You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

Oesophagus
Original article
The incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma in non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus: a meta-analysis
  1. Tusar K Desai1,
  2. Kumar Krishnan2,
  3. Niharika Samala1,
  4. Jashanpreet Singh1,
  5. John Cluley2,
  6. Subaiah Perla3,
  7. Colin W Howden2
  1. 1Department of internal medicine, William Beaumont Hospital, Royal Oak, Michigan, USA
  2. 2Department of internal medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA
  3. 3Department of mathematics and statistics, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Tusar K Desai, 3535 W. 13 Mile Road, Suite 202, Royal Oak, MI 48073, USA; tusardesai{at}aol.com

Abstract

Introduction The risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) in non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus (BO) may have been overestimated. The objective was to estimate the incidence of OAC in patients with BO without dysplasia.

Methods The authors searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1966 to 2011 and performed a bibliographic review of previous publications, excluding abstracts, non-peer-reviewed publications and those not published in English, for prospective or retrospective studies of the incidence of OAC in patients with BO. They excluded patients with any degree of dysplasia at baseline and those without documented intestinal metaplasia. Studies were independently reviewed by two individuals. 57 of 3450 studies were included. The authors extracted information on number of patients with BO, length of follow-up, incident cases of OAC, mean age of patients, country of origin, whether prospective or retrospective, mean length of BO segments and mortality from causes other than OAC. Study quality was assessed by the Ottawa Newcastle criteria.

Results The 57 included studies comprised 11 434 patients and 58 547 patient-years of follow-up. The pooled annual incidence of OAC was 0.33% (95% CI 0.28% to 0.38%). Among 16 studies that provided appropriate information on mortality, there were 56 incident cases of OAC but 684 deaths from apparently unrelated causes. Among 16 studies that provided information on patients with short-segment BO, the annual incidence of OAC was only 0.19%.

Conclusions The incidence of OAC in non-dysplastic BO is around 1 per 300 patients per year. The incidence of OAC in short-segment BO is under 1 per 500 patients per year.

  • Barrett's oesophagus
  • oesophageal adenocarcinoma
  • incidence
  • meta-analysis
  • Barrett's carcinoma
  • oesophageal cancer
  • gastroesophageal reflux disease
  • Helicobacter pylori–treatment
  • duodenal ulcer
  • proton pump inhibition

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300730

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.

    Significance of this study

    What is already known about this subject?

    • The annual incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) in Barrett's oesophagus (BO) has been reported to be 0.5%.

    What are the new findings?

    • Having eliminated duplicate and redundant studies and confined analysis to patients without baseline dysplasia, the authors estimate an annual incidence of OAC in non-dysplastic BO of 0.33%.

    • Among patients with non-dysplastic short segment BO, the authors estimate the annual incidence of OAC to be 0.19%.

    • During surveillance, patients with non-dysplastic BO may be at least 10 times more likely to die from an unrelated cause than to develop OAC.

    How might it impact clinical practice?

    • Surveillance strategies for patients with non-dysplastic BO, particularly those with short segments, may need to be reconsidered.

    Introduction

    Barrett's oesophagus (BO) is the major risk factor for the development of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), which is rapidly increasing in incidence in North America and Europe. In the USA, the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Gastroenterological Association currently advise surveillance endoscopy for patients with BO.1 2 The annual incidence of OAC in patients with BO is widely estimated to be around 0.5%1—or 1 in 200 patients per year. This estimate dates back to a meta-analysis from 2000,3 which also highlighted the problem of publication bias in the reporting of studies of OAC incidence in BO. Prior to 2000, the incidence of OAC in BO had been widely assumed to be higher. However, that analysis did not account for the presence of baseline dysplasia, which is an intermediate stage in the development of OAC. Furthermore, many of the included studies were published in 1991 or before. Patients in these studies are unlikely to have been treated for prolonged periods with proton pump inhibitors, which may have reduced the risk of progression to OAC.4 Furthermore, the entity of short-segment BO (SSBO) was only identified in 1994.5 Consequently, studies before then would likely have included only patients with long-segment BO (LSBO); this may, therefore, have led to an overestimate of the risk of OAC. Therefore, at least some of these studies may not be relevant to contemporary practice; patients with BO now almost routinely receive long-term proton pump inhibitor treatment, and SSBO is a widely recognised clinical entity. In an editorial in 2000, Spechler noted that the estimate of 0.5% annual incidence of OAC did not concur with the clinical experience of practicing gastroenterologists, at least in the USA.6 Aside from the impact of publication bias, Spechler noted that published studies often emanated from tertiary care centres and suggested that such data might not be generalisable.

    Three subsequent meta-analyses have specifically attempted to address the incidence of OAC in BO.7–9 Wani et al7 and Sikkema et al8 each reported an annual incidence of OAC of around 0.6% but included some patients with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) at baseline. Yousef et al9 estimated the risk of OAC to be 0.41% annually when patients with early incident cancers and baseline high-grade dysplasia (HGD) were excluded, although they also included some patients with baseline LGD. The meta-analyses by Wani et al7 and Sikkema et al8 did not provide a specific estimate of OAC incidence for patients with SSBO. The risk of OAC in SSBO and LSBO may not necessarily be the same, and it may not be appropriate to combine patients with SSBO and those with LSBO in studies evaluating the incidence of OAC. Yousef et al9 estimated the risk of OAC in SSBO to be 0.61% based on a subgroup analysis of six studies but did not account for baseline dysplasia.

    In order to obtain a current, accurate estimate of the risk of OAC in patients with BO who were free of dysplasia at baseline, we performed an updated meta-analysis of observational studies.

