Effects of preceding endoscopic mucosal resection on the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation for treatment of Barrett's esophagus: results from the United States Radiofrequency Ablation Registry.

The effects of preceding endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) on the efficacy and safety of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for treatment of nodular Barrett's esophagus (BE) is poorly understood. Prior studies have been limited to case series from individual tertiary care centers. We report the results of a large, multicenter registry. We assessed the effects of preceding EMR on the efficacy and safety of RFA for nodular BE with advanced neoplasia (high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal carcinoma) using the US RFA Registry, a nationwide study of BE patients treated with RFA at 148 institutions. Safety outcomes included stricture, gastrointestinal bleeding, and hospitalization. Efficacy outcomes included complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CEIM), complete eradication of dysplasia (CED), and number of RFA treatments needed to achieve CEIM. Analyses comparing patients with EMR before RFA to patients undergoing RFA alone were performed with Student's t-test, Chi-square test, logistic regression, and Kaplan-Meier analysis. Four hundred six patients were treated with EMR before RFA for nodular BE, and 857 patients were treated with RFA only for non-nodular BE. The total complication rates were 8.4% in the EMR-before-RFA group and 7.2% in the RFA-only group (P = 0.48). Rates of stricture, bleeding, and hospitalization were not significantly different between patients treated with EMR before RFA and patients treated with RFA alone. CEIM was achieved in 84% of patients treated with EMR before RFA, and 84% of patients treated with RFA only (P = 0.96). CED was achieved in 94% and 92% of patients in EMR-before-RFA and RFA-only group, respectively (P = 0.17). Durability of eradication did not differ between the groups. EMR-before-RFA for nodular BE with advanced neoplasia is effective and safe. The preceding EMR neither diminished the efficacy nor increased complication rate of RFA treatment compared to patients with advanced neoplasia who had RFA with no preceding EMR. Preceding EMR is not associated with poorer outcomes in RFA.

The impact of endoscopic ultrasound findings on clinical decision making in Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia or early esophageal adenocarcinoma.

The clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for staging patients with Barrett's esophagus and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or intramucosal carcinoma (IMC) prior to endoscopic therapy is unclear. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with HGD or IMC referred to an American medical center for endoscopic treatment between 2004 and 2010. All patients had pretreatment staging by EUS. We examined the frequency that EUS findings consistent with advanced disease (tumor invasion into the submucosa, lymph node involvement, or regional metastasis) led to a change in management. The analysis was stratified by nodularity and pre-EUS histology. We identified one hundred thirty-five patients with HGD (n = 106, 79%) or IMC (n = 29, 21%) had staging by EUS (79 non-nodular, 56 nodular). Pathologic lymph nodes or metastases were not found by EUS. There were no endosonographic abnormalities noted in any patient with non-nodular mucosa (0/79). Abnormal EUS findings were present in 8/56 patients (14%) with nodular neoplasia (five IMC, three HGD). Endoscopic mucosal resection was performed in 44 patients with a nodule, with 13% (6/44) having invasive cancer. In nodular neoplasia, the EUS and endoscopic mucosal resection were abnormal in 24% (5/21) and 40% (6/15) of those with IMC and 9% (3/35) and 0% (0/29) of those with HGD, respectively. In this study we found that EUS did not alter management in patients with non-nodular HGD or IMC. Because the diagnostic utility of EUS in subjects with non-nodular Barrett's esophagus is low, the value of performing endoscopic mucosal resection in this setting is questionable. For patients with nodular neoplasia, resection of the nodule with histological examination had greater utility than staging by EUS.

Administrative coding is specific, but not sensitive, for identifying eosinophilic esophagitis.

The use of administrative databases to conduct population-based studies of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in the United States is limited because it is unknown whether the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) code for EoE, 530.13, accurately identifies those who truly have the disease. The aim of this retrospective study was to validate the ICD-9 code for identifying cases of EoE in administrative data. Confirmed cases of EoE as per consensus guidelines (symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and ≥15 eosinophils per high-power field on biopsy after 8 weeks of twice daily proton pump inhibitor therapy) were identified in the University of North Carolina (UNC) EoE Clinicopathologic Database from 2008 to 2010; 2008 was the first year in which the 530.13 code was approved. Using the Carolina Data Warehouse, the administrative database for patients seen in the UNC system, all diagnostic and procedure codes were obtained for these cases. Then, with the EoE cases as the reference standard, we re-queried the Carolina Data Warehouse over the same time frame for all patients seen in the system (n=308,372) and calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the ICD-9 code 530.13 as a case definition of EoE. To attempt to refine the case definition, we added procedural codes in an iterative fashion to optimize sensitivity and specificity, and restricted our analysis to privately insured patients. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis with 2011 data to identify trends in the operating parameters of the code. We identified 226 cases of EoE at UNC to serve as the reference standard. The ICD-9 code 530.13 yielded a sensitivity of 37% (83/226; 95% confidence interval: 31-43%) and specificity of 99% (308,111/308,146; 95% confidence interval: 98-100%). These operating parameters were not substantially altered if the case definition required a procedure code for endoscopy or if cases were limited to those with commercial insurance. However, in 2011, the sensitivity of the code had increased to 61%, while the specificity remained at 99%. The ICD-9 code for EoE, 530.13, had excellent specificity for identifying cases of EoE in administrative data, although this high specificity was achieved at an academic center. Additionally, the sensitivity of the code appears to be increasing over time, and the threshold at which it will stabilize is not known. While use of this administrative code will still miss a number of cases, those identified in this manner are highly likely to have the disease.

Eosinophilic infiltration of the esophagus following endoscopic ablation of Barrett's neoplasia.

To assess the incidence of esophageal intra-epithelial eosinophilic infiltration following endoscopic ablation of Barrett's esophagus (BE), a retrospective study of consecutive cases of endoscopic ablation of BE with dysplasia or cancer using radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and spray cryotherapy at two centers in the United States was performed. Post-ablation eosinophilia was defined as ≥ 5 eosinophils per high power field during post-treatment surveillance. Twenty of 122 patients (16%) undergoing ablation developed esophageal eosinophilia after ablation, including 8/77 (10%) treated with RFA and 12/44 (27%) treated with cryotherapy. No patient had clinical or endoscopic findings of or risk factors for eosinophilic esophagitis. Esophageal eosinophilia persisted in 30% over a median of 20.2 months. On multivariate analysis, post-ablation eosinophilia was independently associated with increasing BE segment length (adjusted odds ratio 1.46 for every 2-cm increase, 95% confidence interval 1.24-1.71) and cryotherapy as the ablation modality (adjusted odds ratio 5.23, 95% confidence interval 1.67-16.39). Esophageal eosinophilic infiltration after endoscopic ablation with RFA and cryotherapy is common and is associated with the BE segment length and treatment modality. The clinical significance of post-ablation eosinophilia is unclear.