Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Surgery 4/2017

01-04-2017 | Original Scientific Report

Toward More Efficient Surveillance of Barrett’s Esophagus: Identification and Exclusion of Patients at Low Risk of Cancer

Authors: Mats Lindblad, Tim Bright, Ann Schloithe, George C. Mayne, Gang Chen, Jeff Bull, Peter A. Bampton, Robert J. L. Fraser, Piers A. Gatenby, Louisa G. Gordon, David I. Watson

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 4/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Endoscopic surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is probably not cost-effective. A sub-population with BE at increased risk of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) who could be targeted for cost-effective surveillance was sought.

Methods

The outcome for BE surveillance from 2003 to 2012 in a structured program was reviewed. Incidence rates and incidence rate ratios for developing HGD or EAC were calculated. Risk stratification identified individuals who could be considered for exclusion from surveillance. A health-state transition Markov cohort model evaluated the cost-effectiveness of focusing on higher-risk individuals.

Results

During 2067 person-years of follow-up of 640 patients, 17 individuals progressed to HGD or EAC (annual IR 0.8%). Individuals with columnar-lined esophagus (CLE) ≥2 cm had an annual IR of 1.2% and >8-fold increased relative risk of HGD or EAC, compared to CLE <2 cm [IR—0.14% (IRR 8.6, 95% CIs 4.5–12.8)]. Limiting the surveillance cohort after the first endoscopy to individuals with CLE ≥2 cm, or dysplasia, followed by a further restriction after the second endoscopy—exclusion of patients without intestinal metaplasia—removed 296 (46%) patients, and 767 (37%) person-years from surveillance. Limiting surveillance to the remaining individuals reduced the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio from US$60,858 to US$33,807 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Further restrictions were tested but failed to improve cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions

Based on stratification of risk, the number of patients requiring surveillance can be reduced by at least a third. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$50,000 per QALY, surveillance of higher-risk individuals becomes cost-effective.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Ronkainen J, Aro P, Storskrubb T et al (2005) Prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus in the general population: an endoscopic study. Gastroenterology 129:1825–1831CrossRefPubMed Ronkainen J, Aro P, Storskrubb T et al (2005) Prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus in the general population: an endoscopic study. Gastroenterology 129:1825–1831CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Wani S, Falk GW, Post J et al (2011) Risk factors for progression of low-grade dysplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 141:1179–1186CrossRefPubMed Wani S, Falk GW, Post J et al (2011) Risk factors for progression of low-grade dysplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 141:1179–1186CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Coleman HG, Bhat S, Johnston BT et al (2012) Tobacco smoking increases the risk of high-grade dysplasia and cancer among patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 142(2):233–240CrossRefPubMed Coleman HG, Bhat S, Johnston BT et al (2012) Tobacco smoking increases the risk of high-grade dysplasia and cancer among patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 142(2):233–240CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Pohl H, Pech O, Arash H et al (2016) Length of Barrett’s oesophagus and cancer risk: implications from a large sample of patients with early oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Gut 65:196–201CrossRefPubMed Pohl H, Pech O, Arash H et al (2016) Length of Barrett’s oesophagus and cancer risk: implications from a large sample of patients with early oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Gut 65:196–201CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Levine DS, Haggitt RC, Blount PL et al (1993) An endoscopic biopsy protocol can differentiate high-grade dysplasia from early adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 105:40–50CrossRefPubMed Levine DS, Haggitt RC, Blount PL et al (1993) An endoscopic biopsy protocol can differentiate high-grade dysplasia from early adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 105:40–50CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Association American Gastroenterological, Spechler SJ, Sharma P et al (2011) American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on the management of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 140:1084–1091CrossRef Association American Gastroenterological, Spechler SJ, Sharma P et al (2011) American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on the management of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 140:1084–1091CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Wang KK, Sampliner RE, Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology (2008) Updated guidelines 2008 for the diagnosis, surveillance and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 103:788–797CrossRefPubMed Wang KK, Sampliner RE, Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology (2008) Updated guidelines 2008 for the diagnosis, surveillance and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 103:788–797CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Hirota WK, Zuckerman MJ, Adler DG et al (2006) ASGE guideline: the role of endoscopy in the surveillance of premalignant conditions of the upper GI tract. Gastrointest Endosc 63:570–580CrossRefPubMed Hirota WK, Zuckerman MJ, Adler DG et al (2006) ASGE guideline: the role of endoscopy in the surveillance of premalignant conditions of the upper GI tract. Gastrointest Endosc 63:570–580CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Shaheen NJ, Weinberg DS, Denberg TD et al (2012) Upper endoscopy for gastroesophageal reflux disease: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 157:808–816CrossRefPubMed Shaheen NJ, Weinberg DS, Denberg TD et al (2012) Upper endoscopy for gastroesophageal reflux disease: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med 157:808–816CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Committee ASoP, Evans JA, Early DS et al (2012) The role of endoscopy in Barrett’s esophagus and other premalignant conditions of the esophagus. Gastrointest endosc 76:1087–1094CrossRef Committee ASoP, Evans JA, Early DS et al (2012) The role of endoscopy in Barrett’s esophagus and other premalignant conditions of the esophagus. Gastrointest endosc 76:1087–1094CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Fitzgerald RC, di Pietro M, Ragunath K et al (2014) British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus. Gut 63:7–42CrossRefPubMed Fitzgerald RC, di Pietro M, Ragunath K et al (2014) British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus. Gut 63:7–42CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Gordon LG, Mayne GC, Hirst NG et al (2014) Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance of non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 79:242–256CrossRefPubMed Gordon LG, Mayne GC, Hirst NG et al (2014) Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance of non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 79:242–256CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC (2014) Updating cost-effectiveness — The curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. NEJM 371:796–797CrossRefPubMed Neumann PJ, Cohen JT, Weinstein MC (2014) Updating cost-effectiveness — The curious resilience of the $50,000-per-QALY threshold. NEJM 371:796–797CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Barbiere JM, Lyratzopoulos G (2009) Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic screening followed by surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus: a review. Gastroenterology 137:1869–1876CrossRefPubMed Barbiere JM, Lyratzopoulos G (2009) Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic screening followed by surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus: a review. Gastroenterology 137:1869–1876CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Hirst NG, Gordon LG, Whiteman DC et al (2011) Is endoscopic surveillance for non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus cost-effective? Review of economic evaluations. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 26:247–254CrossRefPubMed Hirst NG, Gordon LG, Whiteman DC et al (2011) Is endoscopic surveillance for non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus cost-effective? Review of economic evaluations. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 26:247–254CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Koop H, Fuchs KH, Labenz J et al (2014) S2 k guideline: gastroesophageal reflux disease guided by the German Society of Gastroenterology: aWMF register no. 021–013. Z Gastroenterol 52:1299–1346CrossRefPubMed Koop H, Fuchs KH, Labenz J et al (2014) S2 k guideline: gastroesophageal reflux disease guided by the German Society of Gastroenterology: aWMF register no. 021–013. Z Gastroenterol 52:1299–1346CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Devesa SS, Blot WJ, Fraumeni JF Jr (1998) Changing patterns in the incidence of esophageal and gastric carcinoma in the United States. Cancer 83:2049–2053CrossRefPubMed Devesa SS, Blot WJ, Fraumeni JF Jr (1998) Changing patterns in the incidence of esophageal and gastric carcinoma in the United States. Cancer 83:2049–2053CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Toward More Efficient Surveillance of Barrett’s Esophagus: Identification and Exclusion of Patients at Low Risk of Cancer
Authors
Mats Lindblad
Tim Bright
Ann Schloithe
George C. Mayne
Gang Chen
Jeff Bull
Peter A. Bampton
Robert J. L. Fraser
Piers A. Gatenby
Louisa G. Gordon
David I. Watson
Publication date
01-04-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
World Journal of Surgery / Issue 4/2017
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3819-0

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

World Journal of Surgery 4/2017 Go to the issue