    Methods

    We initially conducted a computerised literature search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 1996 until December 2009 for prospective or retrospective studies that reported the incidence of OAC among patients with BO. The search string and keywords used were ‘Barrett's oesophagus, Barrett's metaplasia, Barrett's epithelium, columnar-lined oesophagus, specialised intestinal epithelium’ and ‘esophageal adenocarcinoma, esophageal cancer, esophageal neoplasm, or dysplasia’. The search was undertaken by two individuals (TKD and KK) independently. Using the same search criteria, we updated our search in May 2011 to include studies published between January 2010 and May 2011. This strategy was supplemented by a search of the citations from previous meta-analyses.7–9 Studies published only in abstract form were not included. We defined BO as the presence of intestinal metaplasia (IM) in the distal oesophagus; we excluded patients who were specified in the articles as having gastric metaplasia but no documented IM in the distal oesophagus. Information was extracted on numbers of patients with BO included, mean age of patients, length of follow-up, number of patient-years of follow-up and incidence of OAC. Articles were scrutinised for information on the presence of any dysplasia among patients at baseline. We excluded from analysis all patients who had evidence of LGD or HGD or who had biopsies graded as ‘indefinite’ for dysplasia, as specified in the individual articles. Those articles that did not provide clear and specific information on the follow-up of patients with and without dysplasia were excluded as having ‘not distinguished dysplasia’. Where available, information was also extracted concerning deaths during follow-up from causes unrelated to OAC and on patients receiving surgical treatment for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and/or BO. We excluded as ‘prevalent’ all cases of OAC that were diagnosed within 1 year of commencing surveillance. Articles were scrutinised for specific data on patients with SSBO. If provided, these data were included in a separate preplanned subgroup analysis. We defined SSBO as BO with a maximum segment length of 3 cm. Incident cases of OAC in BO segments of up to 3 cm were considered to have arisen within SSBO. Any discrepancies between the findings of the two reviewers were resolved by consensus. We excluded any redundant studies that were earlier reports of subsequent series.

    The incidence of OAC was calculated by dividing the number of incident cases of OAC by the number of patient-years of follow-up among patients with non-dysplastic BO (NDBO). The mortality rate from unrelated causes was calculated by dividing the number of patients who died of a cause other than OAC by the number of patient-years of follow-up among patients with NDBO. Study authors were contacted to clarify details when necessary. When directed in the manuscript, the journal website was visited for additional data not included in the original manuscript.

    Since all of the studies included were observational in nature, quality was assessed using the Ottawa Newcastle criteria of Wells et al.10 Specifically, three factors were considered indicators of good study quality as described by Yousef et al.9 These were a study size of >500 patient-years follow-up, the use of strict criteria for the definition of BO based on a clinically visible segment of columnar-appearing mucosa and histologically confirmed IM, and low selection bias. Selection bias was considered to be present if <70% of the total inception cohort was followed. With respect to study size, a minimum of 5 years follow-up was required to define a high-quality study. We performed a post hoc subset analysis of only the high-quality studies.

    Statistics

    We performed a meta-analysis of included studies using StatsDirect version 2.7.8 (Altrincham, Cheshire, UK). We assessed for heterogeneity using the Cochran Q and I2 statistics.11 We defined heterogeneity a priori as statistically significant if the p value for the Cochran Q statistic was 0.10 or below. Where no statistically significant heterogeneity was detected, we planned to use a fixed-effect model. If statistically significant heterogeneity was found, we planned to use a random-effects model. We assessed for publication bias using Egger's test and by visual inspection of funnel plots.12 A p value of 0.10 or below on Egger's test was considered to indicate risk of publication bias or evidence of a ‘small studies effect’. When the counts of OAC were zero, a correction of 0.5 was added to the number of incident cases of OAC and person-years of follow-up, prior to calculation, as previously described.13

    We performed secondary or post hoc analyses confined to studies that reported mortality rates from causes unrelated to OAC, studies that had excluded patients treated surgically for GORD and/or BO and studies considered to be of the highest quality.

    Results

    Figure 1 is a flow diagram of our search strategy and results. Our initial and updated searches together identified 3450 citations. After exclusion of abstracts and non-peer-reviewed articles, 100 studies were initially identified; 18 redundant or duplicate studies were subsequently excluded.14–31 Twenty-four studies were excluded because they did not account for baseline dysplasia.30 32–54 One study that was limited to patients with ulcerated BO was excluded because such patients likely represent a high-risk group and their natural history should not be extrapolated to the general population of patients with NDBO.55 Therefore, we included 57 studies in the meta-analysis.4 56–111 Summary data are given in table 1.

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Search strategy for identifying studies to be included in the meta-analysis.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Details of the 57 included studies

    Combined, these 57 studies accounted for 11 434 patients with histologically confirmed NDBO and 58 547 patient-years of follow-up. The mean age of patients included in these studies ranged from 44 to 65 years. There were 186 incident cases of OAC documented during follow-up. Since there was no statistically significant heterogeneity among these studies (Cochran Q=64.6; p=0.20; I2=13.3%), a fixed-effect model was used for meta-analysis. The pooled incidence of OAC among all 57 studies was 0.33% (95% CI 0.28% to 0.38%). There was no evidence of publication bias (Egger's test, p=0.19).

