Recent advances in understanding and preventing oesophageal cancer

James Franklin; Janusz Jankowski

doi:10.12688/f1000research.21971.1

Home Browse Recent advances in understanding and preventing oesophageal cancer

ALL Metrics

-

Views

-

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Review

Recent advances in understanding and preventing oesophageal cancer

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

James Franklin¹, Janusz Jankowski^1-3

PUBLISHED 21 Apr 2020

Author details Author details

¹ Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Department, Kings Mill Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, NG17 4JL, UK
² University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
³ University of Roehampton, London, UK

James Franklin
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Janusz Jankowski
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Oesophageal cancer is a common cancer that continues to have a poor survival. This is largely in part due to its late diagnosis and early metastatic spread. Currently, screening is limited to patients with multiple risk factors via a relatively invasive technique. However, there is a large proportion of patients diagnosed with oesophageal cancer who have not been screened. This has warranted the development of new screening techniques that could be implemented more widely and lead to earlier identification and subsequently improvements in survival rates. This article also explores progress in the surveillance of Barrett’s oesophagus, a pre-malignant condition for the development of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. In recent years, advances in early endoscopic intervention have meant that more patients are considered at an earlier stage for potentially curative treatment.

Keywords

oesophageal cancer, Barrett’s oesophagus, screening, surveillance

Corresponding author: Janusz Jankowski

Competing interests: Janusz Jankowski served as Chief Investigator for the AspECT clinical trial. James Franklin declares that he has no competing interests.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2020 Franklin J and Jankowski J. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Franklin J and Jankowski J. Recent advances in understanding and preventing oesophageal cancer [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2020, 9(F1000 Faculty Rev):276 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.21971.1) First published: 21 Apr 2020, 9(F1000 Faculty Rev):276 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.21971.1) Latest published: 21 Apr 2020, 9(F1000 Faculty Rev):276 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.21971.1)

Introduction

Worldwide, oesophageal cancer is the sixth most common cause of cancer-associated death, with 508,585 deaths reported in 2018¹. Since the early 1990s, incidence rates have increased; however, over the past decade, the incidence rate has stabilised, with currently 9,100 new cases reported in the UK every year, equating to 25 every day². The prognosis remains poor, as diagnosis is often late owing to a lack of early easily identifiable symptoms. The survival rate has tripled over the past 40 years; however, the 10-year survival still remains poor at only 12%².

Oesophageal cancer can be subdivided into two main histological types: adenocarcinoma (OAC), normally affecting the lower third of the oesophagus and often preceded by Barrett’s oesophagus (BO), a recognised pre-malignant condition, and squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), affecting the upper two-thirds of the oesophagus³. The risk factors for OSCC include smoking and alcohol consumption, whereas for OAC, obesity, Caucasian race, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), smoking, poor high-fat diet, and family history are widely recognised risk factors⁴. Historically, OSCC has been the most prevalent subtype; however, particularly in developed countries such as the UK, the USA, and Australia, it has now been superseded by OAC⁵. This is likely a result of the increase in GORD caused by obesity and poor diet, which directly contributes to the development of BO. The relative risk of OAC in BO patients was found to be 11.3⁶; this is comparable to the risk of breast cancer in first-degree relatives with a BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation with breast cancer⁷.

BO is the metaplastic change of the normal squamous oesophageal epithelium to columnar epithelium (see Figure 1). The severity of BO is graded on the presence and degree of dysplasia assessed via histopathological analysis of biopsy samples. The annual cancer risk for non-dysplastic BO is estimated at 0.33%, for low-grade dysplasia (LGD) 0.54%, and for high-grade dysplasia (HGD) 7%⁸.

Figure 1. Development and progression of Barrett’s oesophagus to oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Re-printed from Evans et al., 2016¹⁶ licenced under CC BY-NC 4.0.

Chemoprevention

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are routinely prescribed in patients with BO with a view to reduce acid reflux, a key component in its pathogenesis. A systematic review of observational data showed that a reduction in acid suppression, through the use of PPIs, can reduce the risk of neoplasia⁹. More recently, the chemopreventive properties of aspirin in OAC have also been explored. AspECT, a randomised prospective study, has evaluated the efficacy and safety of aspirin (300–325 mg) with a PPI (esomeprazole 40 mg twice daily or 20 mg daily) in BO patients. High-dose PPIs in combination with aspirin were found to be most beneficial to patient outcomes, including reducing mortality, OAC, and HGD¹⁰. Although concerns have been raised regarding the safety of prescribing aspirin, which has known serious side effects, including major haemorrhage and death, in light of the aggressive nature of OAC, coupled with the often-late presentation and poor survival rates, there is an argument for a strong benefit:risk ratio. The current British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) guidelines do not promote the routine use of aspirin in BO; however, further population-based studies are warranted to explore the potential long-term chemopreventive implications of aspirin.

Screening

Currently, all national and worldwide screening guidelines recommend against general population screening and instead recommend limiting screening to patients with associated risk factors such as male gender, chronic GORD symptoms, >50 years of age, Caucasian ethnicity, obesity, smoking, and family history of BO/OAC. However, the number and severity of these risk factors differ substantially between organisations; as a result, there are variations in the screening of patients depending on where they live, even within a single country. Often those diagnosed with OAC do not have a prior diagnosis of BO¹¹, and more than a third deny a history of symptomatic reflux disease¹². This suggests that there is a need for a larger-scale screening program that is not limited to individuals presenting with GORD symptoms. There is evidence that screening for OAC leads to earlier detection and better outcomes, with the 5-year survival rate increasing from 17 to 74%¹³.

