Dysplasia severity is associated with poor quality of life in patients with Barrett's esophagus referred for endoscopic eradication therapy.

Limited data exist regarding patient-reported outcomes and quality of life (QOL) experienced by patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) referred for endoscopic eradication therapy (EET). Specifically, the impact of grade of dysplasia has not been explored. The purpose of this study is to measure patient-reported symptoms and QOL and identify factors associated with poor QOL in BE patients referred for EET. This was a prospective multicenter study conducted from January 2015 to October 2017, which included patients with BE referred for EET. Participants completed a set of validated questionnaires to measure QOL, symptom severity, and psychosocial factors. The primary outcome was poor QOL defined by a PROMIS score >12. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with poor QOL. In total, 193 patients participated (mean age 64.6 years, BE length 5.5 cm, 82% males, 92% Caucasians) with poor QOL reported in 104 (53.9%) participants. On univariate analysis, patients with poor QOL had lower use of twice daily proton pump inhibitor use (61.5% vs. 86.5%, P = 0.03), shorter disease duration (4.9 vs. 5.9 years, P = 0.04) and progressive increase in grade of dysplasia (high-grade dysplasia: 68.8% vs. 31.3%, esophageal adenocarcinoma: 75.5% vs. 24.5%, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that high-grade dysplasia was independently associated with poor QOL (OR: 5.57, 95% CI: 1.05, 29.5, P = 0.04). In summary, poor QOL is experienced by the majority of patients with BE referred for EET and the degree of dysplasia was independently associated with poor QOL, which emphasizes the need to incorporate patient-centered outcomes when studying treatment of BE-related dysplasia.

The impact of endoscopic ultrasonography with fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) on esophageal cancer staging: a survey of thoracic surgeons and gastroenterologists.

SUMMARY: Accurate staging of esophageal cancer is critical to achieving optimal treatment outcomes. End-oscopic ultrasound with fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has emerged as a valuable tool for locoregional staging. However, it is unclear how different physician specialties perceive the benefit of EUS-FNA for esophageal cancer staging, and thus utilize this modality in clinical practice. A survey regarding utilization of EUS-FNA in esophageal cancer was distributed to 211 thoracic surgeons and 251 EUS-capable gastroenterologists. Seventy-six thoracic surgeons (36%) and 78 gastroenterologists (31%) responded to the survey. Most surgeons (75%) use EUS to stage potentially resectable esophageal cancer 75% of the time. Surgeons using EUS less often are less likely to have access to high-quality EUS services than their peers. Fewer surgeons believe EUS is the most accurate test for T and N-staging (84% and 71%, respectively) as compared with gastroenterologists (97% and 96%, P < 0.01 for both). Most endosonographers (68%) decide whether to dilate a malignant esophageal stricture to complete the staging exam on a case-by-case basis. Surgeons disagree as to whether involvement of celiac lymph nodes should preclude esophagectomy in distal esophageal cancer. While most thoracic surgeons have embraced EUS-FNA as the most accurate locoregional staging modality in esophageal cancer, this attitude is not fully reflected in utilization patterns due to a lack of quality EUS services in some centers. Controversial areas that warrant further study include dilation of malignant strictures to facilitate EUS staging, and the implication of involved celiac lymph nodes on management.

Patient attitudes toward undergoing colonoscopy without sedation.

OBJECTIVE: The vast majority of patients undergoing colonoscopy in the United States are given sedation. There are a number of potential advantages to performing colonoscopy without sedation. We sought to determine the attitude of patients toward unsedated colonoscopy in our three practice settings (a university medical center, a cancer center, and a Veterans Affairs medical center), and to see if there were factors that predicted willingness to try it. METHODS: Four-hundred thirty-four adult patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy completed questionnaires before and after their procedures providing demographic information and assessing willingness to undergo colonoscopy without sedation. Patients were routinely given meperidine and midazolam for their procedures unless they specifically requested that they be unsedated (10 patients). RESULTS: Only 16.9% of our patients were willing to undergo colonoscopy on their preprocedure questionnaire. Willingness increased modestly on the postprocedure questionnaire to 22.6% (p = 0.01). Logistic regression analysis disclosed that male gender, having a college degree, low anxiety based on preprocedure anxiety scales, and lower doses of sedative drugs used during colonoscopy were the best predictors of willingness to undergo colonoscopy without sedation in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Only about a fifth of patients undergoing colonoscopy in our three practice settings expressed a willingness to try colonoscopy unsedated. Male gender, higher levels of education, and low anxiety scores on simple scales of preprocedure anxiety may help to predict willingness. Efforts to substantially increase the frequency of patients willing to undergo colonoscopy without sedation will likely require increased patient counseling and education.

