Diagnosis and management of Barrett esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

Main Recommendations

MR1 ESGE recommends the following standards for Barrett esophagus (BE) surveillance:

– a minimum of 1-minute inspection time per cm of BE length during a surveillance endoscopy

– photodocumentation of landmarks, the BE segment including one picture per cm of BE length, and the esophagogastric junction in retroflexed position, and any visible lesions

– use of the Prague and (for visible lesions) Paris classification

– collection of biopsies from all visible abnormalities (if present), followed by random four-quadrant biopsies for every 2-cm BE length.

Strong recommendation, weak quality of evidence.

MR2 ESGE suggests varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies.
For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance are advised.

Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence.

MR3 ESGE suggests that, if a patient has reached 75 years of age at the time of the last surveillance endoscopy and/or the patient’s life expectancy is less than 5 years, the discontinuation of further surveillance endoscopies can be considered.
Weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence.

MR4 ESGE recommends offering endoscopic eradication therapy using ablation to patients with BE and low grade dysplasia (LGD) on at least two separate endoscopies, both confirmed by a second experienced pathologist.

Strong recommendation, high level of evidence.

MR5 ESGE recommends endoscopic ablation treatment for BE with confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD) without visible lesions, to prevent progression to invasive cancer.

Strong recommendation, high level of evidence.

MR6 ESGE recommends offering complete eradication of all remaining Barrett epithelium by ablation after endoscopic resection of visible abnormalities containing any degree of dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).

Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence.

MR7 ESGE recommends endoscopic resection as curative treatment for T1a Barrett’s cancer with well/moderate differentiation and no signs of lymphovascular invasion.

Strong recommendation, high level of evidence.

MR8 ESGE suggests that low risk submucosal (T1b) EAC (i. e. submucosal invasion depth ≤ 500 µm AND no [lympho]vascular invasion AND no poor tumor differentiation) can be treated by endoscopic resection, provided that adequate follow-up with gastroscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and computed tomography (CT)/positrion emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in expert centers.

Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence.

MR9 ESGE suggests that submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (tumor invasion > 500 µm into the submucosa), and/or (lympho)vascular invasion, and/or a poor tumor differentiation should be considered high risk. Complete staging and consideration of additional treatments (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and/or surgery) or strict endoscopic follow-up should be undertaken on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.

Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

MR10 a ESGE recommends that the first endoscopic follow-up after successful endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) of BE is performed in an expert center.

Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence.

b ESGE recommends careful inspection of the neo-squamocolumnar junction and neo-squamous epithelium with high definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy during post-EET surveillance, to detect recurrent dysplasia.

Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence.

c ESGE recommends against routine four-quadrant biopsies of neo-squamous epithelium after successful EET of BE.

Strong recommendation, low level of evidence.

d ESGE suggests, after successful EET, obtaining four-quadrant random biopsies just distal to a normal-appearing neo-squamocolumnar junction to detect dysplasia in the absence of visible lesions.

Weak recommendation, low level of evidence.

e ESGE recommends targeted biopsies are obtained where there is a suspicion of recurrent BE in the tubular esophagus, or where there are visible lesions suspicious for dysplasia.

Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence.

MR11 After successful EET, ESGE recommends the following surveillance intervals:

– For patients with a baseline diagnosis of HGD or EAC:
at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.

– For patients with a baseline diagnosis of LGD:
at 1, 3, and 5 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.
Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
09. Oktober 2023