The current gold standard for BO screening is oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (OGD) with associated biopsies following the Seattle protocol^8,14,15. An OGD is a relatively invasive and expensive procedure that is not well tolerated by some patients and is associated with a small risk of complications such as bleeding and perforation, making it an unideal tool for large-scale population-based screening^17,18. For wider-scale screening to be implemented, there is a need for the development of novel strategies capable of early diagnosis of BO and OAC that are minimally invasive and affordable without increasing the burden on endoscopic surveillance programs. Several screening strategies are currently in development.

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) is an endoscopic technique that involves inserting an ultrathin endoscope transnasally with the use of topical anaesthetic. It is well tolerated in patients and has an excellent safety profile^19,20. It has been shown to provide an assessment of the oesophagus of a quality comparable to that of OGD, with a sensitivity and specificity for BO of 98% and 100%, respectively²¹. uTNE can easily be performed in a non-hospital setting, allowing novel mobile screening at a significantly lower cost²². Further benefits of uTNA are a shorter evaluation time and quicker patient recovery of 15 minutes versus 1 hour^23,24.

Cytosponge^TM

Cytosponge^TM is a novel transoral non-endoscopic cell collection device. It comprises a gelatine capsule on a string that is swallowed into the stomach, where it expands to 3 cm in 5–10 minutes. As it is retrieved, it collects cells from the oesophagus lining before being cytologically analysed for the biomarker Trefoil Factor 3 (TFF3), a key component of BO identification²⁵. The largest study to date to investigate the efficacy of the Cytosponge^TM is the BEST2 study, which found a sensitivity of 80% that increased to 87% in patients with ≥3 cm of BO and a specificity of 92%²⁶. It was rated more favourably than OGD by patients, with a high success rate of 91–94% of patients able to swallow the device, most on the first attempt^26,27. Cost effectiveness models have estimated a reduction in screening costs of 38–41% compared to endoscopic screening in patients with GORD symptoms²⁸.

Balloon cytology

Balloon cytology is another non-endoscopic technique capable of obtaining a DNA sample from the distal oesophagus using a specifically designed textured balloon followed by molecular cytology analysis²⁹. Two molecular diagnostic markers for BO (cytosine methylation of CCNA1 and VIM DNA) have been identified and have been reported to detect BO with a sensitivity and specificity greater than 90%^29,30. The device is well tolerated, with 82% able to swallow the device and little or no reported anxiety or pain²⁹. Furthermore, 95% would recommend the procedure to others.

Oesophageal capsule endoscopy

Oesophageal capsule endoscopy (OCE) is a non-invasive microscopic imaging technique requiring the use of a tethered camera encased in a vitamin-sized capsule that is swallowed transorally³¹. It is already commercially available and is widely used for the investigation and diagnosis of various lower gastrointestinal conditions³². It is only recently that its potential use for BO screening has been explored. A pooled sensitivity of 77% and pooled specificity of 86% have been reported by a meta-analysis of nine studies (n = 618)³³. It is safe and well tolerated with a high patient preference score, with 80% preferring OCE to OGD³⁴. However, it has not been found to be more cost effective, and there are concerns over its validity due to lack of biopsy samples with this technique³⁵.

Liquid biopsy

Liquid biopsy involves the identification of DNA-encoded markers that are uniquely expressed or dysregulated in BO via a blood sample. A systematic review of 11 studies identified several microRNAs as promising biomarkers for diagnosing BO³⁶. A recent study reported a sensitivity of 78% and specificity of 86% when identifying four circulating microRNAs³⁷. This technique is in its relative infancy, and further refinement of relevant biomarkers is required before there can be a recommendation for its clinical use.

Exhaled volatile organic compounds

A new technology that is not commonly used in diagnostic medicine is the detection of subtle changes in volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that can occur in altered disease states and can be detected by electronic nose (e-nose) devices from exhaled breath. Distinctive exhaled VOC profiles have been identified that are capable of distinguishing BO from controls³⁸. In a recent study comparing 66 BO patients to 56 controls, the e-nose was able to detect BO with a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 80%³⁹. This is an attractive method of screening, as it is non-invasive, potentially cost effective, and easily implemented in a primary care setting. Further studies are required to validate its use on a larger scale as well as its development for possible identification of dysplasia grade from VOC levels.

Surveillance

BO is classified as the pre-malignant stage of OAC, and the recommended current method of surveillance for patients with diagnosed BO is white light endoscopic surveillance accompanied by quadratic biopsies at 2 cm intervals. The interval of surveillance is dependent on the length of metaplasia because of a positive correlation between length and OAC risk. The arbitrary cut off of 3 cm is considered higher risk and therefore a shorter surveillance period is recommended¹⁵.

The aim of surveillance is to detect cancer at an early, potentially curable stage, crucially before the invasion of the submucosa, which increases the risk of lymph node metastasis⁴⁰. There is debate regarding the benefit of surveillance given the financial and resource burden it brings to gastroenterology departments along with potential complication risks, which many feel do not outweigh its long-term efficacy given the low risk of progression. However, a recent large-scale cohort study (n = 30,000) found that patients diagnosed with OAC during surveillance were detected at an earlier stage, had improved survival, and had a lower cancer-related mortality compared to those diagnosed in a non-surveillance program⁴¹. The eagerly awaited results of the BOSS trial, a RCT comparing two-yearly endoscopic surveillance versus an ‘at need’ endoscopy, aims to shed light on the efficacy of this surveillance method and also its cost effectiveness⁴². This surveillance strategy is time consuming and expensive, and the development of various image enhancement techniques has been proposed to improve its accuracy, reliability, and diagnostic capability. The implementation of these techniques could be potentially revolutionary, with one of the shortcomings of the current strategy being the difficulty in the histopathological analysis of dysplasia, which currently requires the input of two GI pathologists. Although these advanced imaging techniques are not currently commercially available or recommended in clinical guidelines, it has been estimated that they could increase the diagnostic yield for detection of dysplasia and OAC by 35%⁴³. Furthermore, recent promising work in the development of a p53 immunostain could further enhance diagnostic reproducibility and play a role in prognosis prediction⁴⁴.

