Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology
Erschienen in: Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology 1/2019

19.01.2019 | Esophagus (PG Iyer, Section Editor)

Challenges in Endoscopic Therapy of Dysplastic Barrett’s Esophagus

verfasst von: Aurada Cholapranee, MD, Arvind J Trindade, MD

Erschienen in: Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology | Ausgabe 1/2019

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose of review

Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is the only known measurable factor associated with esophageal adenocarcinoma. The development of endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) has transformed the way BE is managed. Given the fairly recent development of EET, its role in BE is still evolving.

Recent findings

This paper discusses the challenges that endoscopists face at the preprocedural, intraprocedural, and postprocedural stages of BE management. These include challenges in risk stratification, dysplasia detection, ablation methods and dosimetry, choice of resection technique, and management of refractory disease.

Summary

Despite the advances in EET in BE, there remain challenges that this review focuses on. Future research into these challenges will optimize ablation techniques and strategies in the future.
Literatur
1.
2.
Thrift AP, Whiteman DC. The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma continues to rise: analysis of period and birth cohort effects on recent trends. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2012;23:3155–62.CrossRef
3.
Gatenby PAC, Caygill CPJ, Ramus JR, Charlett A, Watson A. Barrett’s columnar-lined oesophagus: demographic and lifestyle associations and adenocarcinoma risk. Dig Dis Sci. 2008;53:1175–85.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Rastogi A, Puli S, el-Serag HB, Bansal A, Wani S, Sharma P. Incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett’s esophagus and high-grade dysplasia: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:394–8.CrossRef
5.
Wang KK, Sampliner RE, Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Updated guidelines 2008 for the diagnosis, surveillance and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:788–97.CrossRefPubMed
6.
American Gastroenterological Association, et al. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on the management of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:1084–91.CrossRef
7.
Standards of Practice Committee et al. Endoscopic eradication therapy for patients with Barrett’s esophagus-associated dysplasia and intramucosal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 87, 907–931.e9 (2018).
8.
•• Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG, Gerson LB, American College of Gastroenterology. ACG Clinical Guideline. Diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:30–50; quiz 51 The American College of Gastroenterology provides recommendations for clinical practice in identifying and managing patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE) in 2016. Although many of their suggestions are based on weak evidence, it provides an useful algorithm of care for BE patients based on expert opinion.
9.
Fitzgerald RC, di Pietro M, Ragunath K, Ang Y, Kang JY, Watson P, et al. British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut. 2014;63:7–42.CrossRef
10.
Weusten B, Bisschops R, Coron E, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Dumonceau JM, Esteban JM, et al. Endoscopic management of Barrett’s esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) position statement. Endoscopy. 2017;49:191–8.CrossRef
11.
12.
Jin Z, Cheng Y, Gu W, Zheng Y, Sato F, Mori Y, et al. A multicenter, double-blinded validation study of methylation biomarkers for progression prediction in Barrett’s esophagus. Cancer Res. 2009;69:4112–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Weston AP, Banerjee SK, Sharma P, Tran TM, Richards R, Cherian R. p53 protein overexpression in low grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett’s esophagus: immunohistochemical marker predictive of progression. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:1355–62.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Rabinovitch PS, Longton G, Blount PL, Levine DS, Reid BJ. Predictors of progression in Barrett’s esophagus III: baseline flow cytometric variables. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:3071–83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Heeren PAM, et al. Predictive effect of p53 and p21 alteration on chemotherapy response and survival in locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Anticancer Res. 2004;24:2579–83.PubMed
16.
Clark RJ, Craig MP, Agrawal S, Kadakia M. microRNA involvement in the onset and progression of Barrett’s esophagus: a systematic review. Oncotarget. 2018;9:8179–96.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Altaf K, Xiong J-J, la Iglesia, D. De, Hickey, L. & Kaul, A. Meta-analysis of biomarkers predicting risk of malignant progression in Barrett’s oesophagus. Br J Surg. 2017;104:493–502.
18.