• References

• 1 Weusten B, Bisschops R, Coron E. et al. Endoscopic management of Barrett’s esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 191-198
• 2 Dumonceau JM, Hassan C, Riphaus A. et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline development policy. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 626-629
• 3 Atkins D, Best D, Briss P. et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004; 328: 1490
• 4 Ronkainen J, Aro P, Storskrubb T. et al. Prevalence of Barrett’s Esophagus in the general population: an endoscopic study. Gastroenterology 2005; 129: 1825-1831
• 5 Marques de Sa I, Marcos P, Sharma P. et al. The global prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus: A systematic review of the published literature. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2020; 8: 1086-1105
• 6 Marques de Sá I, Leal C, Silva J. et al. Prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus in a Southern European country: a multicenter study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 33: E939-E943
• 7 Eusebi LH, Cirota GG, Zagari RM. et al. Global prevalence of Barrett’s oesophagus and oesophageal cancer in individuals with gastro-oesophageal reflux: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut 2021; 70: 456-463
• 8 Westhoff B, Brotze S, Weston A. et al. The frequency of Barrett’s esophagus in high-risk patients with chronic GERD. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 226-231
• 9 Zagari RM, Fuccio L, Wallander MA. et al. Gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms, oesophagitis and Barrett’s oesophagus in the general population: the Loiano-Monghidoro study. Gut 2008; 57: 1354-1359
• 10 Fitzgerald RC, di Pietro M, O’Donovan M. et al. Cytosponge-trefoil factor 3 versus usual care to identify Barrett’s oesophagus in a primary care setting: a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2020; 396: 333-344
• 11 Desai TK, Krishnan K, Samala N. et al. The incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma in non-dysplastic Barrett’s oesophagus: a meta-analysis. Gut 2012; 61: 970-976
• 12 Klaver E, Bureo Gonzalez A, Mostafavi N. et al. Barrett’s esophagus surveillance in a prospective Dutch multi-center community-based cohort of 985 patients demonstrates low risk of neoplastic progression. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2021; 9: 929-937
• 13 Kastelein F, van Olphen SH, Steyerberg EW. et al. Impact of surveillance for Barrett’s oesophagus on tumour stage and survival of patients with neoplastic progression. Gut 2016; 65: 548-554
• 14 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and dyspepsia in adults: investigation and management. Clinical Guideline 184. London, UK: NICE; 2019
• 15 Dunbar KB, Souza RF, Spechler SJ. The effect of proton pump inhibitors on Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2015; 44: 415-424
• 16 Singh S, Garg SK, Singh PP. et al. Acid-suppressive medications and risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett’s oesophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut 2014; 63: 1229-1237
• 17 Hu Q, Sun TT, Hong J. et al. Proton pump inhibitors do not reduce the risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett’s esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0169691
• 18 Li L, Cao Z, Zhang C. et al. Risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett’s esophagus using proton pump inhibitors: A systematic review with meta-analysis and sequential trial analysis. Transl Cancer Res 2021; 10: 1620-1627
• 19 Chen Y, Sun C, Wu Y. et al. Do proton pump inhibitors prevent Barrett’s esophagus progression to high-grade dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma? An updated meta-analysis. . J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2021; 147: 2681-2691
• 20 Jankowski JAZ, de Caestecker J, Love SB. et al. Esomeprazole and aspirin in Barrett’s oesophagus (AspECT): a randomised factorial trial. Lancet 2018; 392: 400-408
• 21 Krishnamoorthi R, Singh S, Ragunathan K. et al. Factors associated with progression of Barrett’s esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16: 1046-1055.e8
• 22 Malfertheiner P, Kandulski A, Venerito M. Proton-pump inhibitors: understanding the complications and risks. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 14: 697-710
• 23 Moayyedi P, Eikelboom JW, Bosch J. et al. Safety of proton pump inhibitors based on a large, multi-year, randomized trial of patients receiving rivaroxaban or aspirin. Gastroenterology 2019; 157: 682-691.e2
• 24 Hamel C, Ahmadzai N, Beck A. et al. Screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma and precancerous conditions (dysplasia and Barrett’s esophagus) in patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease with or without other risk factors: Two systematic reviews and one overview of reviews to info. Syst Rev 2020; 9: 1-25
• 25 Rubenstein JH, Inadomi JM. Cost-effectiveness of screening, surveillance, and endoscopic eradication therapies for managing the burden of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2021; 31: 77-90
• 26 Sami SS, Moriarty JP, Rosedahl JK. et al. Comparative cost effectiveness of reflux-based and reflux-independent strategies for Barrett’s esophagus screening. Am J Gastroenterol 2021; 116: 1620-1631
• 27 Qumseya BJ, Bukannan A, Gendy S. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence and risk factors for Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 707-717 e1