Dye-based chromoendoscopy

In order to overcome the limitations of white light endoscopy, dye-based chromoendoscopy was developed utilising a dye for mucosal and image enhancement during endoscopy. The dyes investigated include methylene blue, indigo carmine, and acetic acid. The most compelling evidence has been shown with the use of acetic acid, with a recent meta-analysis reporting a sensitivity of 92% and a specificity of 96% for HGD and OAC⁴⁵. Although this technique is cheap and universally available, a lack of RCT data has halted its implementation in routine clinical practice.

Optical/digital chromoendoscopy

Optical/digital chromoendoscopy utilises narrow band imaging (NBI), a well-recognised advance in endoscopic imaging. In contrast to white light imaging, optical filters are used to narrow the wavelength to blue and green, enhancing the visualisation of microvasculature⁴⁶. It has been reported as highly accurate, with a higher sensitivity and equivalent specificity compared to traditional white light endoscopy⁴⁷, as well as requiring a reduced number of biopsies⁴⁸. This is a simple technique that can be easily implemented worldwide in combination with current white light endoscopy surveillance.

Virtual chromoendoscopy

Virtual chromoendoscopy is based on the principle of digital post-processing such that endoscopic images are reconstructed, in real time, into virtual images without the need for dyes. Different filters and image algorithms can be applied to these images to further improve the visualisation and enhancement of the superficial structures of the mucosa and the mucosal microvasculature. The use of virtual chromoendoscopy has been shown to improve dysplasia detection sensitivity from 69 to 78% as well as improve specificity from 70 to 81% compared to white light endoscopy⁴⁹. This improvement was shown in both a trainee and an expert group of endoscopists and could result in a reduction in the need and number of biopsies required or greater targeting of biopsies.

Confocal laser endomicroscopy

Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) allows in vivo histological assessment with 1,000x magnification using a blue laser light following intravenous fluorescein administration. The high-resolution images produced are comparable to histological evaluation. There is a great future potential for this technique as a diagnostic tool, allowing interventional steps such as resection or ablation to be performed at the point of care⁵⁰. CLE has been shown to have a high sensitivity (90.4%) and specificity (92.7%) and reduces the number of biopsies taken, with one study reporting that two-thirds of patients did not require biopsies at all⁵¹. Despite this, the technique is considered relatively expensive and lacks standardised criteria for diagnosis⁵².

Volumetric laser endomicroscopy

Volumetric laser endomicroscopy (VLE) is an imaging technique that scans the oesophageal surface in 360^o to a depth of up to 3 mm⁵³. It has the capability of visualising mucosal lesions invisible to white light and is expected to facilitate targeted biopsies⁵⁴. It has been found to be safe and accurate, with an adequate sensitivity (86%) and specificity (88%)⁵⁵.

Artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence (AI) is a brand new and promising research area across medicine as a whole. The development of AI for BO identification has been largely focussed on the identification of BO and OAC from endoscopic images and videos through auto-analysis⁵⁶. For example, the analysis of VLE images is complex, with approximately 1,200 cross-sectional images produced for each 6 cm oesophageal segment scanned, so the development of image analysis software could be considerably beneficial for the endoscopist^57,58. Further validation is needed to ascertain its accuracy; however, AI has a potential role in aiding the surveillance of BO.

Early endoscopic intervention

Historically, regular surveillance and in some cases radical oesophagectomy have been the only options available for the treatment of BO. Many patients have been reluctant to undertake such a major operation for a pre-malignant condition, and BO patients are often older and overweight with associated cardiac and respiratory co-morbidities, making them unfit for such an operation. Over the past decade, significant advances in endoscopic techniques have been developed that have broadened the options available to patients with both HGD and LGD for early intervention strategies.

Crucially, these techniques are performed endoscopically rather than surgically, which carries a high mortality rate⁵⁹. This includes developments in ablation and resection-based strategies, which have been shown to have a high level of efficacy. The less-invasive nature of these techniques has meant that more patients can be considered at an earlier stage in diagnosis for potentially curative treatment.

Ablation techniques

Current guidelines from the ACG and BSG agree that ablation techniques such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and photodynamic therapies (PDTs) are promising emerging techniques in BO treatment. Both techniques aim to ablate anomalous oesophageal mucosa, causing tissue necrosis and regrowth of neo-squamous mucosa.

RFA uses controlled pulses of radiofrequency waves to thermally ablate the affected area. A RCT comparison of RFA against a control (sham procedure) (n = 127) reported complete eradication of dysplasia of 91% in LGD and 81% in HGD compared to 23% and 19%, respectively, in the sham procedure. Furthermore, eradication of metaplasia was 81% and 74% in LGD and HGD compared to 4% and 0%, respectively, in the sham procedure⁶⁰. Even more importantly, a RCT comparison of RFA against surveillance in LGD patients also found a significant reduction in dysplasia and metaplasia as well as a reduced risk of progression to OAC⁶¹. The main complication with RFA was found to be strictures in 8–12% of patients, all of which were able to be successfully treated with endoscopic dilatation^61,62.