• Kerkhof M, et al. Grading of dysplasia in Barrett’s oesophagus: substantial interobserver variation between general and gastrointestinal pathologists. Histopathology. 2007;50:920–7 This prospective multicenter study of 920 patients with endoscopically identified BE demonstrated that there was significant variability among pathologists (both experts and non-experts) when interpreting nondysplastic or low-grade dysplasia (LGD) via biopsies in BE patients.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Duits LC, Phoa KN, Curvers WL, ten Kate FJW, Meijer GA, Seldenrijk CA, et al. Barrett’s oesophagus patients with low-grade dysplasia can be accurately risk-stratified after histological review by an expert pathology panel. Gut. 2015;64:700–6.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Montgomery E, Bronner MP, Goldblum JR, Greenson JK, Haber MM, Hart J, et al. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus: a reaffirmation. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:368–78.CrossRefPubMed
21.
• Duits LC, et al. Patients with Barrett’s esophagus and confirmed persistent low-grade dysplasia are at increased risk for progression to neoplasia. Gastroenterology. 2017;152:993–1001.e1 This retrospective study of 255 patients with a primary diagnosis of LGD demonstrated that interobserver variability for LGD is high, a problem that makes it difficult to determine the appropriate management for these patients. This study concluded that as the number of pathologists (up to three pathologists in the study) who agreed on a diagnosis of LGD increased the risk of developing high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and adenocarcioma (EAC) increased.CrossRefPubMed
22.
• Wani S, Rubenstein JH, Vieth M, Bergman J. Diagnosis and management of low-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: expert review from the clinical practice updates Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association. Gastroenterology. 2016;151:822–35 The diagnosis and management of BE patients with LGD has been the most difficult and controversial for endoscopists. This clinical update offers expert opinion and a review of the best clinical practice guidelines for this particular patient population as decided in 2016.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Kara MA, Peters FP, Rosmolen WD, Krishnadath KK, ten Kate FJ, Fockens P, et al. High-resolution endoscopy plus chromoendoscopy or narrow-band imaging in Barrett’s esophagus: a prospective randomized crossover study. Endoscopy. 2005;37:929–36.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Sami SS, et al. High definition versus standard definition white light endoscopy for detecting dysplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Dis Esophagus Off J Int Soc Dis Esophagus. 28:742–9.
25.
Bennett C, Vakil N, Bergman J, Harrison R, Odze R, Vieth M, et al. Consensus statements for management of Barrett’s dysplasia and early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma, based on a Delphi process. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:336–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
•• ASGE Technology Committee, et al. ASGE Technology Committee systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the ASGE preservation and incorporation of valuable endoscopic innovations thresholds for adopting real-time imaging-assisted endoscopic targeted biopsy during endoscopic surveillance. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83:684–98.e7 This meta-analysis looked at the sensitivity and specificity of various advanced imaging technologies available for endoscopic real-time imaging of BE including chromoendoscopy with acetic acid , electronic chromoendoscopy using narrow-band imaging, and endoscopic confocal laser endomicroscopy for detection of dysplasia. This study found that each of these imaging methods met acceptable performance thresholds defined by the ASGE and are reasonable modalities to help guide targeted biopsies to detect dysplasia in BE patients.CrossRef
27.
• Alshelleh M, et al. Incremental yield of dysplasia detection in Barrett’s esophagus using volumetric laser endomicroscopy with and without laser marking compared with a standardized random biopsy protocol. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;88:35–42 This retrospective study looked at the efficacy of volumetric laser endomicroscopy (VLE) as a surveillance strategy for management of dysplastic BE in comparison with random biopsies or random biopsies as per Seattle protocol. This study found that VLE with and without laser markings led to higher detection rates of dysplasia and neoplasia compared to random biopsies.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Abela J-E, Going JJ, Mackenzie JF, McKernan M, O’Mahoney S, Stuart RC. Systematic four-quadrant biopsy detects Barrett’s dysplasia in more patients than nonsystematic biopsy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:850–5.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Vennalaganti PR, Kaul V, Wang KK, Falk GW, Shaheen NJ, Infantolino A, et al. Increased detection of Barrett’s esophagus-associated neoplasia using wide-area trans-epithelial sampling: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:348–55.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Johanson JF, Frakes J, Eisen D, EndoCDx Collaborative Group. Computer-assisted analysis of abrasive transepithelial brush biopsies increases the effectiveness of esophageal screening: a multicenter prospective clinical trial by the EndoCDx Collaborative Group. Dig Dis Sci. 2011;56:767–72.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Canto MI, Montgomery E. Wide-area transepithelial sampling with 3-dimensional cytology: does it detect more dysplasia or yield more hype? Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:356–9.CrossRefPubMed
