The optimal management for low-grade dysplasia(LGD)in Barrett’s esophagus is unclear.In this article the importance of LGD is discussed,including the significant risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma.Endos...The optimal management for low-grade dysplasia(LGD)in Barrett’s esophagus is unclear.In this article the importance of LGD is discussed,including the significant risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma.Endoscopic surveillance is a management option but is plagued by sampling error and issues of suboptimal endoscopy.Furthermore endoscopic surveillance has not been demonstrated to be cost-effective or to reduce cancer mortality.The emergence of endoluminal therapy over the past decade has resulted in a paradigm shift in the management of LGD.Ablative therapy,including radiofrequency ablation,has demonstrated promising results in the management of LGD with regards to safety,cost-effectiveness,durability and reduction in cancer risk.It is,however,vital that a shareddecision making process occurs between the physician and the patient as to the preferred management of LGD.As such the management of LGD should be"individualised."展开更多
AIM To evaluate annual incidence of low grade dysplasia(LGD) progression to high grade dysplasia(HGD) and/or esophageal adenocarcinoma(EAC) when diagnosis was made by two or more expert pathologists.METHODS Studies ev...AIM To evaluate annual incidence of low grade dysplasia(LGD) progression to high grade dysplasia(HGD) and/or esophageal adenocarcinoma(EAC) when diagnosis was made by two or more expert pathologists.METHODS Studies evaluating the progression of LGD to HGD or EAC were included. The diagnosis of LGD must be made by consensus of two or more expert gastrointestinal pathologists. Articles were searched in Medline, Pubmed, and Embase. Pooled proportions were calculated using fixed and random effects model. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS Initial search identified 721 reference articles, of which 53 were selected and reviewed. Twelve studies(n = 971) that met the inclusion criteria were included in this analysis. Among the total original LGD diagnoses in the included studies, only 37.49% reached the consensus LGD diagnosis after review by two or more expert pathologists. Total follow up period was 1532 patient-years. In the pooled consensus LGD patients, the annual incidence rate(AIR) of progression to HGD and or EAC was 10.35%(95%CI: 7.56-13.13) and progression to EAC was 5.18%(95%CI: 3.43-6.92). Among the patients down staged from original LGD diagnosis to No-dysplasia Barrett's esophagus, the AIR of progression to HGD and EAC was 0.65%(95%CI: 0.49-0.80). Among the patients down staged to Indefinite for dysplasia, the AIR of progression to HGD and EAC was 1.42%(95%CI: 1.19-1.65). In patients with consensus HGD diagnosis, the AIR of progression to EAC was 28.63%(95%CI: 13.98-43.27). CONCLUSION When LGD is diagnosed by consensus agreement of two or more expert pathologists, its progression towards malignancy seems to be at least three times the current estimates, however it could be up to 20 times the current estimates. Biopsies of all Barrett's esophagus patients with LGD should be reviewed by two expert gastroenterology pathologists. Follow-up strict surveillance programs should be in place for these patients.展开更多
文摘The optimal management for low-grade dysplasia(LGD)in Barrett’s esophagus is unclear.In this article the importance of LGD is discussed,including the significant risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma.Endoscopic surveillance is a management option but is plagued by sampling error and issues of suboptimal endoscopy.Furthermore endoscopic surveillance has not been demonstrated to be cost-effective or to reduce cancer mortality.The emergence of endoluminal therapy over the past decade has resulted in a paradigm shift in the management of LGD.Ablative therapy,including radiofrequency ablation,has demonstrated promising results in the management of LGD with regards to safety,cost-effectiveness,durability and reduction in cancer risk.It is,however,vital that a shareddecision making process occurs between the physician and the patient as to the preferred management of LGD.As such the management of LGD should be"individualised."
文摘AIM To evaluate annual incidence of low grade dysplasia(LGD) progression to high grade dysplasia(HGD) and/or esophageal adenocarcinoma(EAC) when diagnosis was made by two or more expert pathologists.METHODS Studies evaluating the progression of LGD to HGD or EAC were included. The diagnosis of LGD must be made by consensus of two or more expert gastrointestinal pathologists. Articles were searched in Medline, Pubmed, and Embase. Pooled proportions were calculated using fixed and random effects model. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the I2 statistic. RESULTS Initial search identified 721 reference articles, of which 53 were selected and reviewed. Twelve studies(n = 971) that met the inclusion criteria were included in this analysis. Among the total original LGD diagnoses in the included studies, only 37.49% reached the consensus LGD diagnosis after review by two or more expert pathologists. Total follow up period was 1532 patient-years. In the pooled consensus LGD patients, the annual incidence rate(AIR) of progression to HGD and or EAC was 10.35%(95%CI: 7.56-13.13) and progression to EAC was 5.18%(95%CI: 3.43-6.92). Among the patients down staged from original LGD diagnosis to No-dysplasia Barrett's esophagus, the AIR of progression to HGD and EAC was 0.65%(95%CI: 0.49-0.80). Among the patients down staged to Indefinite for dysplasia, the AIR of progression to HGD and EAC was 1.42%(95%CI: 1.19-1.65). In patients with consensus HGD diagnosis, the AIR of progression to EAC was 28.63%(95%CI: 13.98-43.27). CONCLUSION When LGD is diagnosed by consensus agreement of two or more expert pathologists, its progression towards malignancy seems to be at least three times the current estimates, however it could be up to 20 times the current estimates. Biopsies of all Barrett's esophagus patients with LGD should be reviewed by two expert gastroenterology pathologists. Follow-up strict surveillance programs should be in place for these patients.