PDT is a technique that involves the use of a photosensitising agent injected intravenously, which increases the sensitivity of the oesophagus lining to light. This agent is activated with a red-light laser, resulting in destruction of the abnormal epithelial cells through a photochemical as opposed to a thermal reaction as in RFA⁶³. The rate of dysplasia eradication with PDT in HGD has been found to range from 40–77%¹⁵. Complications following PDT were high, with oesophageal strictures reported in 23–34% of patients^64,65, skin reactions in a third⁶⁶, and oesophageal perforation, pleural effusion, and atrial fibrillation in 3–4%⁶⁷.

RFA has been shown to achieve a high rate of eradication of metaplasia and dysplasia as well as a reduction in disease progression⁶⁸. The safety and efficacy of RFA are well documented, and it is currently the most commonly used ablation technique⁶⁹. Current NICE guidance advocates the use of RFA for LGD and HGD and PDT for HGD⁷⁰. PDT has a significant photosensitivity and stricture risk; therefore, although good outcomes have been reported, it has largely been already replaced by RFA. Other ablation techniques are in development, such as cryotherapy⁷¹; however, there is a lack of evidence for its safe use and efficacy, with a lack of RCTs and long-term follow up data.

Resection-based strategies

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) was first developed in 1978 for gastric cancers⁷² but has since been adapted for BO treatment. Two common methods of EMR have been developed: the cap and snare technique and band ligation. In the cap and snare technique, the lesion is marked for resection using electrocautery and then injected with fluid. A dedicated transparent cap on the distal end of the endoscope is used. A preloaded crescent-shaped snare forms a pseudopolyp through suction of the lesion, which is then removed with a diathermy loop⁷³. This method has been reported to have a 91% neoplasia and metaplasia eradication rate at 18-month follow up but a high stenosis rate of 40%⁷⁴. The band ligation method creates a pseudopolyp using a band to ligate the lesion. It is then removed similarly to the cap and snare technique with diathermy⁷³. The band ligation method has been shown to be faster and cheaper than the cap and snare method as well as having a 92.3% complete resection rate^75,76. The complication rate was also lower, with a stenosis rate of 1.9%⁷⁷. A systematic review comparing EMR and RFA reported equal efficacy in the treatment of BO; however, EMR encountered a higher proportion of complications⁷⁸.

An alternative to EMR is endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), which is a longer and more-advanced procedure that resects the lesion and deeper tissues, allowing a potentially larger clearance margin. Owing to the complexity of the procedure, it is currently only available in specialist centres.

The added benefit of resection-based strategies is that the tissue sample removed can be assessed; this has been found to be the most accurate staging technique for neoplasia and is therefore preferred over surveillance biopsies⁷⁹.

Endoscopic eradication therapy

More recently, both of the above techniques have been combined to form endoscopic eradication therapy (EET), which has become the standard of care for patients with both LGD and HGD as recommended by the BSG and ACG^8,15. EET consists of endoscopic resection followed by endoscopic ablation. In patients with HGD, a recent systematic review found that EMR followed by RFA resulted in a 93% neoplasia eradication rate and a 73% dysplasia eradication rate⁸⁰. EET has been associated with a low morbidity and mortality^81,82.

A UK-based cost effectiveness analysis of EET was recently performed. For patients with LGD and HGD, EET was more cost effective than regular endoscopic surveillance and is estimated to provide a 5-year financial benefit to the NHS of £7.1 million⁸³.