    Ten studies were considered to be of the highest quality in that they had no evidence of selection bias, more than 5 years of mean follow-up and at least 1 year of minimum follow-up.4 65 66 74 76 79 84 95 110 111 These comprised 3345 patients and 23 984 patient-years of follow-up. There were 77 incident cases of OAC identified. Since there was no statistically significant heterogeneity among these studies (Cochran Q=11.8; p=0.23; I2=23.5%), a fixed-effect model was applied (figure 2). The pooled annual incidence of OAC remained at 0.33% (95% CI 0.26% to 0.40%). There was no evidence of publication bias among these studies (Egger's test, p=0.20). These 10 studies alone accounted for 41% of the total patient-years of follow-up and of the cases of OAC among all 57 studies.

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Forest plot of the post hoc meta-analysis of the 10 studies of highest methodological quality.

    We identified 16 studies that supplied adequate information regarding the incidence of OAC among patients with SSBO, as defined above.18 21 27 57–59 61 62 69 79 82 85 86 95 99 112 Three of these studies18 21 27 were used only for the analysis of OAC incidence in SSBO. These studies were subsequently amalgamated into a larger study31 that is included in our overall analysis. The 16 studies comprised 967 patients and 4456 patient-years of follow-up. There were five incident cases of OAC, including one that arose from a BO segment of 3 cm.61 There was no significant heterogeneity among these studies (Cochran Q=5.74; p=0.98; I2=0%). Using a fixed-effect model, the pooled annual incidence of OAC was 0.19% (95% CI 0.08% to 0.34%) (figure 3). There was no evidence of publication bias (Egger's test, p=0.96).

    Figure 3
    Figure 3

    Forest plot of the planned subgroup analysis of the 16 studies that supplied adequate information on the incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma among patients with documented short segment Barrett's oesophagus.

    After excluding studies that had employed surgical treatment for GORD and/or BO, 37 remained,4 57 61 65–68 70–72 74–76 78–83 89 90 92–98 100 101 105–111 accounting for 6599 patients and 33 549 patient-years of follow-up. There were 128 incident cases of OAC detected. There was statistically significant heterogeneity among these studies (Cochran Q=38.12; p=0.09; I2=26.5%); accordingly, a random-effects model was used. The pooled annual incidence of OAC was 0.41% (95% CI 0.32% to 0.51%). There was evidence of significant publication bias (Egger's test, p=0.06).

    Sixteen studies provided information about mortality during follow-up from causes unrelated to OAC.59 61 65 66 68 70 73 75 76 79 81 92 100 108 110 111 These accounted for 2916 patients and 17 214 patient-years of follow-up. There were 56 incident cases of OAC detected during follow-up and 684 deaths from causes apparently unrelated to OAC. There was no statistically significant heterogeneity among these studies (Cochran Q=15.4; p=0.42; I2=2.9%). Using a fixed-effect model, the pooled annual incidence of OAC was 0.34% (95% CI 0.26% to 0.44%). There was, however, evidence of significant publication bias (Egger's test, p=0.08).

    Discussion

    In this meta-analysis, we have attempted to assess the risk of OAC in patients with BO who were free of dysplasia at the time of entry into a surveillance programme. We believe that this is the first meta-analysis to have focused specifically on OAC incidence among patients with NDBO. A further strength of our approach is that we carefully tried to exclude from analysis any duplicate or redundant studies. Our estimate of 0.33% annual incidence of OAC among patients with NDBO (or approximately 1 case per 300 patients per year) is lower than previously estimated and might affect the results of any cost benefit analysis of surveillance strategies. Furthermore, our pooled estimate is based on studies in which the majority of patients had LSBO. This estimate of OAC incidence of 0.33% annually may not be applicable to all patients with BO; many patients with BO who are currently undergoing endoscopic surveillance, at least in the USA, have SSBO. We estimate that the annual incidence of OAC in SSBO is only 0.19% (or just under 1 case per 500 patients per year). At such a low incidence of OAC, routine surveillance endoscopy among patients with carefully confirmed non-dysplastic SSBO may not be justified.

    Subsequent to our meta-analysis, Bhat et al reported their population-based study from Northern Ireland.113 They included patients with BO with or without IM in the distal oesophagus and reported combined rates of OAC, HGD and gastric cardia cancer. Among the 46% of their patient cohort who had IM of the oesophagus, the combined annual incidence of HGD, OAC and gastric cardia cancer was 0.38%, which is very similar to our estimate of OAC incidence among patients with BO with IM.

    As with any meta-analysis, there are limitations. The included studies varied with respect to numbers of patients followed, duration of follow-up, frequency of endoscopic surveillance, numbers of biopsies taken at endoscopy and overall study quality relating to such items as accounting for patients during follow-up. Regarding overall study quality, our post hoc subset analysis of the 10 studies with the highest overall quality also found a pooled annual incidence of OAC of 0.33%. These 10 studies accounted for 41% of the total patient-years of follow-up and of the cases of OAC in all of the included studies.

    Most of the studies included in our analysis were from countries outside the USA. Furthermore, within the USA, more than half of the total patient-years of follow-up were among patients in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system. However, the Veterans Affairs experience may not be directly applicable to US community practice where so many resources are currently devoted to the surveillance of patients with BO. The remaining US data on OAC incidence in BO were largely derived from tertiary care centres, and these too may not be representative of the community practice setting.6 There is a lack of information concerning the risk of OAC in patients with BO who are not being cared for at academic centres.

    Relatively few patients with SSBO were included in the studies that we examined; overall, they accounted for <10% of the total number of patient-years of follow-up. However, our estimate of the risk of OAC among patients with SSBO is notably lower than the pooled estimate for all patients with BO. Rudolph et al had reported that the incidence of OAC among patients with SSBO is similar to that among patients with LSBO.112 However, six of the seven cancers that developed were in patients with SSBO who had HGD at baseline endoscopy. We specifically excluded from analysis all patients with any degree of dysplasia at baseline.

