomes in patients with dual diagnoses appear heterogeneous, with available data suggesting neither uniformly worsened nor clearly protective disease courses, underscoring the complexity of shared immune mechanisms operating within different anatomic contexts. Beyond inflammatory activity, coexistence of EoE and IBD poses important nutritional and quality-of-life challenges, as overlapping dietary restrictions and chronic symptoms increase the risk of malnutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, and psychosocial burden. Current therapies remain disease-specific, with strong evidence supporting proton pump inhibitors, swallowed topical steroids, dietary therapy, and dupilumab in EoE, and biologics and small molecules targeting TNF-α, IL-12/23, IL-23, integrins, and JAK–STAT signaling in IBD, while evidence guiding treatment in patients with dual diagnosis remains limited. Together, current evidence supports a framework of shared immune machinery with tissue-specific expression that explains coexistence while preserving the distinct identities of EoE and IBD. By integrating emerging genetic, immunologic, and clinical evidence, this review aims to provide a framework for understanding and managing patients with coexisting EoE and IBD.

Abstract The proliferation of advanced endoscopic resection techniques has provided a minimally invasive alternative to esophagectomy and revolutionized outcomes for patients with early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). This paradigm shift and the resulting research data on clinical and histologic determinants of treatment outcome have highlighted the heterogeneity of outcomes within EAC staged as T1 by invasion depth. Multidisciplinary cancer care teams are now routinely facing difficult decisions regarding the management of high-risk T1 EAC to balance the risk of long-term lymph node (LNM) or distant metastasis against the risks of surgical resection. In this review, we summarize the current state of knowledge regarding the staging and risk stratification of T1 EAC, with particular attention to features that contribute to a higher risk of LNM and cancer mortality. We review recent clinical trial data on positioning the use of endoscopic resection (cap-assisted or submucosal dissection) versus surgical resection in high-risk T1 EAC patients and describe adjunctive techniques to further improve risk stratification and treatment. Finally, we explore emerging and future directions, such as artificial intelligence and advanced biomarker analysis to further aid decision-making and enhance patient outcomes.

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.

Purpose: There are reported barriers to implementation of esophageal screening during the videofluoroscopic swallow study (VFSS) completed by the speech-language pathologist (SLP). Often, patients referred to the SLP for a VFSS have an esophageal component that may explain their complaint. In this article, authors explore roadblocks to esophageal screening and potential roadmaps to improve patient care through standardization of esophageal screening procedures. Conclusions: A strong body of literature supports physiologic, anatomic, and disease state relationships of the oropharynx and esophagus. Despite this, the assessment of the oropharynx and esophagus is dichotomized. There remain billing limitations for same-day esophagram and VFSS, and the well-documented esophageal screen provides a view of bolus flow in an upright, typical eating position with consideration of oropharyngeal function to provide a comprehensive view of the continuous process of swallowing from mouth to stomach. The continued practice of evaluating the oropharynx without consideration of the esophagus poses a threat to patient safety and may delay care. A collaborative, multidisciplinary effort among healthcare professionals to create streamlined practice parameters, update position statements, and enhance education parameters will allow for cohesive practices among professionals. Assessment of the swallow mechanism is incomplete without consideration of the entire continuum.

Goals: This study aimed to assess perspectives and practices among expert gastroenterologists regarding the screening, diagnosis, and management of BE. Background: Significant variability in the management of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) persists among physicians despite the development and dissemination of several clinical practice guidelines. Study: An online survey was conducted with 38 expert gastroenterologists specializing in BE management. The 38-question survey evaluated demographics, medical management, and attitudes toward endoscopic treatment, with responses analyzed for trends and variations. Results: Of the 38 experts, 34 (89%) responded. Respondents were primarily male (85%), with 82% affiliated with academic hospitals and 53% clinically focused on BE. Half discussed BE risks during initial consultations for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Most (61.8%) agreed BE should be considered in women with chronic GERD, and 88.2% regularly used narrow-band imaging (NBI). However, 44% were neutral or disagreed with diagnosing BE based solely on community gastroenterologist biopsies, and acceptance of Wide-Area Transepithelial Sampling with 3D Analysis (WATS-3D) for Barrett’s esophagus diagnosis and surveillance was limited. Fifty-three percent recommended ablation for nondysplastic BE. Fifty-two percent recommended indefinite daily PPI therapy after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CEIM), regardless of symptoms. When encountering cardia intestinal metaplasia after endoscopic eradication, 38% recommended ablation, while 47% continued surveillance. Conclusion: This study highlights substantial variations in the management of BE among expert gastroenterologists, despite the existence of updated guidelines. Identifying these discrepancies is crucial for optimizing care. Further efforts are needed to standardize practices and enhance the implementation of evidence-based guidelines in clinical settings.

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.