• 28 Sawas T, Zamani SA, Killcoyne S. et al. Limitations of heartburn and other societies’ criteria in Barrett’s screening for detecting de novo esophageal adenocarcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 20: 1709-1718
• 29 Nguyen TH, Thrift AP, Rugge M. et al. Prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus and performance of societal screening guidelines in an unreferred primary care population of U.S. veterans. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93: 409-419 e1
• 30 Rubenstein JH, McConnell D, Waljee AK. et al. Validation and comparison of tools for selecting individuals to screen for Barrett’s esophagus and early neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 2082-2092
• 31 Kadri PSR, Lao-Sirieix I, O’Donovan M. et al. Acceptability and accuracy of a non-endoscopic screening test for Barrett’s oesophagus in primary care: Cohort study. BMJ 2010; 341: 595
• 32 Ross-Innes CS, Debiram-Beecham I, O’Donovan M. et al. Evaluation of a minimally invasive cell sampling device coupled with assessment of trefoil factor 3 expression for diagnosing Barrett’s esophagus: a multi-center case–control study. PLoS Med 2015; 12: e1001780
• 33 Zhou Z, Kalatskaya I, Russell D. et al. Combined EsophaCap cytology and MUC2 immunohistochemistry for screening of intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia and carcinoma. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 2019; 12: 219-229
• 34 Wang Z, Kambhampati S, Cheng Y. et al. Methylation biomarker panel performance in esophacap cytology samples for diagnosing Barrett’s esophagus: A prospective validation study. Clin Cancer Res 2019; 25: 2127-2135
• 35 Moinova HR, LaFramboise T, Lutterbaugh JD. et al. Identifying DNA methylation biomarkers for non-endoscopic detection of Barrett’s esophagus. Sci Transl Med 2018; 10: 1-12
• 36 Iyer PG, Taylor WR, Johnson ML. et al. Highly discriminant methylated DNA markers for the non-endoscopic detection of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2018; 113: 1156-1166
• 37 Iyer PG, Taylor WR, Johnson ML. et al. Accurate nonendoscopic detection of Barrett’s esophagus by methylated DNA markers: a multisite case control study. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115: 1201-1209
• 38 Iyer PG, Taylor WR, Slettedahl SW. et al. Validation of a methylated DNA marker panel for the nonendoscopic detection of Barrett’s esophagus in a multisite case-control study. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 94: 498-505
• 39 Gehrung M, Crispin-Ortuzar M, Berman AG. et al. Triage-driven diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus for early detection of esophageal adenocarcinoma using deep learning. Nat Med 2021; 27: 833-841
• 40 Benaglia T, Sharples LD, Fitzgerald RC. et al. Health benefits and cost effectiveness of endoscopic and nonendoscopic cytosponge screening for Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 62-73.e6
• 41 Swart N, Maroni R, Muldrew B. et al. Economic evaluation of Cytosponge®-trefoil factor 3 for Barrett esophagus: A cost-utility analysis of randomised controlled trial data. EClinicalMedicine 2021; 37: 100969
• 42 Chettouh H, Mowforth O, Galeano-Dalmau N. et al. Methylation panel is a diagnostic biomarker for Barrett’s oesophagus in endoscopic biopsies and non-endoscopic cytology specimens. Gut 2018; 67: 1942-1949
• 43 Sami SS, Subramanian V, Butt WM. et al. High definition versus standard definition white light endoscopy for detecting dysplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Dis Esophagus 2015; 28: 742-749
• 44 Wolfsen HC, Crook JE, Krishna M. et al. Prospective, controlled tandem endoscopy study of narrow band imaging for dysplasia detection in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 24-31
• 45 Sharma P, Hawes RH, Bansal A. et al. Standard endoscopy with random biopsies versus narrow band imaging targeted biopsies in Barrett’s oesophagus: A prospective, international, randomised controlled trial. Gut 2013; 62: 15-21
• 46 Coletta M, Sami SS, Nachiappan A. et al. Acetic acid chromoendoscopy for the diagnosis of early neoplasia and specialized intestinal metaplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 57-67.e1
• 47 Longcroft-Wheaton G, Fogg C, Chedgy F. et al. A feasibility trial of Acetic acid-targeted Biopsies versus nontargeted quadrantic biopsies during BArrett’s surveillance: the ABBA trial. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 29-36
• 48 Messmann H, Bisschops R, Antonelli G. et al. Expected value of artificial intelligence in gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 1211-1231
• 49 Nieuwenhuis EA, van Munster SN, Curvers WL. et al. Impact of expert center endoscopic assessment of confirmed low grade dysplasia diagnosed in community hospitals. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 639-644
• 50 Visrodia K, Singh S, Krishnamoorthi R. et al. Magnitude of missed esophageal adenocarcinoma after Barrett’s esophagus diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 599-607.e7
• 51 Ebigbo A, Mendel R, Probst A. et al. Real-time use of artificial intelligence in the evaluation of cancer in Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut 2020; 69: 615-616
• 52 Hashimoto R, Requa J, Dao T. et al. Artificial intelligence using convolutional neural networks for real-time detection of early esophageal neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 1264-1271.e1
• 53 de Groof AJ, Struyvenberg MR, Fockens KN. et al. Deep learning algorithm detection of Barrett’s neoplasia with high accuracy during live endoscopic procedures: a pilot study (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 1242-1250