    Earlier meta-analyses included some patients with BO who had undergone antireflux surgery. Since that has not been shown to reduce the risk of OAC in BO, we included some surgical series in our full analysis. However, when we excluded the surgical series, our estimate of the pooled annual incidence of OAC rose slightly from 0.33% to 0.41%. The significance of this small difference is highly questionable. Any influence of antireflux surgery on the risk of OAC among patients with BO cannot be adequately addressed by this meta-analysis. However, we have not found any evidence to indicate a major beneficial effect of antireflux surgery on OAC risk.

    Patients with BO who undergo endoscopic surveillance have substantial mortality rates from causes unrelated to OAC. This high mortality rate may be due in part to the relatively advanced age and high rates of comorbidity of the population undergoing surveillance and may not apply to younger patients with BO. This must be factored into any cost benefit analysis of surveillance and/or ablation of NDBO.

    In conclusion, our analysis demonstrates a lower incidence of OAC among patients with BO who are free of dysplasia at the start of surveillance than is generally supposed. This is especially true for patients with non-dysplastic SSBO. The utility and cost-effectiveness of surveillance among patients with BO should be re-evaluated, with particular attention paid to SSBO.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Wang KK,
      2. Sampliner RE
      . Updated guidelines 2008 for the diagnosis, surveillance and therapy of Barrett's esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:788–97.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    2. ↵
      1. Spechler SJ,
      2. Sharma P,
      3. Souza RF,
      4. et al
      . American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the management of Barrett's esophagus. Gastroenterology 2011;140:e18–52.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    3. ↵
      1. Shaheen NJ,
      2. Crosby MA,
      3. Bozymski EM,
      4. et al
      . Is there publication bias in the reporting of cancer risk in Barrett's esophagus? Gastroenterology 2000;119:333–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      1. Nguyen DM,
      2. El-Serag HB,
      3. Henderson L,
      4. et al
      . Medication usage and the risk of neoplasia in patients with Barrett's esophagus. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009;7:1299–304.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      1. Spechler SJ,
      2. Zeroogian JM,
      3. Antonioli DA,
      4. et al
      . Prevalence of metaplasia at the gastro-oesophageal junction. Lancet 1994;344:1533–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. Spechler SJ
      . Barrett's esophagus: an overrated cancer risk factor. Gastroenterology 2000;119:587–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    7. ↵
      1. Wani S,
      2. Puli SR,
      3. Shaheen NJ,
      4. et al
      . Esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus after endoscopic ablative therapy: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104:502–13.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    8. ↵
      1. Sikkema M,
      2. de Jonge PJ,
      3. Steyerberg EW,
      4. et al
      . Risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma and mortality in patients with Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;8:235–44.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    9. ↵
      1. Yousef F,
      2. Cardwell C,
      3. Cantwell MM,
      4. et al
      . The incidence of esophageal cancer and high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol 2008;168:237–49.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    10. ↵
      1. Wells GA,
      2. Shea B,
      3. O'connell D,
      4. et al
      . The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality if nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm (accessed Sep 2010).
    11. ↵
      1. Sedgwick P
      . Statistical question: meta-analyses III. BMJ 2011;342:d244.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    12. ↵
      1. Egger M,
      2. Davey Smith G,
      3. Schneider M,
      4. et al
      . Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629–34.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    13. ↵
      1. Sutton AJ,
      2. Abrams KR,
      3. Jones DR,
      4. et al
      . Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. Chichester: Wiley, 2000.
    14. ↵
      1. Achkar E,
      2. Carey W
      . The cost of surveillance for adenocarcinoma complicating Barrett's esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 1988;83:291–4.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    15. ↵
      1. Bartlesman JF,
      2. Hameeteman W,
      3. Tytgat GN
      . Barrett's oesophagus. Eur J Cancer Prev 1992;1:323–5.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    16. ↵
      1. Drewitz DJ,
      2. Sampliner RE,
      3. Garewal HS
      . The incidence of adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus: a prospective study of 170 patients followed 4.8 years. Am J Gastroenterol 1997;92:212–15.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    17. ↵
      1. Ferraris R,
      2. Bonelli L,
      3. Conio M,
      4. et al
      . Incidence of Barrett's adenocarcinoma in an Italian population: an endoscopic surveillance programme. Gruppo Operativo per lo Studio delle Precancerosi Esofagee (GOSPE). Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1997;9:881–5.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    18. ↵
      1. O'Connor JB,
      2. Falk GW,
      3. Richter JE
      . The incidence of adenocarcinoma and dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus: report on the Cleveland Clinic Barrett's Esophagus Registry. Am J Gastroenterol 1999;94:2037–42.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    19. ↵
      1. Ortiz A,
      2. Martinez de Haro LF,
      3. Parrilla P,
      4. et al
      . Conservative treatment versus antireflux surgery in Barrett's oesophagus: long-term results of a prospective study. Br J Surg 1996;83:274–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    20. ↵
      1. Reid BJ,
      2. Blount PL,
      3. Rubin CE,
      4. et al
      . Flow-cytometric and histological progression to malignancy in Barrett's esophagus: prospective endoscopic surveillance of a cohort. Gastroenterology 1992;102:1212–19.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      1. Sharma P,
      2. Weston AP,
      3. Morales T,
      4. et al
