Citations

Abstract Topic Benign Disease: Eosinophilic Esophagitis Background Active inflammation in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) disrupts the mucosal barrier, leading to dilated intercellular spaces and decreased transepithelial electrical resistance. Mucosal impedance (MI) has been used to assess mucosal integrity in EoE. We evaluated whether baseline MI measured by high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM) distinguishes active and inactive EoE. Methods We retrospectively reviewed data from patients with EoE who underwent endoscopic esophageal biopsies within three months of HRIM from 2018-2026 at our tertiary referral center and had no treatment changes between studies. We excluded patients with a history of foregut surgery, erosive esophagitis, or Barrett’s esophagus. Demographics, endoscopy and pathology results were collected by chart review. Active EoE was histologically defined as ≥15 eosinophils per high-power field. Esophageal baseline MI was measured in the 30-second landmark period for the whole esophagus (from 2 cm above LES to 2 cm below UES), distal esophagus (from 2–7 cm above LES), and mid/proximal esophagus (from 10 cm above LES to 2 cm below UES). Mann–Whitney U or T tests were used for comparisons . Optimal MI thresholds were identified by Youden index with 10,000 bootstrap validations, and interrater reliability was assessed using two-way mixed effects intraclass correlation coefficients. Results Seventy-three patients were included: 37 (51%) female, median age 52 years, median BMI 27.2 kg/m2. Fifty-seven patients (78%) had atopic history, including seasonal allergies (38, 52%), asthma (31, 42%), eczema (21, 29%), and food allergies (19, 26%). Thirty-nine patients (53%) were receiving proton pump inhibitors, 25 (34%) were not on EoE therapy, 5 (6.8%) were on swallowed topical steroids, 3 (4.1%) were on dupilumab, and 1 (1.4%) was on an elimination diet. Esophageal strictures were present in 23 patients (32%), and 45 (62%) had active EoE. Baseline MI measurement showed high interrater reliability (n=50, 2 raters; intraclass correlation coefficient 0.937–0.963, p<0.001). Basal mean and minimal impedance were significantly lower in active EoE across all segments, greatest in the distal esophagus (all p<0.05; Figure 1). ROC analysis showed high discrimination of distal mean MI, with a cutoff ≤1.91 kΩ (AUC=0.837, sensitivity 67.9%, specificity 86.7%, Youden 0.545; Figure 2). Conclusion Baseline mucosal impedance during HRIM distinguishes active from inactive EoE, with strongest discrimination in the distal esophagus, supporting MI as a potential, minimally-invasive physiologic marker of mucosal inflammation and disease activity. Clinically, MI may serve as an adjunct tool in dysphagia evaluation, prompting EoE-directed biopsy when abnormal, aiding management in biopsy–symptom discordance, and potentially supporting disease monitoring in selected patients. Larger prospective studies are warranted.

Abstract Topic Benign Disease: Gastro-Esophageal Reflux and Hiatal Hernia Background Ambulatory reflux monitoring (wireless pH or catheter-based pH-impedance) performed off acid suppression is the gold standard for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Barium esophagram (BE), commonly used to evaluate esophageal symptoms, routinely assesses reflux, yet its diagnostic accuracy relative to ambulatory monitoring remains unclear. Existing studies are limited, relied on outdated reflux criteria, and demonstrated poor concordance with BE-based GERD diagnoses. We aimed to determine whether BE reliably identifies GERD compared with ambulatory reflux monitoring interpreted using updated Lyon 2.0 consensus criteria. Methods Retrospective analysis of adult patients that underwent BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring (wireless pH or pH-impedance) off PPI within an 8-month interval. Patients with a history of fundoplication were excluded. Esophagram was performed with standard technique and reported by radiology, considered positive for GERD if there was reflux above the thoracic inlet with or without provocative maneuvers. Reflux monitoring studies were considered positive or negative for GERD based on Lyon consensus 2.0 recommendations. Inter-rater reliability, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and received operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were calculated for esophagram, with reflux monitoring diagnosis as the gold standard. Results 64 patients were included, 31 % male, mean age = 60 years, mean Body Mass Index = 26. GERD was diagnosed by esophagram in 20 patients (31%), and by reflux monitoring in 19 (30%). Compared to reflux monitoring, BE had sensitivity: 47%, specificity: 76%, PPV: 45%, NPV: 77%, and area under the ROC curve: 0.61 (Figure 1). Inter-rater reliability between BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring was poor (Cohen's Kappa = 0.226). Conclusion There was poor concordance between BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring for diagnosing GERD. BE overall had suboptimal diagnostic performance, with low sensitivity, and moderate specificity. Furthermore, the area under the ROC curve indicates limited ability to distinguish correctly between patients with and without GERD. These findings indicate that barium esophagram should not be relied upon as a diagnostic tool for GERD.