32.
33.
Wani S, et al. Comparison of endoscopic therapies and surgical resection in patients with early esophageal cancer: a population-based study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79:224–232.e1.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Pech O, Bollschweiler E, Manner H, Leers J, Ell C, Hölscher AH. Comparison between endoscopic and surgical resection of mucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus at two high-volume centers. Ann Surg. 2011;254:67–72.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Phoa KN, van Vilsteren FGI, Weusten BLAM, Bisschops R, Schoon EJ, Ragunath K, et al. Radiofrequency ablation vs endoscopic surveillance for patients with Barrett esophagus and low-grade dysplasia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;311:1209–17.CrossRefPubMed
36.
•• Shaheen NJ, et al. Radiofrequency ablation in Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2277–88 This multicenter randomized control trial looked at 127 patients with dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus who received either RFA or sham procedure. The study demonstrated that RFA was both a safe and effective treatment for intestinal metaplasia (IM) as well as dysplastic BE.CrossRef
37.
van Vilsteren FGI, Pouw RE, Seewald S, Alvarez Herrero L, Sondermeijer CMT, Visser M, et al. Stepwise radical endoscopic resection versus radiofrequency ablation for Barrett’s oesophagus with high-grade dysplasia or early cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. Gut. 2011;60:765–73.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Cao Y, Liao C, Tan A, Gao Y, Mo Z, Gao F. Meta-analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopy. 2009;41:751–7.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Tomizawa Y, Konda VJA, Coronel E, Chapman CG, Siddiqui UD. Efficacy, durability, and safety of complete endoscopic mucosal resection of Barrett esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018;52:210–6.PubMed
40.
Kataoka Y, Tsuji Y, Sakaguchi Y, Minatsuki C, Asada-Hirayama I, Niimi K, et al. Bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection: risk factors and preventive methods. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22:5927–35.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
ASGE Standards of Practice Committee et al. Management of antithrombotic agents for endoscopic procedures Gastrointest Endosc 70, 1060–1070 (2009).
42.
Suchniak-Mussari K, Dye CE, Moyer MT, Mathew A, McGarrity TJ, Gagliardi EM, et al. Efficacy and safety of liquid nitrogen cryotherapy for treatment of Barrett’s esophagus. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;9:480–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Namasivayam V, Wang KK, Prasad GA. Endoscopic mucosal resection in the management of esophageal neoplasia: current status and future directions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:743–54; quiz e96.
44.
45.
•• Terheggen G, et al. A randomised trial of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for early Barrett’s neoplasia. Gut. 2017;66:783–93 This randomised controlled trial compared the safety and efficacy of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). While this study showed that ESD achieved higher rates of complete resection, this had no overall clinical relevance. Compared to EMR, ESD was more time-consuming, technically difficult, and associated with more severe adverse events.CrossRef
46.
Belghazi K, Pouw RE, Bergman JJ. In the expanding arena of endoscopic management for Barrett’s neoplasia, how should we fit in endoscopic submucosal dissection? Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:1394–5.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Phoa KN, Pouw RE, Bisschops R, Pech O, Ragunath K, Weusten BLAM, et al. Multimodality endoscopic eradication for neoplastic Barrett oesophagus: results of an European multicentre study (EURO-II). Gut. 2016;65:555–62.CrossRefPubMed
48.
49.
May A, Gossner L, Behrens A, Kohnen R, Vieth M, Stolte M, et al. A prospective randomized trial of two different endoscopic resection techniques for early stage cancer of the esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:167–75.CrossRefPubMed
50.
51.
• Orman ES, Li NAN, Shaheen NJ. Efficacy and durability of radiofrequency ablation for barrett’s esophagus: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:1245–55 This meta-analysis of 18 studies and 3802 patients looked at the efficacy of RFA. It demonstrated that RFA is associated with a high proportion of CE-D and CE-IM (91% and 78% respectively) with a low rate of recurrent disease as well as adverse events.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Trindade AJ, Pleskow DK, Sengupta N, Kothari S, Inamdar S, Berkowitz J, et al. Efficacy of liquid nitrogen cryotherapy for Barrett’s esophagus after endoscopic resection of intramucosal cancer: a multicenter study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;33:461–5.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Ramay FH, Cui Q, Greenwald BD. Outcomes after liquid nitrogen spray cryotherapy in Barrett’s esophagus-associated high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal adenocarcinoma: 5-year follow-up. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86:626–32.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Shaheen NJ, Greenwald BD, Peery AF, Dumot JA, Nishioka NS, Wolfsen HC, et al. Safety and efficacy of endoscopic spray cryotherapy for Barrett’s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:680–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
