Falk, Gary W.

Background: Question prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease-specific questions intended to encourage question-asking by patients and enhance patient-physician communication. To date, an EoE-specific QPL has not been developed for EoE patients. Aim: To develop a preliminary QPL specific to adults with EoE by incorporating input from international esophageal experts. Methods: Sixteen experts were invited to generate QPL content through a modified Delphi (RAND/University of California, Los Angeles, CA) method consisting of 2 rounds of independent ratings. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts “what general questions should patients ask when being seen for EoE?” and “what questions do I not hear patients asking but given my experience, I believe they should be asking?” In round 2, experts rated each question on a 5-point Likert scale, and responses rated as “essential” or “important” (determined by an a priori median threshold of ≥ 4.0) were accepted for the EoE QPL. Results: Ten esophageal experts participated in both rounds. Round 1 generated 100 questions. Questions were combined and modified to reduce redundancy, yielding 57 questions. After round 2, 51 questions (85%) were accepted for inclusion (median value ≥ 4.0) in the final QPL. Questions were then divided into 4 themes based on disease domains: (1) “What is EoE?,” (2) “Treatment Options,” (3) “Follow-up Surveillance and Long-term Risks,” and (4) “Allergy and Genetic Testing.” The largest number of questions covered was “What is EoE?” (16/51 or 31%). Questions with the highest agreement median (5.0) included examples such as “what should I do if I get a food impaction?” and “what are the treatment options?” Conclusion: This is the first preliminary EoE QPL developed in the field of medicine. We hope implementation enhances effective patient-physician communication by encouraging patients to ask relevant questions that experts prioritized. Future studies will aim to modify this communication tool by incorporating patient perspectives

INTRODUCTION: Reflux bile acids are believed to promote esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), but the role of systemic bile acids is unknown. This study aimed to assess associations between systemic bile acids and stages of Barrett's esophagus (BE) progression. METHODS: Subjects with and without BE were enrolled in this multicenter cross-sectional study. Targeted serum bile acid profiling was performed, and a subset of subjects completed a validated food frequency questionnaire. RNA sequencing was performed on BE or gastric cardia tissue to assess bile acid associations with gene expression. RESULTS: A total of 141 subjects were enrolled with serum bile acids profiled (49 non-BE; 92 BE: 44 no dysplasia, 25 indefinite/low grade dysplasia, 23 high-grade dysplasia/EAC). Lower Healthy Eating Index score, older age, higher body mass index, and no proton pump inhibitor use were associated with increased levels of multiple bile acids. Global bile acid pools were distinct between non-BE and stages of BE neoplasia ( P = 0.004). Increasing cholic acid was associated with high-grade dysplasia/EAC compared with non-BE, even after adjusting for EAC risk factors (adjusted odds ratio 2.03, 95% confidence interval 1.11–3.71) as was the combination of unconjugated primary bile acids (adjusted odds ratio 1.81, 95% confidence interval 1.04–3.13). High cholic acid levels were associated with tissue gene expression changes including increased DNA replication and reduced lymphocyte differentiation genes. DISCUSSION: Alterations in serum bile acids are independently associated with advanced neoplasia in BE and may contribute to neoplastic progression. Future studies should explore associated gut microbiome changes, proneoplastic effects of bile acids, and whether these bile acids, particularly cholic acid, represent potential biomarkers or viable therapeutic targets for advanced neoplasia in BE.

INTRODUCTION: A substantial proportion of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) do not report gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. This study aimed to compare the risk factor profiles and cancer stage at presentation of patients with EAC with and without prior GERD. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, patients with EAC were divided into 2 cohorts: (i) EAC with prior GERD: patients who reported typical GERD symptoms (heartburn or regurgitation) ≥1 year before cancer diagnosis and (ii) EAC without prior GERD: patients who did not report prior GERD symptoms or reported symptoms within 1 year of their cancer diagnosis. Baseline demographics, risk factors, and cancer stage at presentation were compared between the 2 cohorts. In addition, the distribution of patients based on numbers of BE/EAC–associated risk factors (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 or more) was examined in the symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts. RESULTS: Over 13 years, 388 patients with EAC with prior GERD and 245 patients with EAC without prior GERD were recruited. Both groups had similar baseline demographics and risk factors, but patients with EAC with prior GERD were more likely to have a history of BE. Asymptomatic patients had more advanced disease. Patients with 3 or more BE/EAC–related risk factors formed the largest proportion of patients in both the symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts. DISCUSSION: Patients with EAC with and without prior GERD symptoms are phenotypically similar, suggesting that BE screening efforts to prevent or detect early EAC should not be restricted to just those with GERD.

