BACKGROUND: Barrett's esophagus is a premalignant condition of the esophagus leading to esophageal adenocarcinoma. No consensus exists between the UK and USA concerning the diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus. Although the diagnostic procedure is common, the required findings and diagnostic criteria vary. Both guidelines require endoscopy showing columnar epithelia lining the esophagus, but the US guidelines require the additional finding of intestinal metaplasia on biopsy to confirm diagnosis. Achievement of a consensus is of particular importance due to the established progression from Barrett's esophagus to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Of further importance is the increasing incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma, a condition with poor overall survival, leading to various opinions on the utility of surveillance in patients. DISCUSSION: A review of the vast array of literature revealed that substantial evidence exists in favor of both diagnostic criteria; hence, there is no easy way to identify the "correct" method of diagnosing Barrett's esophagus. USA recommends surveillance of Barrett's esophagus, whereas UK does not advocate it unless dysplasia is present. Surveillance was found to be effective, but this varied as did cost-effectiveness. Further research into diagnostic methods for Barrett's esophagus is needed to address areas of limited understanding, such that agreement can be reached and practice standardized. Surveillance was generally advocated, but with different criteria and time intervals, and new methods are being evaluated.

Diagnosis and Surveillance of Barrett's Esophagus : Addressing the Transatlantic Divide / S. Ghaus, H. Neumann, H. Muhammad, G. Tontini, S. Ishaq. - In: DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES. - ISSN 0163-2116. - 61:8(2016), pp. 2185-2193. [10.1007/s10620-016-4138-x]

Diagnosis and Surveillance of Barrett's Esophagus : Addressing the Transatlantic Divide

G. Tontini;
2016

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Barrett's esophagus is a premalignant condition of the esophagus leading to esophageal adenocarcinoma. No consensus exists between the UK and USA concerning the diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus. Although the diagnostic procedure is common, the required findings and diagnostic criteria vary. Both guidelines require endoscopy showing columnar epithelia lining the esophagus, but the US guidelines require the additional finding of intestinal metaplasia on biopsy to confirm diagnosis. Achievement of a consensus is of particular importance due to the established progression from Barrett's esophagus to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Of further importance is the increasing incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma, a condition with poor overall survival, leading to various opinions on the utility of surveillance in patients. DISCUSSION: A review of the vast array of literature revealed that substantial evidence exists in favor of both diagnostic criteria; hence, there is no easy way to identify the "correct" method of diagnosing Barrett's esophagus. USA recommends surveillance of Barrett's esophagus, whereas UK does not advocate it unless dysplasia is present. Surveillance was found to be effective, but this varied as did cost-effectiveness. Further research into diagnostic methods for Barrett's esophagus is needed to address areas of limited understanding, such that agreement can be reached and practice standardized. Surveillance was generally advocated, but with different criteria and time intervals, and new methods are being evaluated.
Barrett’s esophagus; Diagnosis; Endoscopy; Intestinal metaplasia; Surveillance
Settore MED/12 - Gastroenterologia
2016
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
10.1007_s10620-016-4138-x.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 686.08 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
686.08 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/686923
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
social impact