55.
Johnston MH, Eastone JA, Horwhat JD, Cartledge J, Mathews JS, Foggy JR. Cryoablation of Barrett’s esophagus: a pilot study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62:842–8.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Ghorbani S, Tsai FC, Greenwald BD, Jang S, Dumot JA, McKinley MJ, et al. Safety and efficacy of endoscopic spray cryotherapy for Barrett’s dysplasia: results of the National Cryospray Registry. Dis Esophagus Off J Int Soc Dis Esophagus. 2016;29:241–7.CrossRef
57.
Dumot JA, Vargo JJ II, Falk GW, Frey L, Lopez R, Rice TW. An open-label, prospective trial of cryospray ablation for Barrett’s esophagus high-grade dysplasia and early esophageal cancer in high-risk patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:635–44.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Künzli HT, Schölvinck DW, Meijer SL, Seldenrijk KA, Bergman JGHM, Weusten BLAM. Efficacy of the CryoBalloon focal ablation system for the eradication of dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus islands. Endoscopy. 2017;49:169–75.PubMed
59.
60.
Brown J, et al. Effectiveness of focal vs balloon radiofrequency ablation devices in the treatment of Barrett’s esophagus. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2016;4:236–41.CrossRef
61.
Thota PN, Arora Z, Dumot JA, Falk G, Benjamin T, Goldblum J, et al. Cryotherapy and radiofrequency ablation for eradication of Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia or intramucosal cancer. Dig Dis Sci. 2018;63:1311–9.CrossRefPubMed
62.
van Vilsteren FGI, et al. Circumferential balloon-based radiofrequency ablation of Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia can be simplified, yet efficacy maintained, by omitting the cleaning phase. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:491–98.e1.CrossRefPubMed
63.
Komanduri S, Muthusamy VR, Wani S. Controversies in endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2018;154:1861–1875.e1.CrossRefPubMed
64.
•• Pouw RE, Bergman JJ. Safety signal for the simple double ablation regimen when using the Barrx 360 express radiofrequency ablation balloon catheter. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:614 This is a letter to the editors commenting on the interim findings of an ongoing randomized controlled multicenter trial looking at the efficacy and safety of RFA balloon catheter ablation using a standard regimen (2 × 10 J/cm2 with cleaning) versus two simplified regimens a) 2 × 10J/cm2 without cleaning and b) 1 × 10 J/cm2. Their interim findings showed unexpectedly high rates of stricturing (17%) in the 2 × 10 J/cm2 group without cleaning compared with the other two treatment groups.
65.
•• Pouw RE, et al. Simplified versus standard regimen for focal radiofrequency ablation of dysplastic Barrett’s oesophagus: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S2468-1253(18)30157-2 A simplified RFA regimen of 3 × 15 J/cm2 without cleaning has been shown to be as effective as the standard regimen of 2 × 15 J/cm2 with cleaning; however, it has been showed to be associated with higher stricturing rates. This randomized non-inferiority study looks at a new lower radiofrequency energy regimen of 3 × 12J/cm2 without cleaning versus the standard regimen for focal treatments. The results of this study demonstrated that the lower energy simplified version was noninferior to the standard regimen with no increase in adverse events or stricturing.
66.
Tomizawa Y, et al. Safety of endoscopic mucosal resection for Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:1440–7; quiz 1448.CrossRefPubMed
67.
Neuhaus H, Terheggen G, Rutz E, Vieth M, Schumacher B. Endoscopic submucosal dissection plus radiofrequency ablation of neoplastic Barrett’s esophagus. Endoscopy. 2012;44:1105–13.CrossRef
68.
Kagemoto K, Oka S, Tanaka S, Miwata T, Urabe Y, Sanomura Y, et al. Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial Barrett’s adenocarcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80:239–45.CrossRefPubMed
69.
Probst A, Aust D, Märkl B, Anthuber M, Messmann H. Early esophageal cancer in Europe: endoscopic treatment by endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endoscopy. 2014;47:113–21.CrossRefPubMed
70.
Höbel S, Dautel P, Baumbach R, Oldhafer KJ, Stang A, Feyerabend B, et al. Single center experience of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in early Barrett’s adenocarcinoma. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:1591–7.CrossRefPubMed
71.
Chevaux J, et al. Clinical outcome in patients treated with endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial Barrett’s neoplasia. Endoscopy. 2014;47:103–12.CrossRefPubMed
72.
Haidry RJ, et al. Radiofrequency ablation and endoscopic mucosal resection for dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus and early esophageal adenocarcinoma: outcomes of the UK National Halo RFA registry. Gastroenterology. 2013;145:87–95.CrossRefPubMed