      . Relative risk of dysplasia for patients with intestinal metaplasia in the distal oesophagus and in the gastric cardia. Gut 2000;46:9–13.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    22. ↵
      1. van der Burgh A,
      2. Dees J,
      3. Hop WC,
      4. et al
      . Oesophageal cancer is an uncommon cause of death in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. Gut 1996;39:5–8.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    23. ↵
      1. Weston AP,
      2. Krmpotich PT,
      3. Cherian R,
      4. et al
      . Prospective long-term endoscopic and histological follow-up of short segment Barrett's esophagus: comparison with traditional long segment Barrett's esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 1997;92:407–13.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      1. Cooper BT,
      2. Chapman W,
      3. Neumann CS,
      4. et al
      . Continuous treatment of Barrett's oesophagus patients with proton pump inhibitors up to 13 years: observations on regression and cancer incidence. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006;23:727–33.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      1. Robertson CS,
      2. Mayberry JF,
      3. Nicholson DA,
      4. et al
      . Value of endoscopic surveillance in the detection of neoplastic change in Barrett's oesophagus. Br J Surg 1988;75:760–3.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    26. ↵
      1. Williamson WA,
      2. Ellis FH,
      3. Gibb SP,
      4. et al
      . Effect of antireflux operation on Barrett's mucosa. Ann Thorac Surg 1990;49:537–41.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    27. ↵
      1. Schoenfeld P,
      2. Johnston M,
      3. Piorkowski M,
      4. et al
      . Effectiveness and patient satisfaction with nurse-directed treatment of Barrett's esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 1998;93:906–10.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    28. ↵
      1. Cook MB,
      2. Wild CP,
      3. Everett SM,
      4. et al
      . Risk of mortality and cancer incidence in Barrett's esophagus. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16:2090–6.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    29. ↵
      1. Lundell L,
      2. Miettinen P,
      3. Myrvold HE,
      4. et al
      . Long-term management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease with omeprazole or open antireflux surgery: results of a prospective, randomized clinical trial. The Nordic GORD Study Group. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2000;12:879–87.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    30. ↵
      1. Conio M,
      2. Cameron AJ,
      3. Romero Y,
      4. et al
      . Secular trends in the epidemiology and outcome of Barrett's oesophagus in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Gut 2001;48:304–9.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    31. ↵
      1. Sharma P,
      2. Falk GW,
      3. Weston AP,
      4. et al
      . Dysplasia and cancer in a large multicenter cohort of patients with Barrett's esophagus. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;4:566–72.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    32. ↵
      1. Alcedo J,
      2. Ferrandez A,
      3. Arenas J,
      4. et al
      . Trends in Barrett's esophagus diagnosis in Southern Europe: implications for surveillance. Dis Esophagus 2009;22:239–48.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    33. ↵
      1. Aldulaimi DM,
      2. Cox M,
      3. Nwokolo CU,
      4. et al
      . Barrett's surveillance is worthwhile and detects curable cancers. A prospective cohort study addressing cancer incidence, treatment outcome and survival. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005;17:943–50.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    34. ↵
      1. Solaymani-Dodoran M,
      2. Logan RF,
      3. West J,
      4. et al
      . Risk of oesophageal cancer in Barrett's esophagus and gastroesophageal reflux. Gut 2004;53:1070–4.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    35. ↵
      1. Attwood SE,
      2. Barlow AP,
      3. Norris TL,
      4. et al
      . Barrett's oesophagus: effect of antireflux surgery on symptom control and development of complications. Br J Surg 1992;79:1050–3.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    36. ↵
      1. Bani-Hani K,
      2. Sue-Ling H,
      3. Johnston D,
      4. et al
      . Barrett's oesophagus: results from a 13-year surveillance programme. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2000;12:649–54.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    37. ↵
      1. Bright T,
      2. Schloithe A,
      3. Bull JA,
      4. et al
      . Outcome of endoscopy surveillance for Barrett's oesophagus. ANZ J Surg 2009;79:812–16.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    38. ↵
      1. Cameron AJ,
      2. Ott BJ,
      3. Payne WS
      . The incidence of adenocarcinoma in columnar-lined (Barrett's) esophagus. N Engl J Med 1985;313:857–9.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    39. ↵
      1. Fitzgerald RC,
      2. Saeed IT,
      3. Khoo D,
      4. et al
      . Rigorous surveillance protocol increases detection of curable cancers associated with Barrett's esophagus. Dig Dis Sci 2001;46:1892–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    40. ↵
      1. Iftikhar SY,
      2. James PD,
      3. Steele RJ,
      4. et al
      . Length of Barrett's oesophagus: an important factor in the development of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma. Gut 1992;33:1155–8.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    41. ↵
      1. McDonald ML,
      2. Trastek VF,
      3. Allen MS,
      4. et al
      . Barretts's esophagus: does an antireflux procedure reduce the need for endoscopic surveillance? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1996;111:1135–8; discussion 1139–40.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    42. ↵
      1. Moghissi K,
      2. Sharpe DA,
      3. Pender D
      . Adenocarcinoma and Barrett's oesophagus. A clinico-pathological study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1993;7:126–31.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    43. ↵
      1. Olithselvan A,
      2. Gorard DA,
      3. McIntyre AS
      . A surveillance programme for Barrett's oesophagus in a UK general hospital. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;19:305–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    44. ↵
      1. Ovaska J,
      2. Miettinen M,
      3. Kivilaakso E
      . Adenocarcinoma arising in Barrett's esophagus. Dig Dis Sci 1989;34:1336–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    45. ↵
      1. Rana PS,
      2. Johnston DA