• 54 Arribas J, Antonelli G, Frazzoni L. et al. Standalone performance of artificial intelligence for upper GI neoplasia: a meta-analysis. Gut 2020; 70: 1458-1468
• 55 Lui TKL, Tsui VWM, Leung WK. Accuracy of artificial intelligence-assisted detection of upper GI lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 821-830.e9
• 56 Bisschops R, Areia M, Coron E. et al. Performance measures for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 843-864
• 57 Gupta N, Gaddam S, Wani SB. et al. Longer inspection time is associated with increased detection of high-grade dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterol Endosc 2012; 76: 531-538
• 58 Vithayathil M, Modolell I, Ortiz-Fernandez-Sordo J. et al. The effect of procedural time on dysplasia detection rate during endoscopic surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 491-498
• 59 Pouw RE, Barret M, Biermann K. et al. Endoscopic tissue sampling - Part 1: Upper gastrointestinal and hepatopancreatobiliary tracts. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 1174-1188
• 60 Wani S, Williams JL, Komanduri S. et al. Endoscopists systematically undersample patients with long-segment Barrett’s esophagus: an analysis of biopsy sampling practices from a quality improvement registry. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 732-741.e3
• 61 Westerveld D, Khullar V, Mramba L. et al. Adherence to quality indicators and surveillance guidelines in the management of Barrett’s esophagus: a retrospective analysis. Endosc Int Open 2018; 6: E300-E307
• 62 Antony A, Pohanka C, Keogh S. et al. Adherence to quality indicators in endoscopic surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus and correlation to dysplasia detection rates. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 2018; 42: 591-596
• 63 Abela JE, Going JJ, Mackenzie JF. et al. Systematic four-quadrant biopsy detects Barrett’s dysplasia in more patients than nonsystematic biopsy. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 850-855
• 64 Rodríguez de Santiago E, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Pohl H. et al. Reducing the environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 797-826
• 65 Rubenstein JH, Vakil N, Inadomi JM. The cost-effectiveness of biomarkers for predicting the development of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005; 22: 135-146
• 66 Gordon LG, Mayne GC, Hirst NG. et al. Cost-effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance of non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 242-256
• 67 Das A, Callenberg KM, Styn MA. et al. Endoscopic ablation is a cost-effective cancer preventative therapy in patients with Barrett’s esophagus who have elevated genomic instability. Endosc Int Open 2016; 04: E549-E559
• 68 Hao J, Critchley-Thorne R, Diehl DL. et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of an adenocarcinoma risk prediction multi-biomarker assay for patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2019; 11: 623-635
• 69 Redston M, Noffsinger A, Kim A. et al. Abnormal TP53 predicts risk of progression in patients with Barrett’s esophagus regardless of a diagnosis of dysplasia. Gastroenterology 2022; 162: 468-481
• 70 Weaver JMJ, Ross-Innes CS, Shannon N. et al. Ordering of mutations in preinvasive disease stages of esophageal carcinogenesis. Nat Genet 2014; 46: 837-843
• 71 Skacel M, Petras RE, Rybicki LA. et al. p53 expression in low grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: Correlation with interobserver agreement and disease progression. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 2508-2513
• 72 Kaye PV, Haider SA, Ilyas M. et al. Barrett’s dysplasia and the Vienna classification: Reproducibility, prediction of progression and impact of consensus reporting and p53 immunohistochemistry. Histopathology 2009; 54: 699-712
• 73 Kaye PV, Ilyas M, Soomro I. et al. Dysplasia in Barrett’s oesophagus: p53 immunostaining is more reproducible than haematoxylin and eosin diagnosis and improves overall reliability, while grading is poorly reproducible. Histopathology 2016; 69: 431-440
• 74 Toon C, Allanson B, Leslie C. et al. Patterns of p53 immunoreactivity in non-neoplastic and neoplastic Barrett’s mucosa of the oesophagus : in-depth evaluation in endoscopic mucosal resections. Pathology 2022; 51: 253-260
• 75 van der Wel MJ, Duits LC, Pouw RE. et al. Improved diagnostic stratification of digitised Barrett’s oesophagus biopsies by p53 immunohistochemical staining. Histopathology 2018; 72: 1015-1023
• 76 van der Wel MJ, Coleman HG, Bergman JJGHM. et al. Histopathologist features predictive of diagnostic concordance at expert level among a large international sample of pathologists diagnosing Barrett’s dysplasia using digital pathology. Gut 2020; 69: 811-822
• 77 Januszewicz W, Pilonis ND, Sawas T. et al. The utility of P53 immunohistochemistry in the diagnosis of Barrett’s oesophagus with indefinite for dysplasia. Histopathology 2022; 80: 1081-1090
• 78 Kinra P, Gahlot GPS, Yadav R. et al. Histological assessment & use of immunohistochemical markers for detection of dysplasia in Barrett’s esophageal mucosa. Pathol Res Pract 2018; 214: 993-999
• 79 Vithayathil M, Modolell I, Ortiz-Fernandez-Sordo J. et al. Image-enhanced endoscopy and molecular biomarkers vs Seattle protocol to diagnose dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 20: 2514-2523.e3