Conclusions

Oesophageal cancer commonly presents late, often after disease has spread and curative treatment is no longer possible. A key issue is identifying at-risk individuals, particularly those with BO, and recent advances in screening methods, including non-invasive strategies, could aid the identification and potential detection of cancer at an earlier stage. This could have a significant impact on survival rates, as emerging early endoscopic interventions have been shown to be successful at eradicating dysplasia and metaplasia. Individuals identified with BO have also been shown to benefit from surveillance strategies, which aim to identify progression from metaplasia to dysplasia. The current universal surveillance strategy with the use of an OGD is time consuming and expensive, but the development of various image enhancement techniques has been proposed to improve its accuracy, reliability, and diagnostic capability.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al.: Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018; 68(6): 394–424. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
2. Cancer Research UK: Oesophageal cancer statistics. Reference Source
3. Domper Arnal MJ, Ferrández Arenas Á, Lanas Arbeloa Á: Esophageal cancer: Risk factors, screening and endoscopic treatment in Western and Eastern countries. World J Gastroenterol. 2015; 21(26): 7933–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
4. Eslick GD: Epidemiology of esophageal cancer. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2009; 38(1): 17–25, vii. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
5. Wong MCS, Hamilton W, Whiteman DC, et al.: Global Incidence and mortality of oesophageal cancer and their correlation with socioeconomic indicators temporal patterns and trends in 41 countries. Sci Rep. 2018; 8(1): 4522. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
6. Hvid-Jensen F, Pedersen L, Drewes AM, et al.: Incidence of adenocarcinoma among patients with Barrett's esophagus. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365(15): 1375–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
7. Rebbeck TR, Domchek SM: Variation in breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res. 2008; 10(4): 108. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
8. Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG, et al.: ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016; 111(1): 30–50; quiz 51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
9. Singh S, Garg SK, Singh PP, et al.: Acid-suppressive medications and risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett's oesophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut. 2014; 63(8): 1229–37. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
10. Jankowski JAZ, de Caestecker J, Love SB, et al.: Esomeprazole and aspirin in Barrett's oesophagus (AspECT): a randomised factorial trial. Lancet. 2018; 392(10145): 400–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
11. Dulai GS, Guha S, Kahn KL, et al.: Preoperative Prevalence of Barrett's Esophagus in Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review. Gastroenterology. 2002; 122(1): 26–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
12. Lagergren J, Bergström R, Lindgren A, et al.: Symptomatic Gastroesophageal Reflux as a Risk Factor for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1999; 340(11): 825–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
13. Kastelein F, van Olphen SH, Steyerberg EW, et al.: Impact of Surveillance for Barrett's Oesophagus on Tumour Stage and Survival of Patients With Neoplastic Progression. Gut. 2016; 65(4): 548–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
14. Levine DS, Haggitt RC, Blount PL, et al.: An Endoscopic Biopsy Protocol Can Differentiate High-Grade Dysplasia From Early Adenocarcinoma in Barrett's Esophagus. Gastroenterology. 1993; 105(1): 40–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Fitzgerald RC, Di Pietro M, Ragunath K, et al.: British Society of Gastroenterology Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Oesophagus. Gut. 2014; 63(1): 7–42. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
16. Evans RP, Mourad MM, Fisher SG, et al.: Evolving management of metaplasia and dysplasia in Barrett's epithelium. World J Gastroenterol. 2016; 22(47): 10316–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
17. Inadomi JM: Cost Considerations in Implementing a Screening and Surveillance Strategy for Barrett's Oesophagus. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2015; 29(1): 51–63. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Saxena N, Inadomi JM: Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Endoscopic Screening and Surveillance. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2017; 27(3): 397–421. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
19. Chung JW, Park S, Chung MJ, et al.: A novel disposable, transnasal esophagoscope: a pilot trial of feasibility, safety, and tolerance. Endoscopy. 2012; 44(2): 206–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
20. Peery AF, Hoppo T, Garman KS, et al.: Feasibility, safety, acceptability, and yield of office-based, screening transnasal esophagoscopy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 75(5): 945–953.e2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
21. Shariff MK, Bird-Lieberman EL, O'Donovan M, et al.: Randomized crossover study comparing efficacy of transnasal endoscopy with that of standard endoscopy to detect Barrett's esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 75(5): 954–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
22. Moriarty JP, Shah ND, Rubenstein JH, et al.: Costs associated with Barrett's esophagus screening in the community: an economic analysis of a prospective randomized controlled trial of sedated versus hospital unsedated versus mobile community unsedated endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018; 87(1): 88–94.e2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
23. Crews NR, Gorospe EC, Johnson ML, et al.: Comparative quality assessment of esophageal examination with transnasal and sedated endoscopy. Endosc Int Open. 2017; 5(5): E340–E344. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
24. Sami SS, Dunagan KT, Johnson ML, et al.: A randomized comparative effectiveness trial of novel endoscopic techniques and approaches for Barrett's esophagus screening in the community. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015; 110(1): 148–58. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
25. Paterson AL, Gehrung M, Fitzgerald RC, et al.: Role of TFF3 as an adjunct in the diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus using a minimally invasive esophageal sampling device—The Cytosponge^TM. Diagn Cytopathol. 2020; 48(3): 253–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
26. Ross-Innes CS, Debiram-Beecham I, O'Donovan M, et al.: Evaluation of a minimally invasive cell sampling device coupled with assessment of trefoil factor 3 expression for diagnosing Barrett's esophagus: a multi-center case-control study. PLoS Med. 2015; 12(1): e1001780. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
