Sa1531 Endoscopic Surveillance after Complete Eradication of Barrett's Esophagus (BE): Do We Still Need Random Biopsies when There is No Endoscopic Evidence of Barrett's Epithelium?
Jacobo Ortiz Fernández-Sordo,Erika Madrigal,Vani J. Konda,Jennifer S. Chennat,John Hart,Shu-Yuan Xiao,Irving Waxman
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.03.265
IF: 10.396
2011-01-01
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Abstract:Endoscopic surveillance programs have been established to detect early neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus (BE) and during follow-up after endoscopic therapy to identify recurrent or residual lesions. The random biopsy protocol (RBP) is time-consuming, requires a large number of samples, and presents low adherence rates. To assess the yield of the RBP in detecting residual or recurrent lesions in patients under endoscopic surveillance after complete Barrett's eradication (CBE). Prospective review of endoscopic findings from all surveillance EGD's (Jun'10-Nov'10) after endotherapy for intramucosal carcinoma (IMC) or high-grade dysplasia (HGD). High definition white-light (HDE) and NBI exams were performed in all. Biopsy samples were taken at neo squamo-columnar junction (NSCJ) and from the neosquamous epithelium at 1-cm interval throughout the original involved segment. Any residual Barrett's areas were also biopsied. Endoscopic assessment at each sampled site was recorded. All pathology reports were reviewed and the presence of intestinal metaplasia (IM) was recorded. 19 patients (mean age 65.2 years, 89% men, long segment BE 73.7%) in endoscopic follow-up (median 14 months) after complete eradication (EMR=10,EMR+RFA=9) of BE (HGD=10,IMC=9) were included. Endoscopic evidence of residual BE (scattered islands=4,short segment=3) was noted in 7/19. Mucosa from tubular esophagus (TE) was sampled at 104 different sites (median per patient 4, mean 4.5), 86 at endoscopically normal mucosa and 18 at suspected BE. NSCJ was sampled in every patient,residual BE at NSCJ was endoscopically noted in 3/19. 338 specimens (median per patient 17, mean 17.8) were obtained: 248 from TE (normal squamous [NS] 195,suspected BE 53) and 90 from NSCJ (no identified lesions 81,suspected BE 9). At 84 (97.7%) of 86 sites from TE with no endoscopic evidence of BE, biopsies confirmed NS; IM was present only in 2 (1 LGD). No buried glands were reported. Global accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the endoscopic evaluation of TE for detection of residual BE per sampled site were 88% (95% CI,0.80-0.96), 80% (95% CI,0.55-1.01), 89% (95% CI,0.83-0.96), 44% (95% CI,0.21-0.67) and 98% (95% CI,0.94-1.01) respectively, with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.22(95% CI,0.06-0.77). Biopsies at NSCJ revealed IM in 3/3 patients with residual BE (100%) at EGD and in 3/16 (23%) with no endoscopic evidence of BE. Endoscopic absence of IM in the TE of patients in surveillance after CBE is correlated with RB in up to 98% of cases; prediction by endoscopic evaluation was more challenging at the NSCJ. A careful approach with HDE+NBI may be developed in a protocolized setting to replace the RBP in the TE when BE is not endoscopically detected, but it still should be recommended at NSCJ.