• 80 Iyer PG, Codipilly DC, Chandar AK. et al. Prediction of progression in Barrett’s esophagus using a tissue systems pathology test : a pooled analysis of international multicenter studies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 20: 2772-2779.e8
• 81 Eluri S, Brugge WR, Daglilar ES. et al. The presence of genetic mutations at key loci predicts progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 828-834
• 82 Eluri S, Klaver E, Duits LC. et al. Validation of a biomarker panel in Barrett’s esophagus to predict progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Dis Esophagus 2018; 31: 1-6
• 83 Khara HS, Jackson SA, Nair S. et al. Assessment of mutational load in biopsy tissue provides additional information about genomic instability to histological classifications of Barrett’s esophagus. J Gastrointest Canc 2014; 45: 137-145
• 84 Trindade AJ, Mckinley MJ, Alshelleh M. et al. Mutational load may predict risk of progression in patients with Barrett’s oesophagus and indefinite for dysplasia : a pilot study. BMJ Open Gastroenterol 2019; 6: e000268
• 85 Altaf K, Xiong J, de la Iglesia D. et al. Meta-analysis of biomarkers predicting risk of malignant progression in Barrett’s oesophagus. Br J Surg 2017; 104: 493-502
• 86 Hadjinicolaou AV, van Munster SN, Achilleos A. et al. Aneuploidy in targeted endoscopic biopsies outperforms other tissue biomarkers in the prediction of histologic progression of Barrett’s oesophagus: A multi-centre prospective cohort study. EBioMedicine 2020; 56: 102765
• 87 Douville C, Moinova HR, Thota PN. et al. Massively parallel sequencing of esophageal brushings enables an aneuploidy-based classification of patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2021; 160: 2043-2054
• 88 Killcoyne S, Gregson E, Wedge DC. et al. Genomic copy number predicts esophageal cancer years before transformation. Nat Med 2020; 26: 1726-1732
• 89 Pilonis ND, Killcoyne S, Tan WK. et al. Use of a Cytosponge biomarker panel to prioritise endoscopic Barrett’s oesophagus surveillance: a cross-sectional study followed by a real-world prospective pilot. Lancet Oncol 2022; 23: 270-278
• 90 Campos VJ, Mazzini GS, Juchem JF. et al. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio as a marker of progression from non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus to esophageal adenocarcinoma: a cross-sectional retrospective study. J Gastrointest Surg 2020; 24: 8-18
• 91 Peleg N, Schmilovitz-Weiss H, Shamah S. et al. Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and risk of neoplastic progression in patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 774-781
• 92 Shah AK, Hartel G, Brown I. et al. Evaluation of serum glycoprotein biomarker candidates for detection of esophageal adenocarcinoma and surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus. Mol Cell Proteomics 2018; 17: 2324-2334
• 93 Maddalo G, Fassan M, Cardin R. et al. Squamous cellular carcinoma antigen serum determination as a biomarker of Barrett esophagus and esophageal cancer - a phase III study. J Clin Gastroenterol 2018; 52: 401-406
• 94 Risques RA, Vaughan TL, Li X. et al. Leukocyte telomere length predicts cancer risk in Barrett’s esophagus. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007; 16: 2649-2655
• 95 Rumiato E, Boldrin E, Malacrida S. et al. Detection of genetic alterations in cfDNA as a possible strategy to monitor the neoplastic progression of Barrett’s esophagus. Transl Res 2017; 190: 16-24.e1
• 96 Codipilly DC, Chandar AK, Singh S. et al. The effect of endoscopic surveillance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology 2018; 154: 2068-2086 e5
• 97 Vissapragada R, Bulamu NB, Brumfitt C. et al. Improving cost-effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus by reducing low-value care: a review of economic evaluations. Surg Endosc 2021; 35: 5905-5917
• 98 Kastelein F, van Olphen S, Steyerberg EW. et al. Surveillance in patients with long-segment Barrett’s oesophagus: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Gut 2015; 64: 864-871
• 99 Hamade N, Vennelaganti S, Parasa S. et al. Lower annual rate of progression of short-segment vs long-segment Barrett’s esophagus to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17: 864-868
• 100 Chandrasekar VT, Hamade N, Desai M. et al. Significantly lower annual rates of neoplastic progression in short- compared to long-segment non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 665-672
• 101 Pohl H, Pech O, Arash H. et al. Length of Barrett’s oesophagus and cancer risk: implications from a large sample of patients with early oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Gut 2016; 65: 196-201
• 102 Thota PN, Vennalaganti P, Vennelaganti S. et al. Low risk of high-grade dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma among patients with Barrett’s esophagus less than 1 cm (irregular Z Line) within 5 years of index endoscopy. Gastroenterology 2017; 152: 987-992
• 103 Omidvari AH, Hazelton WD, Lauren BN. et al. The optimal age to stop endoscopic surveillance of patients with Barrett’s esophagus based on sex and comorbidity: a comparative cost-effectiveness analysis. Gastroenterology 2021; 161: 487-494 e4
• 104 Schölvinck DW, van der Meulen K, Bergman JJGHM. et al. Detection of lesions in dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus by community and expert endoscopists. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 113-120
• 105 Tsoi EH, Mahindra P, Cameron G. et al. Barrett’s esophagus with low-grade dysplasia: high rate of upstaging at Barrett’s esophagus referral units suggests progression rates may be overestimated. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 94: 902-908
