Codipilly, Don C.

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 This literature‐based systematic review and associated guidelines provide evidence‐based paradigms for the management of locoregionally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). This multispecialty committee included gastrointestinal radiation and medical oncology, gastroenterology, radiology, and colorectal surgery. As is the standard, the previously described American Radium Society Appropriate Use Criteria methodology for this project was followed rigorously, with the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, Timing, and Study Design framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses methodology to assess the evidence. RAND/University of California Los Angeles consensus methodology (modified Delphi) was used to rate the appropriateness of treatment options. Published between January 1, 2013, and July 16, 2025, 116 peer‐reviewed trials provided the evidence: 10 were well‐designed randomized phase 2/3 trials, 29 were moderately well designed trials that accounted for most common biases (matched cohort and phase 2), 76 trials had design limitations (retrospective), and one was a meta‐analysis. Clinical cases were created as examples to illustrate current acceptable management of LRRC. Treatment and prognosis are influenced by prior therapy and the site(s) and extent of LRRC. The ability to achieve a margin‐negative surgical resection is the ultimate determinant of survival and local control. Preoperative systemic therapy, radiation therapy, or a combination of the two can facilitate tumor downsizing and improve the likelihood of a margin‐negative resection. An individualized multidisciplinary approach is required to ensure the best outcome. Although this review does not suggest a major alteration of current practice, it provides reassuring evidence of the importance of combined‐modality therapy.

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 Dysphagia is defined as a subjective sensation of difficulty swallowing and can result from oropharyngeal or esophageal etiologies based upon patient symptoms. Dysphagia affects approximately 16% of adults in the general population, with prevalence increasing with age. Esophagogastroduodenuoscopy (EGD) is initially performed to assess for structural abnormalities resulting in esophageal dysphagia. However, if EGD reveals no pathologic abnormalities, high-resolution manometry (HRM) and barium esophagography are performed in order to assess for underlying causes of dysmotility. Esophageal motility disorders (EMDs) are an underrecognized cause of dysphagia and can be characterized by impaired esophageal peristalsis or lower esophageal sphincter dysfunction. High-resolution manometry (HRM) measures key metrics such as integrated relaxation pressure (IRP), which is the deglutitive relaxation across the LES, and metrics of esophageal body peristalsis based on distal contractile integral (DCI) and distal latency (DL). The Chicago Classification version 4 (CCv4.0), published in 2021, provides a standardized classification scheme for differentiating EMDs using metrics from HRM. Additionally, barium esophagography has remained an important adjunctive diagnostic modality, as this may identify strictures, neoplasms, or hiatal hernias, but can also identify major motility disorders such as achalasia and distal esophageal spasm. The combined use of HRM with timed barium esophagram can enhance the diagnostic accuracy of EMDs, particularly when HRM demonstrates inconclusive findings. Therefore, radiologists should be familiar with how imaging findings from barium esophagram integrate with findings noted on HRM. The aim of this review is to highlight the findings of EMDs noted on HRM in conjunction with barium esophagography, thereby illustrating characteristic patterns of primary and secondary EMDs.

Objectives: To summarize recent high-quality trials and provide an update to the original 2022 American College of Radiology Appropriate Use Criteria for Treatment of Locoregional Gastric Adenocarcinoma. This multi-specialty-led committee included gastrointestinal radiation and medical oncology, gastroenterology, radiology, and surgical oncology. Methods: Using the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing, and study design framework, the evidence was assessed using Cochrane and PRISMA 2020 methodology. Eligible studies included prospective Phase II/II trials and select retrospective studies published between 5/1/2020 and 8/1/2025 in the Embase, Medline, and Pubmed databases. Study type and quality were assessed. Well-established RAND-UCLA consensus methodology (modified Delphi) was used to rate the appropriateness of the treatment options. Results: ARS AUC recommendations include adjuvant FLOT chemotherapy for localized gastric adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant FLOT and surgery, poCT or perioperative chemoimmunotherapy for localized gastric adenocarcinoma, adjuvant chemotherapy +/− CRT for localized gastric adenocarcinoma that undergoes upfront surgery, and systemic therapy alone for localized gastric adenocarcinoma in a medically inoperable patient. Conclusions: This updated ARS AUC summary provides guidelines for the multimodality treatment of resectable gastric adenocarcinoma.

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.

ABSTRACTBackgroundAchalasia is associated with an increased risk of esophageal cancer; though reported incidence rates vary widely (0.4% to 9.2%) due to differences in demographics, follow‐up duration, and diagnostic methods. This study evaluates the risk of esophageal cancer and Barrett's esophagus (BE) in achalasia using a large national database and a propensity‐matched control cohort.MethodsAchalasia patients were identified utilizing the TriNetX database based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for diagnostic procedures and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) directed therapies, including Heller myotomy, peroral endoscopic myotomy, and pneumatic dilation. A matched control group of celiac disease patients was used. A 1‐year lead time was applied to exclude secondary malignant achalasia. Outcomes included the incidence of esophageal cancer and BE, with subgroup analysis in patients following therapy.ResultsAmong 7863 achalasia patients (mean age 58.0, 51.9% female), the esophageal cancer risk was significantly higher than control (risk ratio 2.87, 95% CI: 1.56–5.27, p < 0.001). The absolute risk was low, with 40 cases (0.51%) over a mean follow‐up of 3.18 years. BE risk was also higher in achalasia (risk ratio 1.54, 95% CI: 1.24–1.90, p < 0.001), with 220 cases (2.80%). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant difference in BE risk between POEM and Heller myotomy (risk ratio 1.0, 95% CI: 0.42–2.40, p > 0.99).DiscussionThe elevated cancer risk in achalasia over a short follow‐up period warrants reconsideration of current endoscopic surveillance guidelines, despite the low absolute risk of esophageal cancer and BE.