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 Topic Benign Disease: Gastro-Esophageal Reflux and Hiatal Hernia Background Ambulatory reflux monitoring off acid suppression is the gold standard for diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Barium esophagram (BE) routinely evaluates reflux, but its diagnostic accuracy remains uncertain. We assessed whether BE reliably identifies GERD compared with ambulatory reflux monitoring interpreted using updated Lyon 2.0 consensus criteria. Methods Retrospective analysis of adult patients that underwent BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring (wireless pH or pH-impedance) off PPI within an 8-month interval. Patients with a history of fundoplication were excluded. Esophagram was performed with standard technique and reported by radiology, considered positive for GERD if there was reflux above the thoracic inlet with or without provocative maneuvers. Reflux monitoring studies were considered positive or negative for GERD based on Lyon consensus 2.0 recommendations. Inter-rater reliability, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and received operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis were calculated for esophagram, with reflux monitoring diagnosis as the gold standard. Results 64 patients were included, 31 % male, mean age = 60 years, mean Body Mass Index = 26. GERD was diagnosed by esophagram in 20 patients (31%), and by reflux monitoring in 19 (30%). Compared to reflux monitoring, BE had sensitivity: 47%, specificity: 76%, PPV: 45%, NPV: 77%, and area under the ROC curve: 0.61 (Figure 1). Inter-rater reliability between BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring was poor (Cohen's Kappa = 0.226). Conclusion There was poor concordance between BE and ambulatory reflux monitoring for diagnosing GERD. BE overall had suboptimal diagnostic performance, with low sensitivity, and moderate specificity. Furthermore, the area under the ROC curve indicates limited ability to distinguish correctly between patients with and without GERD. These findings indicate that barium esophagram should not be relied upon as a diagnostic tool for GERD.

ABSTRACT Background Eosinophilic esophagitis is associated with epithelial barrier dysfunction. Epidemiologic studies suggest environmental factors promote disease pathogenesis. The common household detergent sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS) induces epithelial barrier dysfunction and eosinophilic inflammation in mice. We hypothesized that acute SDS exposure would compromise the esophageal mucosal barrier in humans. Methods Healthy adults brushed with 2 g of an SDS‐containing toothpaste. Esophageal impedance was measured continuously pre‐/post‐toothbrushing to assess the effect of toothpaste on epithelial barrier function. SDS was measured in saliva using a methylene blue anionic substances assay. Participants completed 1‐h esophageal string tests (ESTs) pre‐/post‐toothbrushing and protein isolates from EST eluates from the proximal and distal esophagus were analyzed by tandem mass tag mass spectrometry. Results Ten of twelve subjects completed the clinical study. SDS in the initial expectorate measured immediately after toothbrushing varied markedly (median: 321.40 μg/mL; range: 169.90–1243.00 μg/mL) and was detectable in saliva in 80% of subjects (median: 9.55 μg/mL; range: 0–123.40 μg/mL) at 60 min post toothbrushing. Esophageal mucosal impedance decreased within 30 min of toothbrushing ( p < 0.01). Toothbrushing increased salivary viscosity and proteins associated with mucosal defense in EST eluates. The tight junction pathway was downregulated while the salivary secretion and complement and coagulation cascades pathways were upregulated in the proximal esophagus. Conclusion In healthy individuals, SDS remained detectable in saliva for a prolonged period after toothbrushing at concentrations previously shown to disrupt esophageal epithelial barrier function in vitro. Toothbrushing with an SDS‐containing toothpaste was associated with reduced esophageal mucosal impedance, altered salivary properties, and activated mucosal immune responses.