27. Januszewicz W, Tan WK, Lehovsky K, et al.: Safety and Acceptability of Esophageal Cytosponge Cell Collection Device in a Pooled Analysis of Data From Individual Patients. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019; 17(4): 647–656.e1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
28. Heberle CR, Omidvari AH, Ali A, et al.: Cost Effectiveness of Screening Patients With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease for Barrett's Esophagus With a Minimally Invasive Cell Sampling Device. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017; 15(9): 1397–1404.e7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
29. Moinova HR, LaFramboise T, Lutterbaugh JD, et al.: Identifying DNA methylation biomarkers for non-endoscopic detection of Barrett's esophagus. Sci Transl Med. 2018; 10(424): pii: eaao5848. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
30. Moinova H, Leidner RS, Ravi L, et al.: Aberrant vimentin methylation is characteristic of upper gastrointestinal pathologies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012; 21(4): 594–600. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
31. Gora MJ, Simmons LH, Quénéhervé L, et al.: Tethered capsule endomicroscopy: from bench to bedside at a primary care practice. J Biomed Opt. 2016; 21(10): 104001. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
32. Park J, Cho YK, Kim JH: Current and Future Use of Esophageal Capsule Endoscopy. Clin Endosc. 2018; 51(4): 317–322. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
33. Bhardwaj A, Hollenbeak CS, Pooran N, et al.: A meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of esophageal capsule endoscopy for Barrett's esophagus in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009; 104(6): 1533–9. PubMed Abstract | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
34. Ramirez FC, Akins R, Shaukat M: Screening of Barrett's esophagus with string-capsule endoscopy: a prospective blinded study of 100 consecutive patients using histology as the criterion standard. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008; 68(1): 25–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
35. Rubenstein JH, Inadomi JM, Brill JV, et al.: Cost utility of screening for Barrett's esophagus with esophageal capsule endoscopy versus conventional upper endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007; 5(3): 312–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
36. Mallick R, Patnaik SK, Wani S, et al.: A Systematic Review of Esophageal MicroRNA Markers for Diagnosis and Monitoring of Barrett's Esophagus. Dig Dis Sci. 2016; 61(4): 1039–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
37. Bus P, Kestens C, Ten Kate FJ, et al.: Profiling of circulating microRNAs in patients with Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma. J Gastroenterol. 2016; 51(6): 560–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
38. Kumar S, Huang J, Abbassi-Ghadi N, et al.: Mass Spectrometric Analysis of Exhaled Breath for the Identification of Volatile Organic Compound Biomarkers in Esophageal and Gastric Adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2015; 262(6): 981–90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
39. Chan DK, Zakko L, Visrodia KH, et al.: Breath Testing for Barrett’s Esophagus Using Exhaled Volatile Organic Compound Profiling With an Electronic Nose Device. Gastroenterology. 2017; 152(1): 24–26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
40. Dunbar KB, Spechler SJ: The risk of lymph-node metastases in patients with high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal carcinoma in Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012; 107(6): 850–62; quiz 863. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
41. El-Serag HB, Naik AD, Duan Z, et al.: Surveillance endoscopy is associated with improved outcomes of oesophageal adenocarcinoma detected in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. Gut. 2016; 65(8): 1252–60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
42. Old O, Moayyedi P, Love S, et al.: Barrett's Oesophagus Surveillance versus endoscopy at need Study (BOSS): protocol and analysis plan for a multicentre randomized controlled trial. J Med Screen. 2015; 22(3): 158–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
43. Qumseya BJ, Wang H, Badie N, et al.: Advanced imaging technologies increase detection of dysplasia and neoplasia in patients with Barrett's esophagus: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013; 11(12): 1562–70.e1-2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
44. Kaye PV, Ilyas M, Soomro I, et al.: Dysplasia in Barrett's oesophagus: p53 immunostaining is more reproducible than haematoxylin and eosin diagnosis and improves overall reliability, while grading is poorly reproducible. Histopathology. 2016; 69(3): 431–40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
45. Coletta M, Sami SS, Nachiappan A, et al.: Acetic acid chromoendoscopy for the diagnosis of early neoplasia and specialized intestinal metaplasia in Barrett's esophagus: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016; 83(1): 57–67.e1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
46. Lee MM, Enns R: Narrow band imaging in gastroesophageal reflux disease and Barrett’s esophagus. Can J Gastroenterol. 2009; 23(2): 84–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
47. Jayasekera C, Taylor AC, Desmond PV, et al.: Added value of narrow band imaging and confocal laser endomicroscopy in detecting Barrett’s esophagus neoplasia. Endoscopy. 2012; 44(12): 1089–95. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
48. Sharma P, Hawes RH, Bansal A, et al.: Standard endoscopy with random biopsies versus narrow band imaging targeted biopsies in Barrett's oesophagus: a prospective, international, randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2012; 62(1): 15–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
49. Everson MA, Lovat LB, Graham DG, et al.: Virtual chromoendoscopy by using optical enhancement improves the detection of Barrett's esophagus-associated neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019; 89(2): 247–256.e4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
50. Leggett CL, Gorospe EC: Application of confocal laser endomicroscopy in the diagnosis and management of Barrett's esophagus. Ann Gastroenterol. 2014; 27(3): 193–9. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text
51. Dunbar KB, Canto MI: Confocal laser endomicroscopy in Barrett's esophagus and endoscopically inapparent Barrett's neoplasia: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled, crossover trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010; 72(3): 668. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
52. Fugazza A, Gaiani F, Carra MC, et al.: Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy in Gastrointestinal and Pancreatobiliary Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2016; 2016: 4638683. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
53. Kandel P, Wallace MB: The Role of Adjunct Imaging in Endoscopic Detection of Dysplasia in Barrett's Esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2017; 27(3): 423–446. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
