Background Although shorter lengths of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) have been associated with a lower risk of neoplastic progression, precise estimates have varied, especially for non-dysplastic BE (NDBE) only. Therefore, current US guidelines do not provide specific recommendations on surveillance intervals based on BE length. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature to examine neoplastic progression rates of NDBE based on BE length. Methods PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and Embase were comprehensively searched. Studies reporting progression rates in patients with NDBE and > 1 year of follow-up were included. The number of patients progressing to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and high grade dysplasia (HGD)/EAC in individual studies and the mean follow-up were recorded to derive person-years of follow-up. Pooled rates of progression to EAC and HGD/EAC based on BE length (< 3 cm vs. ≥ 3 cm) were calculated. Results Of the 486 initial studies identified, 10 met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. These included a total of 4097 NDBE patients; 1979 with short-segment BE (SSBE; 10 773 person-years of follow-up) and 2118 with long-segment BE (LSBE; 12 868 person-years). The annual rates of progression to EAC were significantly lower for SSBE compared with LSBE: 0.06 % (95 % confidence interval 0.01 % – 0.10 %) vs. 0.31 % (0.21 % – 0.40 %), respectively; odds ratio (OR) 0.25 (0.11 – 0.56); P < 0.001, as were the rates for the combined endpoint (HGD/EAC): 0.24 % (0.09 % – 0.32 %) vs. 0.76 % (0.43 % – 0.89 %), respectively; OR 0.35 (0.21 – 0.58); P < 0.001. There was no significant heterogeneity among studies. Conclusion The results demonstrate significantly lower rates of neoplastic progression in NDBE patients with SSBE compared with LSBE. BE length can easily be used for risk stratification purposes for NDBE patients undergoing surveillance endoscopy and consideration should be given to tailoring surveillance intervals based on BE length in future US guidelines.

No abstract

We analyzed progression of BE (length ≥1 cm) to HGD or EAC in a large cohort of patients seen at multiple centers and followed for a median 6.4 years. We found a lower annual rate of progression of SSBE to EAC (0.07%/year) than of LSBE (0.25%/year). We propose lengthening current surveillance intervals for patients with SSBE.

SUMMARY Cryotherapy has been used as salvage therapy; however, its efficacy as first line treatment in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia has not been well studied. The aim of this paper was to perform a systematic review to look at the efficacy of cryotherapy as the primary treatment of BE. An electronic database search was performed (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Google Scholar) to search for studies with cryotherapy as the initial primary modality of ablation in patients with BE neoplasia. Studies that included patients with other prior forms of therapy were excluded. The primary outcomes were the pooled rates of complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) and CE of neoplasia (CE-N). Secondary outcomes were recurrence rates of neoplasia and intestinal metaplasia (IM) and adverse events. The statistical software OpenMetaAnalyst was used for analysis with pooled estimates reported as proportions (%) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) with heterogeneity (I2) among studies. The search revealed 6 eligible studies with a total of 282 patients (91.5% male, average age 65.3 years) with 459 person years of follow-up. 69.35% [95% CI (52.1%–86.5%)] of patients achieved CE-IM and 97.9% (95% CI: 95.5%–100%) had CE-N. 7.3% of patients had persistent dysplasia with 4% progressing to cancer. The recurrence rate of neoplasia was 10.4 and that of IM was 19.1 per 100 patient years of follow-up. The overall rate of stricture formation was 4.9%. There are scarce data on the use of cryotherapy as the primary modality for the treatment of BE dysplasia. The published data demonstrate efficacy rates of 69% and 98% for complete eradication of metaplasia and neoplasia, respectively. These results need to be assessed in prospective, comparative trials with other forms of therapy.