ABSTRACT Recent advances in the diagnosis and management of reflux disease were the central focus of the inaugural Gatherings in Esophagology (GiE), which convened experts across gastroenterology, surgery, otolaryngology, pulmonology, and basic research. The sessions highlighted innovations in reflux monitoring—including high‐resolution manometry, wireless pH monitoring, and novel salivary biomarkers—while critically evaluating their diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility. Presentations explored the limitations of traditional proton‐pump inhibitor therapy, the emergence of potassium‐competitive acid blockers as a new class of acid suppressants, and the evolving role of adjunctive treatments such as mucosal protectants, reflux reducers, and neuromodulators for refractory symptoms. The discourse extended to advanced interventional procedures, including transoral incisionless fundoplication, magnetic sphincter augmentation, and the RefluxStop device, with discussion of patient selection, efficacy, and complication management. Discussants emphasized the pathophysiology and management of extraesophageal manifestations of reflux, the interplay between reflux and pulmonary disease, and the diagnostic challenges in pediatric populations. The meeting also addressed the integration of behavioral therapies, the role of the microbiome, and the application of artificial intelligence in reflux diagnostics. Collectively, these insights underscore a shift toward precision medicine in reflux disease, emphasizing individualized diagnostic strategies and tailored therapeutic approaches to improve patient outcomes.

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.

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.

ABSTRACT Background Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) utility is established in treatment‐naïve achalasia but less clear following lower esophageal sphincter (LES) directed therapy. Methods Achalasia patients with LES directed therapy across three tertiary care centers between 2017 and 2024 with post‐treatment FLIP and timed barium esophagram (TBE) were retrospectively identified. Reduced esophagogastric junction (EGJ) opening was defined by distensibility index (DI) < 2 mm 2 /mmHg and diameter < 12 mm. Abnormal emptying on TBE was defined as column height ≥ 5 cm at 5 min and/or retained tablet. Eckardt scores ≤ 3 defined clinical response. Key Results The study included 222 patients (46% peroral endoscopic myotomy, 46% laparoscopic Heller myotomy, 8% pneumatic dilation) with a median of 1.4 years to post‐treatment TBE/FLIP. Abnormal emptying on TBE was associated with a narrower median EGJ diameter (13.2 vs. 14.8 mm, p = 0.008), a greater frequency of EGJ diameter < 12 mm (36% vs. 21%, p = 0.012), and a smaller change in EGJ diameter (+4.6 vs. +8.6 mm, p = 0.002). Abnormal emptying on TBE occurred more frequently in patients with EGJ DI < 2 mm 2 /mmHg (8.5% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.052), but was not associated with median EGJ DI (4.5 vs. 5.1 mm 2 /mmHg, p = 0.29) nor median change in EGJ DI (+2.9 vs. +3.9 mm 2 /mmHg, p = 0.25). Patients with reduced EGJ DI or EGJ diameter more often had abnormal TBE (37% vs. 22%, p = 0.012). Only the change in DI (+3.8 vs. +1.5 mm 2 /mmHg, p = 0.012) and diameter (+8.2 vs. +1.6 mm, p = 0.002) on FLIP was associated with a clinical response based on Eckardt ≤ 3. Conclusions and Inferences FLIP following achalasia therapy generally correlates with TBE, although discrepant findings are not uncommon. In particular, FLIP EGJ‐diameter has a strong association with esophageal emptying on TBE. Both TBE and FLIP have limited association with clinical response based on Eckardt, with change in DI and diameter on FLIP most strongly associated. Consequently, FLIP as part of multimodal assessment appears useful in the longitudinal follow‐up of treated achalasia.