• 106 Curvers WL, ten Kate FJ, Krishnadath KK. et al. Low-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: overdiagnosed and underestimated. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1523-1530
• 107 Duits LC, Phoa KN, Curvers WL. 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: 700-706
• 108 Qumseya BJ, Wani S, Gendy S. et al. Disease progression in Barrett’s low-grade dysplasia with radiofrequency ablation compared with surveillance: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Syst Rev 2017; 112: 849-865
• 109 Duits LC, van der Wel MJ, Cotton CC. 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
• 110 Song KY, Henn AJ, Gravely AA. et al. Persistent confirmed low-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus is a risk factor for progression to high-grade dysplasia and adenocarcinoma in a US Veterans cohort. Dis Esophagus 2020; 33: 1-7
• 111 Desai M, Saligram S, Gupta N. et al. Efficacy and safety outcomes of multimodal endoscopic eradication therapy in Barrett’s esophagus-related neoplasia: a systematic review and pooled analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 482-495
• 112 van Vilsteren FGI, Pouw RE, Seewald S. 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: 765-773
• 113 Phoa KN, van Vilsteren FGI, Weusten BLAM. et al. Radiofrequency ablation vs endoscopic surveillance for patients with Barrett esophagus and low-grade dysplasia. JAMA 2014; 311: 1209-1217
• 114 Pasricha S, Bulsiewicz WJ, Hathorn KE. et al. Durability and predictors of successful radiofrequency ablation for Barrett’s esophagus. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 1840-1847
• 115 Wolfson P, Ho KMA, Wilson A. et al. Endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett’s esophagus–related neoplasia: a final 10-year report from the UK National HALO Radiofrequency Ablation Registry. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 96: 223-233
• 116 Peerally MF, Bhandari P, Ragunath K. et al. Radiofrequency ablation compared with argon plasma coagulation after endoscopic resection of high-grade dysplasia or stage T1 adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus : a randomized pilot study (BRIDE). Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 680-689
• 117 Manner H, Rabenstein T, Pech O. et al. Ablation of residual Barrett’s epithelium after endoscopic resection: a randomized long-term follow- up study of argon plasma coagulation vs. surveillance (APE study). . Endoscopy 2014; 46: 6-12
• 118 Thota PN, Arora Z, Dumot JA. et al. Cryotherapy and radiofrequency ablation for eradication of Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia or intramucosal cancer. Dig Dis Sci 2018; 63: 1311-1319
• 119 Ghorbani S, Tsai FC, Greenwald BD. et al. Safety and efficacy of endoscopic spray cryotherapy for Barrett’s dysplasia: results of the National Cryospray Registry. Dis Esophagus 2016; 29: 241-247
• 120 Shaheen NJ, Greenwald BD, Peery AF. et al. Safety and efficacy of endoscopic spray cryotherapy for Barrett’s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 680-685
• 121 Knabe M, Beyna T, Bergman J. et al. Hybrid APC in combination with resection for the endoscopic treatment of neoplastic Barrett’s esophagus : a prospective , multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2022; 117: 110-119
• 122 Canto MI, Trindade AJ, Abrams J. et al. Multifocal cryoballoon ablation for eradication of Barrett’s esophagus-related neoplasia: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115: 1879-1890
• 123 Shaheen NJ, Sharma P, Overholt BF. et al. Radiofrequency ablation in Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia. NEJM 2009; 360: 2277-2288
• 124 Pouw RE, Klaver E, Phoa KN. et al. Radiofrequency ablation for low-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: long-term outcome of a randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 92: 569-574
• 125 Barret M, Pioche M, Terris B. et al. Endoscopic radiofrequency ablation or surveillance in patients with Barrett’s oesophagus with confirmed grade dysplasia : a multicentre randomised trial. Gut 2021; 70: 1014-1022
• 126 Wronska E, Polkowski M, Orlowska J. et al. Argon plasma coagulation for Barrett’s esophagus with low-grade dysplasia: a randomized trial with long-term follow-up on the impact of power setting and proton pump inhibitor dose. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 123-132
• 127 Cotton CC, Wolf WA, Overholt BF. et al. Late recurrence of Barrett’s esophagus after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia is rare: final report from ablation in intestinal metaplasia containing dysplasia trial. Gastroenterology 2017; 153: 681-688
• 128 Overholt BF, Lightdale CJ, Wang KK. et al. Photodynamic therapy with porfimer sodium for ablation of high-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: international, partially blinded, randomized phase III trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 488-498
• 129 Overholt BF, Wang KK, Burdick JS. et al. Five-year efficacy and safety of photodynamic therapy with Photofrin in Barrett’s high-grade dysplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 66: 460-468
• 130 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: 1245-1255
• 131 Tariq R, Enslin S, Hayat M. et al. Efficacy of cryotherapy as a primary endoscopic ablation modality for dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus and early esophageal neoplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Control 2020; 27: 1-9