Benefit of intravenous antispasmodic (hyoscyamine sulfate) as premedication for colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether premedication for colonoscopy with intravenous hyoscyamine sulfate (Levsin) was helpful from the standpoint of the colonoscopist and the patient. METHODS: One hundred sixteen adult patients were randomized to receive either 0.5 mg hyoscyamine sulfate intravenous (n = 57) or placebo (n = 59). After administration of study drug, patients were given meperidine and midazolam. Parameters measured included the time required to reach the cecum, total procedure time, and the endoscopist's perception of the adequacy of sedation, difficulty of insertion, and amount of colonic spasm on insertion and withdrawal. Patients were given a postprocedure questionnaire assessing their experience. RESULTS: In patients receiving hyoscyamine, there was a shorter cecal intubation time (median 9.2 vs. 12.9 minutes; p = 0. 01), shorter total colonoscopy time (median 20.5 vs. 25.0 minutes; p = 0.01), better patient sedation (p = 0.02), easier colonic insertion (p = 0.001), and less spasm on insertion (p = 0.01). No difference was found in the amount of spasm during withdrawal or the total dosages of meperidine or midazolam used. Patients receiving hyoscyamine sulfate reported being more comfortable during their procedures ( p < 0.001) and were more willing to repeat colonoscopy in the future (p = 0.0001). The only adverse effect seen during the study was a 27% incidence of sinus tachycardia that occurred in patients receiving hyoscyamine. CONCLUSIONS: Premedication with intravenous hyoscyamine sulfate was beneficial in terms of the time required for cecal intubation, total procedure time, adequacy of sedation, and scales of patient comfort. However, the high frequency of sinus tachycardia seen with the dose used in our study, which was extremely rapid in two patients, indicates the need for further study before the drug can be recommended as a routine premedication for colonoscopy.

Colorectal cancer screening: an overview of available methods and current recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Screening asymptomatic persons for colorectal cancer may decrease the incidence and mortality of this disease. METHODS: The MEDLINE database was used to identify articles addressing the rationale for colorectal cancer screening, methods used and their effectiveness, and current recommendations. RESULTS: Methods of screening for colorectal cancer include flexible sigmoidoscopy, fecal occult blood tests, barium enema, and colonoscopy. The method used and the frequency of screening are determined by assessing an individual's risk of having colorectal cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal cancer is a common malignancy in the United States, is curable when detected at an early stage, and is potentially preventable. The acceptance of colorectal cancer screening by patients and physicians has been suboptimal. while there remains little debate about the potential for screening to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer, debate continues about the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening when applied to the general population.

Plasma selenium in patients with cirrhosis.

Plasma selenium concentration is decreased in patients with cirrhosis and, based on this finding, it has been suggested that patients with cirrhosis are selenium deficient. We measured plasma selenium concentration and the two plasma selenoproteins, glutathione peroxidase (GSHPx-3) and selenoprotein P, in the plasma of patients with cirrhosis of Child classes A, B, and C and in control subjects. Plasma selenium declined in proportion to the severity of the cirrhotic condition, as indicated by the Child class. Selenoprotein P, which originates largely in the liver, declined in a similar manner. Plasma glutathione peroxidase activity increased, and GSHPx-3 originates in the kidney. Selenium in the non-selenoprotein pool, shown by others to be largely selenomethionine in albumin, declined. Thus, although plasma selenium is decreased in patients with cirrhosis, the increase in plasma glutathione peroxidase activity, which occurs in them, suggests that patients with cirrhosis do not have selenium deficiency.

Is routine screening for colorectal cancer justifiable? These gastroenterologists say YES!

While methods of screening for colorectal cancer undoubtedly will be refined and new techniques developed, there is ample evidence to support use of the currently employed protocol: annual fecal occult blood testing and periodic flexible sigmoidoscopy. Aggressive attempts to educate physicians and patients on the importance of such screening are needed. Primary care physicians can play an important role in ensuring patient compliance and reducing the incidence of this serious public health problem.