      . Incidence of adenocarcinoma and mortality in patients with Barrett's oesophagus diagnosed between 1976 and 1986: implications for endoscopic surveillance. Dis Esophagus 2000;13:28–31.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    46. ↵
      1. Savary M,
      2. Ollyo JB,
      3. Monnier P
      . Frequency and importance of endobrachyesophagus in reflux disease. In: Siewert JR, Holscher AH, eds. Diseases of the esophagus. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1984.
    47. ↵
      1. Spechler SJ,
      2. Lee E,
      3. Ahnen D,
      4. et al
      . Long-term outcome of medical and surgical therapies for gastroesophageal reflux disease: follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001;285:2331–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    48. ↵
      1. Streitz JM Jr.,
      2. Ellis FH Jr.,
      3. Tilden RL,
      4. et al
      . Endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus: a cost-effectiveness comparison with mammographic surveillance for breast cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 1998;93:911–15.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    49. ↵
      1. Watson RG,
      2. Porter KG,
      3. Sloan J
      . Incidence of adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus and an evaluation of endoscopic surveillance. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1991;3:159–62.
      OpenUrlWeb of Science
    50. ↵
      1. Skinner DB
      . The incidence of cancer in Barrett's esophagus varies according to the series. In: Giuli R, McCallum RW, eds. Benign lesions of the esophagus and cancer. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1989.
    51. ↵
      1. Moayyedi P,
      2. Burch N,
      3. Akhtar-Danesh N,
      4. et al
      . Mortality rates in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008;27:316–20.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    52. ↵
      1. Wright TA,
      2. Gray MR,
      3. Morris AI,
      4. et al
      . Cost effectiveness of detecting Barrett's cancer. Gut 1996;39:574–9.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    53. ↵
      1. Roberts KJ,
      2. Harper E,
      3. Alderson D,
      4. et al
      . Long term survival and cost analysis of an annual Barrett's surveillance program. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;22:399–403.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    54. ↵
      1. Abela J,
      2. Going J,
      3. Mackenzie JF,
      4. et al
      . Systematic four quadrant biopsy detects Barrett's dysplasia in more patients than non-systematic biopsy. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:850–5.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    55. ↵
      1. Komorowski RA,
      2. Hogan WJ,
      3. Chausow DD
      . Barrett's ulcer: the clinical significance today. Am J Gastroenterol 1996;91:2310–13.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    56. ↵
      1. Abbas AE,
      2. Deschamps C,
      3. Cassivi SD,
      4. et al
      . Barrett's esophagus: the role of laparoscopic fundoplication. Ann Thorac Surg 2004;77:393–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    57. ↵
      1. Basu KK,
      2. Pick B,
      3. de Caestecker JS
      . Audit of a Barrett's epithelium surveillance database. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004;16:171–5.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    58. ↵
      1. Biertho L,
      2. Dallemagne B,
      3. Dewandre JM,
      4. et al
      . Laparoscopic treatment of Barrett's esophagus: long-term results. Surg Endosc 2007;21:11–15.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    59. ↵
      1. Bowers SP,
      2. Mattar SG,
      3. Smith CD,
      4. et al
      . Clinical and histologic follow-up after antireflux surgery for Barrett's esophagus. J Gastrointest Surg 2002;6:532–8; discussion 539.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    60. ↵
      1. Chen LQ,
      2. Hu CY,
      3. Gaboury L,
      4. et al
      . Proliferative activity in Barrett's esophagus before and after antireflux surgery. Ann Surg 2001;234:172–80.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    61. ↵
      1. Conio M,
      2. Blanchi S,
      3. Lapertosa G,
      4. et al
      . Long-term endoscopic surveillance of patients with Barrett's esophagus. Incidence of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma: a prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:1931–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    62. ↵
      1. Csendes A,
      2. Braghetto I,
      3. Burdiles P,
      4. et al
      . Late results of the surgical treatment of 125 patients with short-segment Barrett esophagus. Arch Surg 2009;144:921–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    63. ↵
      1. DeMeester TR,
      2. Attwood SE,
      3. Smyrk TC,
      4. et al
      . Surgical therapy in Barrett's esophagus. Ann Surg 1990;212:528–40; discussion 540–2.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    64. ↵
      1. Desai KM,
      2. Soper NJ,
      3. Frisella MM,
      4. et al
      . Efficacy of laparoscopic antireflux surgery in patients with Barrett's esophagus. Am J Surg 2003;186:652–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    65. ↵
      1. Dulai GS,
      2. Shekelle PG,
      3. Jensen DM,
      4. et al
      . Dysplasia and risk of further neoplastic progression in a regional Veterans Administration Barrett's cohort. Am J Gastroenterol 2005;100:775–83.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    66. ↵
      1. Eckardt VF,
      2. Kanzler G,
      3. Bernhard G
      . Life expectancy and cancer risk in patients with Barrett's esophagus: a prospective controlled investigation. Am J Med 2001;111:33–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    67. ↵
      1. Gatenby PA,
      2. Ramus JR,
      3. Caygill CP,
      4. et al
      . Treatment modality and risk of development of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma in columnar-lined esophagus. Dis Esophagus 2009;22:133–42.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    68. ↵
      1. Gladman L,
      2. Chapman W,
      3. Iqbal TH,
      4. et al
      . Barrett's oesophagus: an audit of surveillance over a 17-year period. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;18:271–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    69. ↵
      1. Gurski RR,
      2. Peters JH,
      3. Hagen JA,
      4. et al
      . Barrett's esophagus can and does regress after antireflux surgery: a study of prevalence and predictive features. J Am Coll Surg 2003;196:706–12; discussion 712–13.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    70. ↵