• 132 May A, Gossner L, Pech O. et al. Local endoscopic therapy for intraepithelial high-grade neoplasia and early adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s oesophagus: acute-phase and intermediate results of a new treatment approach. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002; 14: 1085-1091
• 133 Pech O, Behrens A, May A. 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: 1200-1206
• 134 Manner H, May A, Miehlke S. et al. Ablation of nonneoplastic Barrett’s mucosa using argon plasma coagulation with concomitant esomeprazole therapy (APBANEX): a prospective multicenter evaluation. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 1762-1769
• 135 Phoa KN, Pouw RE, Bisschops R. et al. Multimodality endoscopic eradication for neoplastic Barrett oesophagus: results of an European multicentre study (EURO-II). Gut 2016; 65: 555-562
• 136 van Munster SN, Nieuwenhuis EA, Weusten BLAM. et al. Endoscopic resection without subsequent ablation therapy for early Barrett’s neoplasia: endoscopic findings and long-term mortality. J Gastrointest Surg 2021; 25: 67-76
• 137 Pimentel-Nunes P, Libânio D, Bastiaansen BAJ. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial gastrointestinal lesions: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2022. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 591-622
• 138 Pech O, May A, Manner H. et al. Long-term efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection for patients with mucosal adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Gastroenterology 2014; 146: 652-660
• 139 Bennett C, Green S, DeCaestecker J. et al. Surgery versus radical endotherapies for early high-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s oesophagus. Cochrane Libr 2020; 5: CD007334
• 140 Wu J, Pan YM, Wang TT. et al. Endotherapy versus surgery for early neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 233-241
• 141 Manner H, May A, Pech O. et al. Early Barrett’s carcinoma with “low-risk” submucosal invasion: long-term results of endoscopic resection with a curative intent. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 2589-2597
• 142 Manner H, Pech O, Heldmann Y. et al. Efficacy, safety, and long-term results of endoscopic treatment for early stage adenocarcinoma of the esophagus with low-risk sm1 invasion. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 2013; 11: 630-635
• 143 Manner H, Pech O, Heldmann Y. et al. The frequency of lymph node metastasis in early-stage adenocarcinoma of the esophagus with incipient submucosal invasion (pT1b sm1) depending on histological risk patterns. Surg Endosc 2015; 29: 1888-1896
• 144 Schölvinck D, Künzli H, Meijer S. et al. Management of patients with T1b esophageal adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study on patient management and risk of metastatic disease. Surg Endosc 2016; 30: 4102-4113
• 145 Saunders JH, Al-zubaidi S, Waller RC. et al. The management and long-term outcomes of endoscopic and surgical treatment of early esophageal adenocarcinoma. Dis Esophagus 2020; 33: 1-10
• 146 Nieuwenhuis EA, van Munster SN, Meijer SL. et al. Analysis of metastases rates during follow-up after endoscopic resection of early “high-risk” esophageal adenocarcinoma Short. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 96: 237-247
• 147 Wang W, Chen D, Sang Y. et al. Endoscopic resection versus esophagectomy for patients with small-sized T1N0 esophageal cancer: A propensity-matched study. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 2021; 45: 101543
• 148 Boys JA, Worrell SG, Chandrasoma P. et al. Can the risk of lymph node metastases be gauged in endoscopically resected submucosal esophageal adenocarcinomas? a multi-center study. . J Gastrointest Surg 2016; 20: 6-12
• 149 Oetzmann von Sochaczewski C, Haist T, Pauthner M. et al. Infiltration depth is the most relevant risk factor for overall metastases in early esophageal adenocarcinoma. World J Surg 2020; 44: 1192-1199
• 150 Manner H, Wetzka J, May A. et al. Early-stage adenocarcinoma of the esophagus with mid to deep submucosal invasion (pT1b sm2-3): the frequency of lymph-node metastasis depends on macroscopic and histological risk patterns. Dis Esophagus 2017; 30: 1-11
• 151 Künzli HT, Belghazi K, Pouw RE. et al. Endoscopic management and follow-up of patients with a submucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2018; 6: 669-677
• 152 Gotink AW, van de Ven SEM, ten Kate FJC. et al. Individual risk calculator to predict lymph node metastases in patients with submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma: A multicenter cohort study. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 109-117
• 153 Chan MW, Nieuwenhuis E, Jansen M. et al. Endoscopic follow-up of radically resected submucosal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus: interim results of an ongoing prospective, International, multicenter cohort registry (PREFER trial). Gastrointest Endosc 2023; 97: AB967
• 154 Lugli A, Zlobec I, Berger MD. et al. Tumour budding in solid cancers. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2021; 18: 101-115
• 155 Thies S, Guldener L, Slotta-huspenina J. et al. Impact of peritumoral and intratumoral budding in esophageal adenocarcinomas. Hum Pathol 2016; 52: 1-8
• 156 Lohneis P, Rohmann J, Gebauer F. et al. International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference criteria determine the prognosis of oesophageal adenocarcinoma with poor response to neoadjuvant treatment. Pathol Res Pract 2022; 232: 153844