73.
•• Solomon SS, et al. Liquid nitrogen spray cryotherapy is associated with less postprocedural pain than radiofrequency ablation in barrett’s esophagus: a multicenter prospective study. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1097/​MCG.​0000000000000999​ This multicenter prospective study compared focal RFA with liquid nitrogen spray cryotherapy and found that RFA was associated with five times greater odds of pain immediately following the procedure as well as 48 hours postprocedure compared to cryotherapy.
74.
• van Munster SN, et al. Focal cryoballoon versus radiofrequency ablation of dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus: impact on treatment response and postprocedural pain. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​gie.​2018.​06.​015 This multicenter cohort study looked at the efficacy as well as the degree of postprocedural pain in focal cryoballoon therapy versus RFA. This study found no difference in efficacy for treatment of short-segment BE. However, cryotherapy was associated with less reported pain as well as fewer analgesic use compared with RFA.
75.
Gupta M, et al. Recurrence of esophageal intestinal metaplasia after endoscopic mucosal resection and radiofrequency ablation of Barrett’s esophagus: results from a US Multicenter Consortium. Gastroenterology. 2013;145:79–86.e1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
76.
Pech O, Behrens A, May A, Nachbar L, Gossner L, Rabenstein T, et al. Long-term results and risk factor analysis for recurrence after curative endoscopic therapy in 349 patients with high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia and mucosal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut. 2008;57:1200–6.CrossRefPubMed
77.
Cotton CC, Wolf WA, Pasricha S, Li N, Madanick RD, Spacek MB, et al. Recurrent intestinal metaplasia after radiofrequency ablation for Barrett’s esophagus: endoscopic findings and anatomic location. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:1362–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
78.
Prasad GA, Dunagan KT, Tian J, Cadman L, Wang KK, Lutzke LS, et al. 718 recurrence of intestinal metaplasia following radiofrequency ablation: rates and predictors. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:AB145–6.CrossRef
79.
Guthikonda A, Cotton CC, Madanick RD, Spacek MB, Moist SE, Ferrell K, et al. Clinical outcomes following recurrence of intestinal metaplasia after successful treatment of Barrett’s esophagus with radiofrequency ablation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112:87–94.CrossRefPubMed
80.
81.
Sengupta N, Ketwaroo GA, Bak DM, Kedar V, Chuttani R, Berzin TM, et al. Salvage cryotherapy after failed radiofrequency ablation for Barrett’s esophagus-related dysplasia is safe and effective. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82:443–8.CrossRefPubMed
82.
• Visrodia K, et al. Cryotherapy for persistent Barrett’s esophagus after radiofrequency ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:1396–1404.e1 This meta-analysis of 11 studies and 148 patients looked at the efficacy of cryoablation as salvage therapy in patients with persistent BE despite prior initial RFA treatment. The study found that cryotherapy successfully achieved CE-D and CE-IM (76% and 46% respectively) in this patient population.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
83.
Kia L, Komanduri S. Care of the postablation patient: surveillance, acid suppression, and treatment of recurrence. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2017;27:515–29.CrossRefPubMed
84.
•• Komanduri S, et al. recurrence of Barrett’s esophagus is rare following endoscopic eradication therapy coupled with effective reflux control. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112:556–66 This 2017 study found that concurrent use of PPI with RFA was associated with a lower number of required RFA sessions to achieve CE-IM as well as lower disease recurrence rates following eradiation therapy.CrossRefPubMed
85.
• Krishnan K, et al. Increased risk for persistent intestinal metaplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus and uncontrolled reflux exposure before radiofrequency ablation. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:576–81 This study demonstrated that ongoing mild reflux despite twice a day PPI therapy before initiation of RFA was associated with persistent IM after BE ablation. The study also showed an association between the size of the hiatal hernia and length of BE with persistent IM after RFA.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
86.
Skrobić O, Simić A, Radovanović N, Ivanović N, Micev M, Peško P. Significance of Nissen fundoplication after endoscopic radiofrequency ablation of Barrett’s esophagus. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:3802–7.CrossRefPubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Challenges in Endoscopic Therapy of Dysplastic Barrett’s Esophagus
verfasst von
Aurada Cholapranee, MD
Arvind J Trindade, MD
Publikationsdatum
19.01.2019
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology / Ausgabe 1/2019
Print ISSN: 1092-8472
Elektronische ISSN: 1534-309X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11938-019-00215-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2019