      1. Hage M,
      2. Siersema PD,
      3. van Dekken H,
      4. et al
      . Oesophageal cancer incidence and mortality in patients with long-segment Barrett's oesophagus after a mean follow-up of 12.7 years. Scand J Gastroenterol 2004;39:1175–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    71. ↵
      1. Hameeteman W,
      2. Tytgat GN,
      3. Houthoff HJ,
      4. et al
      . Barrett's esophagus: development of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma. Gastroenterology 1989;96:1249–56.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    72. ↵
      1. Hillman LC,
      2. Chiragakis L,
      3. Shadbolt B,
      4. et al
      . Effect of proton pump inhibitors on markers of risk for high-grade dysplasia and oesophageal cancer in Barrett's oesophagus. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008;27:321–6.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    73. ↵
      1. Katz D,
      2. Rothstein R,
      3. Schned A,
      4. et al
      . The development of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma during endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 1998;93:536–41.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    74. ↵
      1. Kelty CJ,
      2. Gough MD,
      3. Van Wyk Q,
      4. et al
      . Barrett's oesophagus: intestinal metaplasia is not essential for cancer risk. Scand J Gastroenterol 2007;42:1271–4.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    75. ↵
      1. Klinkenberg-Knol EC,
      2. Nelis F,
      3. Dent J,
      4. et al
      . Long-term omeprazole treatment in resistant gastroesophageal reflux disease: efficacy, safety, and influence on gastric mucosa. Gastroenterology 2000;118:661–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    76. ↵
      1. Lim CH,
      2. Treanor D,
      3. Dixon MF,
      4. et al
      . Low-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus has a high risk of progression. Endoscopy 2007;39:581–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    77. ↵
      1. Luostarinen ME,
      2. Mattila JJ,
      3. Auvinen OL,
      4. et al
      . Histological improvement of oesophagitis after Nissen fundoplication. Ann Med 1998;30:547–52.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    78. ↵
      1. Malesci A,
      2. Savarino V,
      3. Zentilin P,
      4. et al
      . Partial regression of Barrett's esophagus by long-term therapy with high-dose omeprazole. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;44:700–5.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    79. ↵
      1. Martinek J,
      2. Benes M,
      3. Brandtl P,
      4. et al
      . Low incidence of adenocarcinoma and high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia in patients with Barrett's esophagus: a prospective cohort study. Endoscopy 2008;40:711–16.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    80. ↵
      1. Meining A,
      2. Ott R,
      3. Becker I,
      4. et al
      . The Munich Barrett follow up study: suspicion of Barrett's oesophagus based on either endoscopy or histology only—what is the clinical significance? Gut 2004;53:1402–7.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    81. ↵
      1. Miros M,
      2. Kerlin P,
      3. Walker N
      . Only patients with dysplasia progress to adenocarcinoma in Barrett's oesophagus. Gut 1991;32:1441–6.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    82. ↵
      1. Murphy SJ,
      2. Dickey W,
      3. Hughes D,
      4. et al
      . Surveillance for Barrett's oesophagus: results from a programme in Northern Ireland. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005;17:1029–35.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    83. ↵
      1. Murray L,
      2. Watson P,
      3. Johnston B,
      4. et al
      . Risk of adenocarcinoma in Barrett's oesophagus: population based study. BMJ 2003;327:534–5.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    84. ↵
      1. Oberg S,
      2. Wenner J,
      3. Johansson J,
      4. et al
      . Barrett esophagus: risk factors for progression to dysplasia and adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg 2005;242:49–54.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    85. ↵
      1. Oelschlager BK,
      2. Barreca M,
      3. Chang L,
      4. et al
      . Clinical and pathologic response of Barrett's esophagus to laparoscopic antireflux surgery. Ann Surg 2003;238:458–64; discussion 464–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    86. ↵
      1. O'Riordan JM,
      2. Byrne PJ,
      3. Ravi N,
      4. et al
      . Long-term clinical and pathologic response of Barrett's esophagus after antireflux surgery. Am J Surg 2004;188:27–33.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    87. ↵
      1. Parrilla P,
      2. Martinez de Haro LF,
      3. Ortiz A,
      4. et al
      . Long-term results of a randomized prospective study comparing medical and surgical treatment of Barrett's esophagus. Ann Surg 2003;237:291–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    88. ↵
      1. Patti MG,
      2. Arcerito M,
      3. Feo CV,
      4. et al
      . Barrett's esophagus: a surgical disease. J Gastrointest Surg 1999;3:397–403; discussion 403–4.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    89. ↵
      1. Peters FT,
      2. Ganesh S,
      3. Kuipers EJ,
      4. et al
      . Endoscopic regression of Barrett's oesophagus during omeprazole treatment; a randomised double blind study. Gut 1999;45:489–94.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    90. ↵
      1. Reid BJ,
      2. Levine DS,
      3. Longton G,
      4. et al
      . Predictors of progression to cancer in Barrett's esophagus: baseline histology and flow cytometry identify low- and high-risk patient subsets. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;95:1669–76.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    91. ↵
      1. Sagar PM,
      2. Ackroyd R,
      3. Hosie KB,
      4. et al
      . Regression and progression of Barrett's oesophagus after antireflux surgery. Br J Surg 1995;82:806–10.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    92. ↵
      1. Spechler SJ,
      2. Robbins AH,
      3. Rubins HB,
      4. et al
      . Adenocarcinoma and Barrett's esophagus. An overrated risk? Gastroenterology 1984;87:927–33.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    93. ↵
      1. Switzer-Taylor V,
      2. Schlup M,
      3. Lubcke R,
      4. et al
      . Barrett's esophagus: a retrospective analysis of 13 years surveillance. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;23:1362–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    94. ↵