54. Jain D, Fatima S, Jain S, et al.: Volumetric Laser Endomicroscopy for Barrett's Esophagus - Looking at the Fine Print. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2017; 26(3): 291–297. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
55. Leggett CL, Gorospe EC, Chan DK, et al.: Comparative diagnostic performance of volumetric laser endomicroscopy and confocal laser endomicroscopy in the detection of dysplasia associated with Barrett's esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016; 83(5): 880–888.e2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
56. de Souza LA Jr, Palm C, Mendel R, et al.: A survey on Barrett's esophagus analysis using machine learning. Comput Biol Med. 2018; 96: 203–213. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
57. Trindade AJ, McKinley MJ, Fan C, et al.: Endoscopic Surveillance of Barrett’s Esophagus Using Volumetric Laser Endomicroscopy With Artificial Intelligence Image Enhancement. Gastroenterology. 2019; 157(2): 303–305. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
58. Swager AF, van der Sommen F, Klomp SR, et al.: Computer-aided detection of early Barrett’s neoplasia using volumetric laser endomicroscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 86(5): 839–846. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
59. Bollschweiler E, Schröder W, Hölscher AH, et al.: Preoperative risk analysis in patients with adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus. Br J Surg. 2000; 87(8): 1106–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
60. Shaheen NJ, Sharma P, Overholt BF, et al.: Radiofrequency ablation in Barrett's esophagus with dysplasia. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(22): 2277–2288. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
61. Phoa KN, van Vilsteren FGI, Weusten BL, et al.: Radiofrequency ablation vs endoscopic surveillance for patients with Barrett esophagus and low-grade dysplasia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014; 311: 1209. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
62. Shaheen NJ, Overholt BF, Sampliner RE, et al.: Durability of radiofrequency ablation in Barrett's esophagus with dysplasia. Gastroenterology. 2011; 141(2): 460–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
63. Mimura S: New strategies in cancer treatment - Photodynamic therapy. Journal of Tokyo Medical College. 1997; 54(3): 382–424.
64. Overholt BF, Panjehpour M, Haydek JM: Photodynamic therapy for Barrett's esophagus: follow-up in 100 patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999; 49(1): 1–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
65. Overholt BF, Panjehpour M, Halberg DL: Photodynamic therapy for Barrett's esophagus with dysplasia and/or early stage carcinoma: Long-term results. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 58(2): 183–188. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
66. Wolfsen HC, Ng CS: Cutaneous consequences of photodynamic therapy. Cutis. 2002; 69(2): 140–2. PubMed Abstract
67. Wolfsen HC, Woodward TA, Raimondo M: Photodynamic therapy for dysplastic Barrett esophagus and early esophageal adenocarcinoma. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002; 77(11): 1176–1181. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
68. Rajaram R, Hofstetter WL: Mucosal Ablation Techniques for Barrett's Esophagus and Early Esophageal Cancer. Thorac Surg Clin. 2018; 28(4): 473–480. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
69. Singh A, Chak A: Advances in the management of Barrett's esophagus and early esophageal adenocarcinoma. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2015; 3(4): 303–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
70. NICE: Barrett's oesophagus: ablative therapy [CG106]. 2010. Reference Source
71. Ghorbani S, Tsai FC, Greenwald BD, et al.: Safety and efficacy of endoscopic spray cryotherapy for Barrett's dysplasia: results of the National Cryospray Registry. Dis Esophagus. 2016; 29(3): 241–247. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
72. Faivre J, Bory R, Moulinier B: Benign Tumors of Oesophagus: Value of Endoscopy. Endoscopy. 1978; 10(4): 264–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
73. Ning B, Abdelfatah MM, Othma MO: Endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for early stage esophageal cancer. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2017; 6(2): 88–98. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
74. Conio M, Fisher DA, Blanchi S, et al.: One-step circumferential endoscopic mucosal cap resection of Barrett's esophagus with early neoplasia. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2014; 38(1): 81–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
75. Zhang YM, Boerwinkel DF, Qin X, et al.: A randomized trial comparing multiband mucosectomy and cap-assisted endoscopic resection for endoscopic piecemeal resection of early squamous neoplasia of the esophagus. Endoscopy. 2016; 48(4): 330–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
76. Alvarez Herrero L, Pouw RE, van Vilsteren FGI, et al.: Safety and efficacy of multiband mucosectomy in 1060 resections in Barrett's esophagus. Endoscopy. 2011; 43(3): 177–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
77. Jin XF, Sun QY, Chai TH, et al.: Clinical value of multiband mucosectomy for the treatment of squamous intraepithelial neoplasia of the esophagus. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013; 28(4): 650–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
78. Chadwick G, Groene O, Markar SR, et al.: Systematic review comparing radiofrequency ablation and complete endoscopic resection in treating dysplastic Barrett's esophagus: a critical assessment of histologic outcomes and adverse events. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014; 79(5): 718→731.e3. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
79. Mino-Kenudson M, Hull MJ, Brown I, et al.: EMR for Barrett's esophagus-related superficial neoplasms offers better diagnostic reproducibility than mucosal biopsy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007; 66(4): 660–6; quiz 767, 769. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
80. Desai M, Saligram S, Gupta N, et al.: Efficacy and safety outcomes of multimodal endoscopic eradication therapy in Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia: a systematic review and pooled analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 85(3): 482–495.e4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
81. Menon D, Stafinski T, Wu H, et al.: Endoscopic treatments for Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review of safety and effectiveness compared to esophagectomy. BMC Gastroenterol. 2010; 10: 111. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
82. Zehetner J, DeMeester SR, Hagen JA, et al.: Endoscopic resection and ablation versus esophagectomy for high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011; 141(1): 39–47. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
83. Pollit V, Graham D, Leonard C, et al.: A cost-effectiveness analysis of endoscopic eradication therapy for management of dysplasia arising in patients with Barrett's oesophagus in the United Kingdom. Curr Med Res Opin. 2019; 35(5): 805–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 21 Apr 2020

