Zfass, Alvin M.

Abstract Background For surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus (BE), the current standard of random 4-quadrant biopsies misses 10 – 50 % of esophageal neoplasms, and does not permit real-time decision-making. Probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) permits real-time in vivo histologic assessment of esophageal mucosa during upper endoscopy. Prospective studies comparing the accuracy of pCLE to 4-quadrant biopsies in routine clinical practice are lacking. Methods Consecutive patients with BE underwent high definition white light and narrow-band imaging followed by pCLE and targeted biopsy or mucosal resection. Four-quadrant biopsies were obtained during the same session. Baseline variables, real-time pCLE interpretation, and histology results were prospectively recorded. Blinded expert review of pCLE sequences and histology specimens was performed. A sample size of 64 patients was calculated a priori based on 3 % estimated prevalence of high grade dysplasia (HGD) or cancer. Results In total, 66 patients were included in the study. The prevalence of HGD or cancer was 4.55 %. Both real-time and blinded pCLE correctly identified all cases of cancer. For the primary outcome, real-time pCLE was 98 % specific but only 67 % sensitive for HGD/cancer compared to non-blinded pathologist interpretation. For HGD and cancer, inter-observer agreement was substantial between real-time and blinded endomicroscopists (kappa = 0.6). pCLE identified dysplasia in 75 % of cases where both blinded and unblinded pathology interpretation was low grade dysplasia. Conclusions pCLE demonstrates high specificity for detecting dysplasia and cancer, but lower sensitivity may limit its utility in routine BE surveillance. pCLE may have a role in confirming LGD in real-time before eradication therapy.

83 Background: Although surgery is traditionally the standard of care for esophageal cancer, esophagectomy carries significant morbidity and mortality. Alternative endoscopic therapies are needed for patients who are not candidates for conventional treatment. The objective of this study was to assess the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of spray cryotherapy of esophageal cancer. Methods: This study includes patients enrolled retrospectively and prospectively in an open-label registry and patients in a retrospective cohort from twelve academic and community practices. Endoscopic spray cryotherapy was performed until local tumor eradication was confirmed by biopsy or until treatment was halted due to progression of disease, patient withdrawal or co-morbidities. Results: One-hundred and eight patients (median age 75.5, 79.6% male, 93.5% adenocarcinoma, mean length 5.2 cm) underwent 442 treatments (mean 4.2 per patient). Tumor stages included 40 with T1a, 27 with T1b, 10 with unspecified T1, 15 with T2, and 16 with no T stage reported. One-hundred and six patients completed treatment with complete response of intraluminal disease in 54.7%, including complete response in 74.4% for T1a, 50% for T1b, 65.3% for all T1, 6.7% for T2, and 50% for those with no T stage reported. Mean follow-up was 17.3 months. There were no deaths or perforations related to spray cryotherapy. Strictures developed in 11 of 108 patients (10.2%) but were present before spray cryotherapy in 3 of 11. Conclusions: This study suggests that endoscopic spray cryotherapy is safe, well tolerated and effective for early esophageal cancer in patients who are not candidates for conventional therapy.

Background Probe‐based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) provides microscopic imaging during an endoscopic procedure. Its introduction as a standard modality in gastroenterology has brought significant progress in management strategies, affecting many aspects of clinical care and requiring standardisation of practice and training. Objective This study aimed to provide guidance on the standardisation of its practice and training in Barrett's oesophagus, biliary strictures, colorectal lesions and inflammatory bowel diseases. Methods Initial statements were developed by five group leaders, based on the available clinical evidence. These statements were then voted and edited by the 26 participants, using a modified Delphi approach. After two rounds of votes, statements were validated if the threshold of agreement was higher than 75%. Results Twenty‐six experts participated and, among a total of 77 statements, 61 were adopted (79%) and 16 were rejected (21%). The adoption of each statement was justified by the grade of evidence. Conclusion pCLE should be used to enhance the diagnostic arsenal in the evaluation of these indications, by providing microscopic information which improves the diagnostic performance of the physician. In order actually to implement this technology in the clinical routine, and to ensure good practice, standardised initial and continuing institutional training programmes should be established.