You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 68, Issue 8
  • Timeline and location of recurrence following successful ablation in Barrett’s oesophagus: an international multicentre study

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Oesophagus
Original article
Timeline and location of recurrence following successful ablation in Barrett’s oesophagus: an international multicentre study
  1. Sarmed S Sami1,
  2. Adharsh Ravindran1,
  3. Allon Kahn2,
  4. Diana Snyder2,
  5. Jose Santiago3,
  6. Jacobo Ortiz-Fernandez-Sordo3,
  7. Wei Keith Tan4,
  8. Ross A Dierkhising5,
  9. Julia E Crook6,
  10. Michael G Heckman6,
  11. Michele L Johnson1,
  12. Ramona Lansing1,
  13. Krish Ragunath3,
  14. Massimiliano di Pietro4,
  15. Herbert Wolfsen7,
  16. Francisco Ramirez2,
  17. David Fleischer2,
  18. Kenneth K Wang1,
  19. Cadman L Leggett1,
  20. David A Katzka1,
  21. Prasad G Iyer1
  1. 1 Barrett’s Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  2. 2 Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
  3. 3 National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre in Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, The University of Nottingham, Queen’s Medical Centre Campus, Nottingham, UK
  4. 4 Hutchison/MRC Research Centre, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust and MRC Cancer Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
  5. 5 Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  6. 6 Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
  7. 7 Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Prasad G Iyer, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA; iyer.prasad{at}mayo.edu

Abstract

Objective Surveillance interval protocols after complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) post radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in Barrett’s oesophagus (BE) are currently empiric and not based on substantial evidence. We aimed to assess the timeline, location and patterns of recurrence following CRIM to inform these guidelines.

Design Data on patients undergoing RFA for BE were obtained from prospectively maintained databases of five (three USA and two UK) tertiary referral centres. RFA was performed until CRIM was confirmed on two consecutive endoscopies.

Results 594 patients achieved CRIM as of 1 May 2017. 151 subjects developed recurrent BE over a median (IQR) follow-up of 2.8 (1.4–4.4) years. There was 19% cumulative recurrence risk of any BE within 2 years and an additional 49% risk over the next 8.6 years. There was no evidence of a clinically meaningful change in the recurrence hazard rate of any BE, dysplastic BE or high-grade dysplasia/cancer over the duration of follow-up, with an estimated 2% (95% CI −7% to 12%) change in recurrence rate of any BE in a doubling of follow-up time. 74% of BE recurrences developed at the gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) (24.1% were dysplastic) and 26% in the tubular oesophagus. The yield of random biopsies from the tubular oesophagus, in the absence of visible lesions, was 1% (BE) and 0.2% (dysplasia).

Conclusions BE recurrence risk following CRIM remained constant over time, suggesting that lengthening of follow-up intervals, at least in the first 5 years after CRIM, may not be advisable. Sampling the GOJ is critical to detecting recurrence. The requirement for random biopsies of the neosquamous epithelium in the absence of visible lesions may need to be re-evaluated.

  • barrett’s oesophagus
  • oesophageal cancer
  • endoscopic procedures

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317513

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors SSS: contributed to the design and coordination of the study, acquisition of data, analysis, interpretation of data, and drafted the manuscript. AR, AK, DS, JS, JO-s, WKT, MGH, MLJ, RL: contributed to the acquisition of data and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. RAD: contributed to the analysis, interpretation of data and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. KKW, CLL, DAK: contributed to the design of the study, interpretation of data and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. KR, MdP, HW, FR, DF: contributed to study supervision, interpretation of data and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content. PGI: contributed to the conception, design and supervision of the study, acquisition of data, analysis, interpretation of data, and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests PGI: research funding from Exact Sciences, C2 Therapeutics and Medtronic; consulting: C2 Therapeutics, CSA Medical and Symple Surgical.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Ethics approval The study was approved by the institutional review boards of the respective centres.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.