Development of Evidence Based Surveillance Intervals following Radiofrequency Ablation of Barrett's Esophagus

• Main Authors: Cotton, CC, Haidry, R, Thrift, AP, Lovat, L, Shaheen, NJ
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 13.04.2018
• Subjects: esophageal cancer; LGD; NDBE; risk of progression

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Barrett's esophagus (BE) recurs in 25% or more of patients treated successfully with radiofrequency ablation (RFA), so surveillance endoscopy is recommended after complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CEIM). The frequency of surveillance is informed only by expert opinion. We aimed to model the incidence of neoplastic recurrence, validate the model in an independent cohort, and propose evidence-based surveillance intervals. METHODS: We collected data from the United States Radiofrequency Ablation Registry (US RFA, 2004-2013) and the United Kingdom National Halo Registry (UK NHR, 2007-2015) to build and validate models to predict the incidence of neoplasia recurrence following initially successful RFA. We developed 3 categories of risk and modeled intervals to yield 0.1% risk of recurrence with invasive adenocarcinoma. We fit Cox proportional hazards models assessing discrimination by C statistic and 95% confidence limits (CL). RESULTS: The incidence of neoplastic recurrence was associated with most severe histologic grade prior to CEIM, age, endoscopic mucosal resection, sex, and baseline BE segment length. In multivariate analysis, a model based solely on most severe pre-CEIM histology predictied neoplastic recurrence with a C statistic 0.892 (95% CL, 0.863-0.921) in the US RFA registry. This model also performed well when we used data from the UK NHR. Our model divided patients into 3 risk groups based on baseline histologic grade: non-dysplastic BE or indefinite-for-dysplasia, low-grade dysplasia, and high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal adenocarcinoma. For patients with low-grade dysplasia, we propose surveillance endoscopy at 1 and 3 years after CEIM; for patients with high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal adenocarcinoma we propose surveillance endoscopy at 0.25, 0.5, and 1 year after CEIM, then annually. CONCLUSION: In analyses of data from the US RFA and UK NHR for BE, a much-attenuated schedule of surveillance endoscopy would provide protection from invasive adenocarcinoma. Adherence to the recommended surveillance intervals could decrease the number of endoscopies performed yet identify unresectable cancers at rates less than 1/1000 endoscopies.