Background Guidelines aim to reduce treatment variation and improve quality of care. In the literature there is large variation in the reported rates of adherence to recommendations of surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus (BE). The aim of this systematic review was to identify explanatory parameters determining these differences in adherence rates. Methods Embase, Medline Epub, and Web of Science were searched. Studies reporting adherence in at least one of five domains were selected: general domain, surveillance interval, biopsy protocol, landmark identification, and histopathological information. Adherence was expressed as the proportion of endoscopies or endoscopists being in accordance with guideline recommendations. Variation in adherence was evaluated by 1) meta-regression of adherence rates in random effects meta-analysis to define subgroups, and 2) compiling an overview of the most reported explanatory parameters for (non)adherence. Results 56 studies, including 14 002 BE patients and 4932 endoscopists, were included. Subgroup analysis showed that variation in rates of adherences to surveillance interval recommendations (I 2 = 98 % – 99 %) was explained by difference in country (43 %), by practice type (90 %), and by year of publication (11 %). Variation in adherence to the Seattle protocol was explained by difference in country (14 %). Factors most frequently reported to be associated with better adherence were shorter BE length, salaried employment, surveillance in university hospitals, and dedicated programs. Conclusions This study provides insight into the variability of rates of adherence to BE surveillance recommendations between studies. Better adherence in university hospitals and dedicated programs indicate that persistent alertness of guidelines is important.

Background and Aims: Men are at a higher risk for Barrett’s esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), but little is known about BE progression to dysplasia and EAC in women. We performed a retrospective, multicenter cohort study to assess risk of BE progression to dysplasia and EAC in women compared with men. We also investigated comorbidities, medication use, and endoscopic features that contribute to sex differences in risk of BE progression. Methods: We collected data from large cohort of patients with BE seen at 6 centers in the United States and Europe, followed for a median 5.7 years. We obtained demographic information (age, sex, ethnicity), clinical history (tobacco use, body mass index, comorbidities), endoscopy results (procedure date, BE segment length), and histopathology findings. Neoplasia was graded as low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia (HGD), or EAC. Rates of disease progression between women and men were compared using χ2 analysis and the Student t test. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between sex and disease progression after adjusting for possible confounding variables. Results: Of the total 4263 patients in the cohort, 2145 met the inclusion criteria, including 324 (15%) women. There was a total of 34 (1.6%) incident EACs, with an overall annual incidence of 0.3% (95% confidence interval: 0.2%-0.4%). We found significant differences between women and men in annual incidence rates of EAC (0.05% for women vs. 0.3% in men; P=0.04) and in the combined endpoint of HGD or EAC (0.1% for women vs. 1.1% for men; P<0.001). Female gender was an independent predictor for reduced progression to HGD or EAC when rates of progression were adjusted for body mass index, smoking history, race, use of aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, proton-pump inhibitors, or statins, hypertriglyceridemia, BE length, and histology findings at baseline (hazard ratio: 0.11; 95% confidence interval: 0.03-0.45; P=0.002). Conclusions: In a multicenter study of men versus women with BE, we found a significantly lower risk of disease progression to cancer and HGD in women. The extremely low risk of EAC in women with BE (0.05%/y) indicates that surveillance endoscopy may not be necessary for this subgroup of patients with BE.

Background Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) measurements of residual thickness and residual area have been suggested to correlate with histopathological residual tumor after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) for esophageal cancer. This study assessed the predictive value of EUS-based measurements using tumor thickness and tumor area before nCRT, and residual thickness and residual area 6 and 12 weeks after completion of nCRT for detection of residual disease. Methods This was a substudy of the diagnostic multicenter preSANO trial. The primary end point of the current study was the percentage of tumor regression grade (TRG) 3 – 4 (> 10 % vital tumor cells) residual disease that was detected using EUS-based measurements. Associations of absolute measurements of residual thickness/area and proportional change compared with baseline were evaluated. In the case of a statistically significant association, optimal cut-offs to distinguish TRG3 – 4 residual disease from TRG1 (no vital tumor cells) were determined using Youden’s J index. Results 138 patients were included. Residual thickness and residual area were statistically significantly associated with TRG3 – 4 residual disease 12 weeks after completion of nCRT (odds ratio 1.36, P < 0.01 and 1.64, P = 0.02, respectively). The cut-off for residual thickness was 4.5 mm, which correctly detected 87 % of TRG3 – 4 residual disease and 52 % of TRG1. The cut-off for residual area was 0.92 cm2, which detected 89 % of TRG3 – 4 residual disease and 40 % of TRG1. Conclusions EUS measurements of residual thickness and residual area adequately detected TRG3 – 4 residual disease with a sensitivity of almost 90 % 12 weeks after completion of nCRT. Hence, residual thickness and residual area may aid in the restaging of esophageal cancer after nCRT.

Recommendations in Barrett’s esophagus (BE) guidelines are mainly based on male patients. We aimed to evaluate sex differences in BE patients in (1) probability of and (2) time to neoplastic progression, and (3) differences in the stage distribution of neoplasia. We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study including 868 BE patients. Cox regression modeling and accelerated failure time modeling were used to estimate the sex differences. Neoplastic progression was defined as high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and/or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Among the 639 (74%) males and 229 females that were included (median follow-up 7.1 years), 61 (7.0%) developed HGD/EAC. Neoplastic progression risk was estimated to be twice as high among males (HR 2.26, 95% CI 1.11–4.62) than females. The risk of HGD was found to be higher in males (HR 3.76, 95% CI 1.33–10.6). Time to HGD/EAC (AR 0.52, 95% CI 0.29–0.95) and HGD (AR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19–0.86) was shorter in males. Females had proportionally more EAC than HGD and tended to have higher stages of neoplasia at diagnosis. In conclusion, both the risk of and time to neoplastic progression were higher in males. However, females were proportionally more often diagnosed with (advanced) EAC. We should strive for improved neoplastic risk stratification per individual BE patient, incorporating sex disparities into new prediction models.

No abstract