Affiliations 

  • 1 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medicine Cluster, National University Health System, Singapore 119228, Singapore
  • 2 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, National University Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore 119074, Singapore
  • 3 School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang 11800, Malaysia
  • 4 Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Nihon University School of Medicine, Tokyo 173-8610, Japan
  • 5 Department of Gastroenterology, Laboratory of Translational Gastroenterology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan 250012, Shandong Province, China
  • 6 Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore 119228, Singapore
  • 7 Department of Surgery, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Pokfulam, Hong Kong, China
  • 8 Department of Pathology, SA Pathology, Adelaide 5112, Australia
  • 9 Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei 100, Taiwan
  • 10 Department of Internal Medicine, Fu Jen Catholic University Hospital, Taipei 24352, Taiwan
  • 11 Department of Internal Medicine, University of Medicine and Pharmacy at Hochiminh City, Vietnam, Hochiminh 70000, Viet Nam
  • 12 Department of Gastroenterology, Seth GS Medical College and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Mumbai 400012, India
  • 13 Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
  • 14 Department of Gastroenterology, Lyell McEwin Hospital, University of Adelaide, Adelaide 64128, Australia
  • 15 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Kansas City VA Medical Center, Kansas City, KS 64128, United States
  • 16 Department of Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore 119074, Singapore. [email protected]
World J Gastrointest Oncol, 2021 Apr 15;13(4):279-294.
PMID: 33889279 DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v13.i4.279

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Major societies provide differing guidance on management of Barrett's esophagus (BE), making standardization challenging.

AIM: To evaluate the preferred diagnosis and management practices of BE among Asian endoscopists.

METHODS: Endoscopists from across Asia were invited to participate in an online questionnaire comprising eleven questions regarding diagnosis, surveillance and management of BE.

RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-nine of 1016 (56.0%) respondents completed the survey, with most respondents from Japan (n = 310, 54.5%) and China (n = 129, 22.7%). Overall, the preferred endoscopic landmark of the esophagogastric junction was squamo-columnar junction (42.0%). Distal palisade vessels was preferred in Japan (59.0% vs 10.0%, P < 0.001) while outside Japan, squamo-columnar junction was preferred (59.5% vs 27.4%, P < 0.001). Only 16.3% of respondents used Prague C and M criteria all the time. It was never used by 46.1% of Japanese, whereas 84.2% outside Japan, endoscopists used it to varying extents (P < 0.001). Most Asian endoscopists (70.8%) would survey long-segment BE without dysplasia every two years. Adherence to Seattle protocol was poor with only 6.3% always performing it. 73.2% of Japanese never did it, compared to 19.3% outside Japan (P < 0.001). The most preferred (74.0%) treatment of non-dysplastic BE was proton pump inhibitor only when the patient was symptomatic or had esophagitis. For BE with low-grade dysplasia, 6-monthly surveillance was preferred in 61.9% within Japan vs 47.9% outside Japan (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: Diagnosis and management of BE varied within Asia, with stark contrast between Japan and outside Japan. Most Asian endoscopists chose squamo-columnar junction to be the landmark for esophagogastric junction, which is incorrect. Most also did not consistently use Prague criteria, and Seattle protocol. Lack of standardization, education and research are possible reasons.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.