Current Treatment Options in Gastroenterology 1/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Colon (J Anderson, Section Editor)

Optical Diagnosis of Colorectal Polyps: Recent Developments

Esophagus (PG Iyer, Section Editor)

Esophageal Third Space Endoscopy: Recent Advances

Colon (J Anderson, Section Editor)

Colorectal Cancer in Young Adults

Pancreas (V Chandrasekhara, Section Editor)

New Advances in the Treatment of Acute Pancreatitis

Esophagus (PG Iyer, Section Editor)

Predictors of Progression in Barrett’s Esophagus

Invited Commentary

Overlap Between GERD and Functional Esophageal Disorders—a Pivotal Mechanism for Treatment Failure

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Kostenlos registrieren

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

25.04.2024 | Hypotonie | Nachrichten

Niedriger diastolischer Blutdruck erhöht Risiko für schwere kardiovaskuläre Komplikationen

25.04.2024 | Hypertonie | Nachrichten

Therapiestart mit Blutdrucksenkern erhöht Frakturrisiko

25.04.2024 | Nierenkarzinom | Nachrichten

Adjuvante Immuntherapie verlängert Leben bei RCC

25.04.2024 | NSCLC | Nachrichten

Alectinib verbessert krankheitsfreies Überleben bei ALK-positivem NSCLC
weitere anzeigen

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise