Barrett esophagus. Bible class Inselspital

Transcription

1 Barrett esophagus Bible class Inselspital

2 Guidelines

3 Definition? BSG: ACG:

4 Definition? BSG: ACG:

5 What are the arguments for and against IM as prerequisite for the Dg?

6 What are the arguments for and against IM as prerequisite for the Dg? - Intestinal metaplasia is biologically more unstable Bhat S et al. Risk of malignant progression in Barrett's esophagus patients: results from a large population-based study.j Natl Cancer Inst Possible sampling error (false negativ Bx) Harrison R et al. Detection of intestinal metaplasia i Barrett s esophagus: an observational comparator study suggests the need for a minimum of eight biopsies. Am J Gastroenterol Evolution of IM over the time Gatenby PA et al. Relevance of the detection of intestinal metaplasia in non-dysplastic columnar-lined oesophagus. Scand J Gastroenterol 2008

7 What are the arguments for and against IM as prerequisite for the Dg? - < 50 of endoscopically resected OAC have IM Takubo K et al. Cardiac rather than intestinal-type background in endoscopic resection specimens of minute Barrett adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol 2009.

8 What are the arguments for and against IM as prerequisite for the Dg? - < 50 of endoscopically resected OAC have IM Takubo K et al. Cardiac rather than intestinal-type background in endoscopic resection specimens of minute Barrett adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol Is IM of the cardia of concern?

9 What are the arguments for and against IM as prerequisite for the Dg? - < 50 of endoscopically resected OAC have IM Takubo K et al. Cardiac rather than intestinal-type background in endoscopic resection specimens of minute Barrett adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol Is IM of the cardia of concern? - No, 20% of people harbour IM Zaninotto G et al. Prevalence of intestinal metaplasia in the distal oesophagus, oesophagogastric junction and gastric cardia in symptomatic patients in north-east Italy. Dig Liver Dis 2001.

10 How is the distal esophageal and endoscopically defined?

11 How is the distal esophageal and endoscopically defined?

12 How is the distal esophageal and endoscopically defined? Is this a potential barrett esophagus?

13 How is the distal esophageal and endoscopically defined? Is this a potential barrett esophagus? No!

14 What describes the Prague Classification?

15 What describes the Prague Classification?

16 What should be further recorded?

17 What should be further recorded?

18 Biopsy protocol and importang aspects of sampling?

19 Biopsy protocol and importang aspects of sampling? - Targeted biopsies from visible lesions - 4 Quadrant biopsies every 2 cm - Optimize visualisation (Inspection of the OGJ by inversion if possible, careful flushing, acetic acid, starting distal and basal, inspection time!)

20 Screening/surveillance «Optimal» disease for a screening?

21 Screening/surveillance - «Optimal» disease for a screening? Disease with a high morbidity/mortality A early diagnosis leads to improved survival High prevalence of the disease in a certain population - High positive and negative predictive values of the test - Cost effective and well tolerated test/treatment

22 Screening Whats the prevalence of BE?

23 Screening Whats the prevalence of BE? -.5% 5% if GERD)

24 Screening Whats the prevalence of BE? -.5% 5% if GERD) What are the risk factors of BE?

25 Screening - Whats the prevalence of BE?.5% 5% if GERD) What are the risk factors of BE? Male gender, caucasian ethnicity Older age History of GERD Possible cigarette smoking Family history Abdominal adiposity

26 Is screening recommended?

27 Is screening recommended?

28 Surveillance Is there evidence I for surveillance?

29 Surveillance Is there evidence I for surveillance? - No, BOSS trial avaited

30 What are the most important arguments for the surveillance?

31 What are the most important arguments for the surveillance? - OAC has a very poor overall 5 year survival < 20% - OAC detected by screening have an earlier stage and better survival rate

32 What are the most important arguments for the surveillance? - OAC has a very poor overall 5 year survival < 20% - OAC detected by screening have an erlier stage and better survival rate Usefullness of surveillance proved?

33 What are the most important arguments for the surveillance? - OAC has a very poor overall 5 year survival < 20% - OAC detected by screening have an erlier stage and better survival rate Usefullness of surveillance proved? - No!