• 157 Dhingra S, Bahdi F, May SB. et al. Clinicopathologic correlations of superficial esophageal adenocarcinoma in endoscopic submucosal dissection specimens. Diagn Pathol 2021; 16: 111
• 158 Lohneis P, Hieggelke L, Gebauer F. et al. Tumor budding assessed according to the criteria of the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference determines prognosis in resected esophageal adenocarcinoma. Virchows Arch 2021; 478: 393-400
• 159 Landau MS, Hastings SM, Foxwell TJ. et al. Tumor budding is associated with an increased risk of lymph node metastasis and poor prognosis in superficial esophageal adenocarcinoma. Mod Pathol 2014; 27: 1578-1589
• 160 Brown M, Sillah K, Griffiths EA. et al. Tumour budding and a low host inflammatory response are associated with a poor prognosis in oesophageal and gastro-oesophageal junction cancers. Histopathology 2010; 56: 893-899
• 161 Sharma P, Wani S, Weston AP. et al. A randomised controlled trial of ablation of Barrett’s oesophagus with multipolar electrocoagulation versus argon plasma coagulation in combination with acid suppression: Long term results. Gut 2006; 55: 1233-1239
• 162 Kobayashi R, Calo NC, Marcon N. et al. Predictors of recurrence of dysplasia or cancer in patients with dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus following complete eradication of dysplasia: a single-center retrospective cohort study. Surg Endosc 2022; 36: 5041-5048
• 163 Basu KK, Pick B, Bale R. et al. Efficacy and one year follow up of argon plasma coagulation therapy for ablation of Barrett’s oesophagus: Factors determining persistence and recurrence of Barrett’s epithelium. Gut 2002; 51: 776-780
• 164 Gupta M, Iyer PG, Lutzke L. 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
• 165 Phoa KN, Pouw RE, van Vilsteren FGI. et al. Remission of Barrett’s esophagus with early neoplasia 5 years after radiofrequency ablation with endoscopic resection: A Netherlands cohort study. Gastroenterology 2013; 145: 96-104
• 166 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: 626-632
• 167 Dulai PS, Pohl H, Levenick JM. et al. Radiofrequency ablation for long- and ultralong-segment Barrett’s esophagus: A comparative long-term follow-up study. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 534-541
• 168 Komanduri S, Kahrilas PJ, Krishnan K. et al. Recurrence of Barrett’s esophagus is rare following endoscopic eradication therapy coupled with effective reflux control. Am J Gastroenterol 2017; 112: 556-566
• 169 Guarner-Argente C, Buoncristiano T, Furth EE. et al. Long-term outcomes of patients with Barrett’s esophagus and high-grade dysplasia or early cancer treated with endoluminal therapies with intention to complete eradication. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 190-199
• 170 van Munster S, Nieuwenhuis E, Weusten BLAM. et al. Long-term outcomes after endoscopic treatment for Barrett’s neoplasia with radiofrequency ablation ± endoscopic resection: Results from the national Dutch database in a 10-year period. Gut 2022; 71: 265-276
• 171 Konda VJA, Gonzalez Haba Ruiz M, Koons A. et al. Complete endoscopic mucosal resection is effective and durable treatment for Barrett’s-associated neoplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 2002-2010.e2
• 172 Fleischer DE, Overholt BF, Sharma VK. et al. Endoscopic radiofrequency ablation for Barretts esophagus: 5-year outcomes from a prospective multicenter trial. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 781-789
• 173 Madisch A, Miehlke S, Bayerdoerffer E. et al. Long-term follow-up after complete ablation of Barrett’s esophagus with argon plasma coagulation. World J Gastroenterol 2005; 11: 1182-1186
• 174 O’Connell K, Velanovich V. Effects of Nissen fundoplication on endoscopic endoluminal radiofrequency ablation of Barrett’s esophagus. Surg Endosc 2011; 25: 830-834
• 175 Wani S, Han S, Kushnir V. et al. Recurrence is rare following complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus and peaks at 18 months. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 18: 2609-2617
• 176 Omar M, Thaker AM, Wani S. et al. Anatomic location of Barrett’s esophagus recurrence after endoscopic eradication therapy: development of a simplified surveillance biopsy strategy. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 395-403
• 177 Pouw RE, Visser M, Odze RD. et al. Pseudo-buried Barrett’s post radiofrequency ablation for Barrett’s esophagus, with or without prior endoscopic resection. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 105-109
• 178 Frederiks CN, van Munster SN, Nieuwenhuis EA. et al. Clinical relevance of random biopsies from the esophagogastric junction after complete eradication of Barrett’s esophagus is low. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 21: 2260-2269.e9
• 179 Guthikonda A, Cotton CC, Madanick RD. 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
• 180 Solfisburg QS, Sami SS, Gabre J. et al. Clinical significance of recurrent gastroesophageal junction intestinal metaplasia after endoscopic eradication of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93: 1250-1257
• 181 Cotton CC, Haidry R, Thrift AP. et al. Development of evidence-based surveillance intervals after radiofrequency ablation of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2018; 155: 316-326
• 182 Hassan C, Ponchon T, Bisschops R. et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Publications Policy – Update 2020. Endoscopy 2020; 52: 123-126