In response to the social inequities that exist in health care, the NIH-funded Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers (CEGIR) recently formed a diversity committee to examine systemic racism and implicit bias in the care and research of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs). Herein, we describe our process, highlighting milestones and issues addressed since the committee’s inception, which we hope will inspire other researchers to enhance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) in their fields. Our journey began by establishing mission and vision statements to define the purpose of the committee. Regular discussion of diversity-related topics was incorporated into existing meetings and web-based materials were shared. This was followed by educational initiatives, including establishing a library of relevant publications and a speaker series to address DEIA topics. We then established a research agenda focused on the following actionable items: (1) to define what is known about the demographics of EGIDs by systematic review of population-based studies; (2) to develop a practical tool for reporting participant demographics to reduce bias in EGID literature; (3) to examine health disparities in the care of individuals with eosinophilic esophagitis who present to the emergency department with an esophageal food impaction; (4) to examine how access to a gastroenterologist affects the conclusions of published research examining the prevalence of pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis; and (5) to develop a model for examining the dimensions of diversity, and provide a framework for CEGIR’s ongoing projects and data capture. In addition to promoting consciousness of DEIA, this initiative has fostered inclusivity among CEGIR members and will continue to inspire positive changes in EGID care and research.

Background Methods: The question prompt list content was derived through a modified Delphi process consisting of 3 rounds. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts “What general questions should patients ask when given a new diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus” and “What questions do I not hear patients asking, but given my expertise, I believe they should be asking?” Questions were reviewed and categorized into themes. In round 2, experts rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale. In round 3, experts rerated questions modified or reduced after the previous rounds. Only questions rated as “essential” or “important” were included in Barrett’s esophagus question prompt list (BE-QPL). To improve usability, questions were reduced to minimize redundancy and simplified to use language at an eighth-grade level (Fig. 1). Results: Twenty-one esophageal medical and surgical experts participated in both rounds (91% males; median age 52 years). The expert panel comprised of 33% esophagologists, 24% foregut surgeons, and 24% advanced endoscopists, with a median of 15 years in clinical practice. Most (81%), worked in an academic tertiary referral hospital. In this 3-round Delphi technique, 220 questions were proposed in round 1, 122 (55.5%) were accepted into the BE-QPL and reduced down to 76 questions (round 2), and 67 questions (round 3). These 67 questions reached a Flesch Reading Ease of 68.8, interpreted as easily understood by 13 to 15 years olds. Conclusions: With multidisciplinary input, we have developed a physician-derived BE-QPL to optimize patient-physician communication. Future directions will seek patient feedback to distill the questions further to a smaller number and then assess their usability.

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a common condition associated with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease. BE is the only known precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma, a highly lethal cancer with an increasing incidence over the last 5 decades. These revised guidelines implement Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to propose recommendations for the definition and diagnosis of BE, screening for BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma, surveillance of patients with known BE, and the medical and endoscopic treatment of BE and its associated early neoplasia. Important changes since the previous iteration of this guideline include a broadening of acceptable screening modalities for BE to include nonendoscopic methods, liberalized intervals for surveillance of short-segment BE, and volume criteria for endoscopic therapy centers for BE. We recommend endoscopic eradication therapy for patients with BE and high-grade dysplasia and those with BE and low-grade dysplasia. We propose structured surveillance intervals for patients with dysplastic BE after successful ablation based on the baseline degree of dysplasia. We could not make recommendations regarding chemoprevention or use of biomarkers in routine practice due to insufficient data.