34 Why?

35 Why? - Lenght time bias:

36 - Lead time bias:

37 Is surveillance recommended?

38 Is surveillance recommended?

39 What s the incidence of OAC in BE?

40 What s the incidence of OAC in BE? %/year Bhat S et al. Risk of malignant progression in Barrett's esophagus patients: results from a large population-based study.j Natl Cancer Inst %/year Hvid-Jensen F et al. Incidence of adenocarcinoma among patients with Barrett s esophagus. N Engl J Med %/year Desai TK et al. Th e incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma in non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus: a meta-analysis. Gut 2012

41 What are the risk factors for malignant progression?

42 What are the risk factors for malignant progression? - Advancing age - Male gender - S oki g HR! - Length of Barrett esophagus - Ulcers, strictures and nodules! - Lack of PPI, NSAID/ASS, Statins

43 What are the risk factors for malignant progression? - Advancing age - Male gender - S oki g HR! - Length of Barrett esophagus - Ulcers, strictures and nodules! Metaanalysis of - Lack of PPI, NSAID/ASS, Statins cohort studies

44 Is chemoprevention indicated?

45 Is chemoprevention indicated? - AspECT trial awaited

46 Is chemoprevention indicated? - AspECT trial awaited Is fundoplicatio indicated?

47 Is chemoprevention indicated? - AspECT trial awaited Is fundoplicatio indicated?

48 What s the likelyhood to die from an Barrett unrelated cause in patients without dysplasia?

49 What s the likelyhood to die from an Barrett unrelated cause in patients without dysplasia? - > 90% Incarbone R et al. Outcome of esophageal adenocarcinoma detected during endoscopic biopsy surveillance for Barrett's esophagus. Surg Endosc 2002.

50 What s the likelyhood to die from an Barrett unrelated cause in patients without dysplasia? - > 90% Incarbone R et al. Outcome of esophageal adenocarcinoma detected during endoscopic biopsy surveillance for Barrett's esophagus. Surg Endosc What s the risk of progression of dysplasia?

51 What s the likelyhood to die from an Barrett unrelated cause in patients without dysplasia? - > 90% Incarbone R et al. Outcome of esophageal adenocarcinoma detected during endoscopic biopsy surveillance for Barrett's esophagus. Surg Endosc What s the risk of progression of dysplasia?

52 How is the surveillance proposed?

53 How is the surveillance proposed? ECOG score 0-2 (self care possible)

54 How is low grade dysplasia defined?

55 How is low grade dysplasia defined?

56 How is high grade dysplasia defined?

57 How is high grade dysplasia defined?

58 Is the interobserver agreement good for dysplasia?

59 Is the interobserver agreement good for dysplasia? - No, especially for low grad dysplasia

60 Is the interobserver agreement good for dysplasia? - No, especially for low grad dysplasia How it could be improved? - Immunostaining with p53

61 Is the interobserver agreement good for dysplasia? - No, especially for low grad dysplasia How it could be improved?

62 Is the interobserver agreement good for dysplasia? - No, especially for low grad dysplasia How it could be improved? - Immunostaining with p53

63

64

65 How should we manage dysplasia?

66 How should we manage dysplasia?

67 What about the SURF trial?

68 What about the SURF trial?

69 What about the SURF trial?

70 What are the therapeutic options with HGD?

71 What are the therapeutic options with HGD?

72 Risk of lymph node mestasis in T1?

73 Risk of lymph node mestasis in T1? - T1a: 0-10% - T1b SM1: conflicting data, if R0L0 an poor surgical candidate => endoscopic resection - T1b SM2-3: Risk up to 46% => Surgery

74 What should be done after curative endoscopic resection?

75 What should be done after curative endoscopic resection? - Eradication of BE (>80 have remaining dysplasia, 20% metachronous lesions in 2 years

76 What should be done after curative endoscopic resection? - Eradication of BE (>80 have remaining dysplasia, 20% metachronous lesions in 2 years) Is (PET)-CT indicated if early esophageal cancer is supposed?

77 What should be done after curative endoscopic resection? - Eradication of BE (>80 have remaining dysplasia, 20% metachronous lesions in 2 years) Is (PET)-CT indicated if early esophageal cancer is supposed? - No

78 What should be done after curative endoscopic resection? - Eradication of BE (>80 have remaining dysplasia, 20% metachronous lesions in 2 years) Is (PET)-CT indicated if early esophageal cancer is supposed? - No What about EUS?

79 What should be done after curative endoscopic resection? - Eradication of BE (>80 have remaining dysplasia, 20% metachronous lesions in 2 years) Is (PET)-CT indicated if early esophageal cancer is supposed? - No What about EUS? - Can be done, but frequent over- (15 25%) and understaging (4 12%) of T1 vrs T2

80

81 How should we follow up the patients?

82 How should we follow up the patients? - Every 3 month for 1 year, than yearly - Biopsies of the prior extend of BE (burried dysplasia!)

83 How should we follow up the patients? - Every 3 month for 1 year, than yearly - Biopsies of the prior extend of BE (burried dysplasia!)