Displaying all 4 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Kusano C, Singh R, Lee YY, Soh YSA, Sharma P, Ho KY, et al.
    Dig Endosc, 2022 Nov;34(7):1320-1328.
    PMID: 35475586 DOI: 10.1111/den.14342
    Endoscopic diagnosis of gastroesophageal junction and Barrett's esophagus is essential for surveillance and early detection of esophageal adenocarcinoma and esophagogastric junction cancer. Despite its small size, the gastroesophageal junction has many inherent problems, including marked differences in diagnostic methods for Barrett's esophagus in international guidelines. To define Barrett's esophagus, gastroesophageal junction location should be clarified. Although gastric folds and palisade vessels are landmarks for identifying this junction, they are sometimes difficult to observe due to air entry or reflux esophagitis. The possibility of diagnosing a malignancy associated with Barrett's esophagus <1 cm, identified using palisade vessels, should be re-examined. Nontargeted biopsies of Barrett's esophagus are commonly used to detect intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia, and cancer as described in the Seattle protocol. Barrett's esophagus with intestinal metaplasia has a high risk of becoming cancerous. Furthermore, the frequency of cancer in patients with Barrett's esophagus without intestinal metaplasia is high, and the guidelines differ on whether to include the presence of intestinal metaplasia in the diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus. Use of advanced imaging technologies, including narrow-band imaging with magnifying endoscopy and linked color imaging, is reportedly valid for diagnosing Barrett's esophagus. Furthermore, artificial intelligence has facilitated the diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus through its deep learning and image recognition capabilities. However, it is necessary to first use the endoscopic definition of the gastroesophageal junction, which is common in all countries, and then elucidate the characteristics of Barrett's esophagus in each region, for example, length differences in the risk of carcinogenesis with and without intestinal metaplasia.
  2. Tan PO, Soh AYS, Kusano C, Lee YY, Gotoda T
    Digestion, 2022;103(1):37-44.
    PMID: 34781299 DOI: 10.1159/000519922
    BACKGROUND: Epidemiology data of gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancers in Asia are extremely scarce. It is hardly registered by any cancer registry in the region, and only a few reports are available. Based on existing literature works, the overall trend indicates similar or gradually increasing GEJ cancers in Asia but comparably less than the West. The increasing trend in Asia is likely a result of rising risk factors, especially of gastroesophageal reflux disease and obesity.

    SUMMARY: However, epidemiology data may be misleading due to several contentious diagnostic issues. The diagnostic conundrums are due to inherent complexity of the GEJ as a functional and pathological unit. Challenging diagnostic issues in Asia include the following: nonstandardized landmark of the GEJ, misclassification of Barrett esophagus, targeted versus nontargeted tissue sampling, histopathology disagreement and challenges in screening or surveillance of dysplastic BE and early GEJ cancer. The recent Asian-Pacific survey led by the Asian Barrett Consortium (ABC) has provided useful insights into these contentious issues. A key learning point from these diagnostic limitations is that the awareness of the disease and adherence to existing recommendations or guidelines are poor in the region. Key Messages: Standardization in diagnostic methodology is vital for accurate epidemiology data, and this can only come from better awareness and adherence through educational and international efforts. Last, surveillance strategy may need a paradigm shift from a purely diagnostic approach to a combined targeted surveillance and treatment approach using novel endoscopic techniques.

  3. Kew GS, Soh AYS, Lee YY, Gotoda T, Li YQ, Zhang Y, et al.
    World J Gastrointest Oncol, 2021 Apr 15;13(4):279-294.
    PMID: 33889279 DOI: 10.4251/wjgo.v13.i4.279
    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.

  4. Kitagawa Y, Matsuda S, Gotoda T, Kato K, Wijnhoven B, Lordick F, et al.
    Gastric Cancer, 2024 May;27(3):401-425.
    PMID: 38386238 DOI: 10.1007/s10120-023-01457-3
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator ([email protected])

External Links