      1. Teodori L,
      2. Gohde W,
      3. Persiani M,
      4. et al
      . DNA/protein flow cytometry as a predictive marker of malignancy in dysplasia-free Barrett's esophagus: thirteen-year follow-up study on a cohort of patients. Cytometry 1998;34:257–63.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    95. ↵
      1. Vieth M,
      2. Schubert B,
      3. Lang-Schwarz K,
      4. et al
      . Frequency of Barrett's neoplasia after initial negative endoscopy with biopsy: a long-term histopathological follow-up study. Endoscopy 2006;38:1201–5.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    96. ↵
      1. von Rahden BH,
      2. Stein HJ,
      3. Weber A,
      4. et al
      . Critical reappraisal of current surveillance strategies for Barrett's esophagus: analysis of a large German Barrett's database. Dis Esophagus 2008;21:685–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    97. ↵
      1. Wilkinson SP,
      2. Biddlestone L,
      3. Gore S,
      4. et al
      . Regression of columnar-lined (Barrett's) oesophagus with omeprazole 40 mg daily: results of 5 years of continuous therapy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999;13:1205–9.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    98. ↵
      1. Younes M,
      2. Ertan A,
      3. Lechago LV,
      4. et al
      . p53 Protein accumulation is a specific marker of malignant potential in Barrett's metaplasia. Dig Dis Sci 1997;42:697–701.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    99. ↵
      1. Zaninotto G,
      2. Cassaro M,
      3. Pennelli G,
      4. et al
      . Barrett's epithelium after antireflux surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 2005;9:1253–60; discussion 1260–1.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    100. ↵
      1. Musana AK,
      2. Resnick JM,
      3. Torbey CF,
      4. et al
      . Barrett's esophagus: incidence and prevalence estimates in a rural Mid-Western population. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:516–24.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    101. ↵
      1. Hurschler D,
      2. Borovicka J,
      3. Neuweiler J,
      4. et al
      . Increased detection rates of Barrett's oesophagus without rise in incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Swiss Med Wkly 2003;133:507–14.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    102. ↵
      1. Low DE,
      2. Levine DS,
      3. Dail DH,
      4. et al
      . Histological and anatomic changes in Barrett's esophagus after antireflux surgery. Am J Gastroenterol 1999;94:80–5.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    103. ↵
      1. Lundell L,
      2. Miettinen P,
      3. Myrvold HE,
      4. et al
      . Comparison of outcomes twelve years after antireflux surgery or omeprazole maintenance therapy for reflux esophagitis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009;7:1292–8; quiz 1260.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    104. ↵
      1. Csendes A,
      2. Burdiles P,
      3. Braghetto I,
      4. et al
      . Adenocarcinoma appearing very late after antireflux surgery for Barrett's esophagus: long-term follow-up, review of the literature, and addition of six patients. J Gastrointest Surg 2004;8:434–41.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    105. ↵
      1. Srinivasan R,
      2. Katz PO,
      3. Ramakrishnan A,
      4. et al
      . Maximal acid reflux control for Barrett's oesophagus: feasible and effective. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2001;15:519–24.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    106. ↵
      1. Williamson WA,
      2. Ellis FH Jr.,
      3. Gibb SP,
      4. et al
      . Barrett's esophagus. Prevalence and incidence of adenocarcinoma. Arch Intern Med 1991;151:2212–16.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    107. ↵
      1. Ajumobi A,
      2. Bahjri K,
      3. Jackson C,
      4. et al
      . Surveillance in Barrett's esophagus: an audit of practice. Dig Dis Sci 2010;55:1615–21.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    108. ↵
      1. Wong T,
      2. Tian J,
      3. Nagar A
      . Barrett's surveillance identifies patients with early esophageal adenocarcinoma. Am J Med 2010;123:462–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    109. ↵
      1. Wani S,
      2. Falk G,
      3. Hall M,
      4. et al
      . Patients with non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus have low risks for developing dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;9:220–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    110. ↵
      1. Jung KW,
      2. Talley NJ,
      3. Romero Y,
      4. et al
      . Epidemiology and natural history of intestinal metaplasia of the gastroesophageal junction and Barrett's esophagus: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:1447–55; quiz 1456.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    111. ↵
      1. Schouten LJ,
      2. Steevens J,
      3. Huysentruyt CJ,
      4. et al
      . Total cancer incidence and overall mortality are not increased among patients with Barrett's esophagus. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;9:754–61.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    112. ↵
      1. Rudolph RE,
      2. Vaughan TL,
      3. Storer BE,
      4. et al
      . Effect of segment length on risk for neoplastic progression in patients with Barrett esophagus. Ann Intern Med 2000;132:612–20.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    113. ↵
      1. Bhat S,
      2. Coleman HG,
      3. Yousef F,
      4. et al
      . Risk of malignant progression in Barrett's esophagus patients: results from a large population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:1049–57.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Previous presentation: These data were presented in poster form at the annual meeting of the American Gastroenterological Association in Chicago, Illinois, USA, on 7 May 2011.

    • Correction notice This article has been corrected since it was published Online First. The captions of figure 2 and 3 were changed, and the name of the American Gastroenterological Association was corrected.

    • Competing interests Dr Howden: consultant for Takeda, Otsuka, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, Eisai, XenoPort; speaking fees from Takeda, Otsuka, GlaxoSmithKline.

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

    Linked Articles

    • Digest
      Highlights from this issue
      Emad El-Omar William Grady Alexander Gerbes
      Gut 2012; 61 i-ii Published Online First: 17 May 2012. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302847