Author details Author details

¹ Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Department, Kings Mill Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sutton-in-Ashfield, Nottinghamshire, NG17 4JL, UK
² University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK
³ University of Roehampton, London, UK

James Franklin
Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Janusz Jankowski
Roles: Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

Janusz Jankowski served as Chief Investigator for the AspECT clinical trial. James Franklin declares that he has no competing interests.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (1)

version 1

Published: 21 Apr 2020, 9:276

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.21971.1

Copyright

© 2020 Franklin J and Jankowski J. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

0

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Franklin J and Jankowski J. Recent advances in understanding and preventing oesophageal cancer [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2020, 9(F1000 Faculty Rev):276 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.21971.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 21 Apr 2020

Views

3

Reviewer Report 21 Apr 2020

Wayne L Hofstetter, Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.24227.r61960

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

1

Reviewer Report 21 Apr 2020

Richard van Hillegersberg, Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Approved

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.24227.r61959

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an ... Continue reading

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1

VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 21 Apr 2020

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 1 21 Apr 20	read	read

Richard van Hillegersberg, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Wayne L Hofstetter, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

3 Views

21 Apr 2020 | for Version 1

Wayne L Hofstetter, Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

3 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

1 Views

21 Apr 2020 | for Version 1

Richard van Hillegersberg, Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

1 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Faculty Reviews are commissioned and written by members of the prestigious Faculty Opinions Faculty, and are edited as a service to our readers. In order to make these reviews as comprehensive and accessible as possible, we seek the reviewers’ input before publication. The reviewers’ names and any additional comments they may have are published alongside the review, as is usual on F1000Research.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

[1] 1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al.: Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018; 68(6): 394–424. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[2] 2. Cancer Research UK: Oesophageal cancer statistics. Reference Source

[3] 3. Domper Arnal MJ, Ferrández Arenas Á, Lanas Arbeloa Á: Esophageal cancer: Risk factors, screening and endoscopic treatment in Western and Eastern countries. World J Gastroenterol. 2015; 21(26): 7933–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[4] 4. Eslick GD: Epidemiology of esophageal cancer. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2009; 38(1): 17–25, vii. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Wong MCS, Hamilton W, Whiteman DC, et al.: Global Incidence and mortality of oesophageal cancer and their correlation with socioeconomic indicators temporal patterns and trends in 41 countries. Sci Rep. 2018; 8(1): 4522. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[6] 6. Hvid-Jensen F, Pedersen L, Drewes AM, et al.: Incidence of adenocarcinoma among patients with Barrett's esophagus. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365(15): 1375–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[7] 7. Rebbeck TR, Domchek SM: Variation in breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Res. 2008; 10(4): 108. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[8] 8. Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG, et al.: ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016; 111(1): 30–50; quiz 51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Singh S, Garg SK, Singh PP, et al.: Acid-suppressive medications and risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett's oesophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut. 2014; 63(8): 1229–37. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[10] 10. Jankowski JAZ, de Caestecker J, Love SB, et al.: Esomeprazole and aspirin in Barrett's oesophagus (AspECT): a randomised factorial trial. Lancet. 2018; 392(10145): 400–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[11] 11. Dulai GS, Guha S, Kahn KL, et al.: Preoperative Prevalence of Barrett's Esophagus in Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Systematic Review. Gastroenterology. 2002; 122(1): 26–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[12] 12. Lagergren J, Bergström R, Lindgren A, et al.: Symptomatic Gastroesophageal Reflux as a Risk Factor for Esophageal Adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1999; 340(11): 825–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[13] 13. Kastelein F, van Olphen SH, Steyerberg EW, et al.: Impact of Surveillance for Barrett's Oesophagus on Tumour Stage and Survival of Patients With Neoplastic Progression. Gut. 2016; 65(4): 548–54. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[14] 14. Levine DS, Haggitt RC, Blount PL, et al.: An Endoscopic Biopsy Protocol Can Differentiate High-Grade Dysplasia From Early Adenocarcinoma in Barrett's Esophagus. Gastroenterology. 1993; 105(1): 40–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Fitzgerald RC, Di Pietro M, Ragunath K, et al.: British Society of Gastroenterology Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Oesophagus. Gut. 2014; 63(1): 7–42. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Evans RP, Mourad MM, Fisher SG, et al.: Evolving management of metaplasia and dysplasia in Barrett's epithelium. World J Gastroenterol. 2016; 22(47): 10316–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[17] 17. Inadomi JM: Cost Considerations in Implementing a Screening and Surveillance Strategy for Barrett's Oesophagus. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2015; 29(1): 51–63. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Saxena N, Inadomi JM: Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Endoscopic Screening and Surveillance. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2017; 27(3): 397–421. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[19] 19. Chung JW, Park S, Chung MJ, et al.: A novel disposable, transnasal esophagoscope: a pilot trial of feasibility, safety, and tolerance. Endoscopy. 2012; 44(2): 206–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Peery AF, Hoppo T, Garman KS, et al.: Feasibility, safety, acceptability, and yield of office-based, screening transnasal esophagoscopy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 75(5): 945–953.e2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[21] 21. Shariff MK, Bird-Lieberman EL, O'Donovan M, et al.: Randomized crossover study comparing efficacy of transnasal endoscopy with that of standard endoscopy to detect Barrett's esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 75(5): 954–61. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[22] 22. Moriarty JP, Shah ND, Rubenstein JH, et al.: Costs associated with Barrett's esophagus screening in the community: an economic analysis of a prospective randomized controlled trial of sedated versus hospital unsedated versus mobile community unsedated endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018; 87(1): 88–94.e2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[23] 23. Crews NR, Gorospe EC, Johnson ML, et al.: Comparative quality assessment of esophageal examination with transnasal and sedated endoscopy. Endosc Int Open. 2017; 5(5): E340–E344. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[24] 24. Sami SS, Dunagan KT, Johnson ML, et al.: A randomized comparative effectiveness trial of novel endoscopic techniques and approaches for Barrett's esophagus screening in the community. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015; 110(1): 148–58. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[25] 25. Paterson AL, Gehrung M, Fitzgerald RC, et al.: Role of TFF3 as an adjunct in the diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus using a minimally invasive esophageal sampling device—The Cytosponge^TM. Diagn Cytopathol. 2020; 48(3): 253–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[26] 26. Ross-Innes CS, Debiram-Beecham I, O'Donovan M, et al.: Evaluation of a minimally invasive cell sampling device coupled with assessment of trefoil factor 3 expression for diagnosing Barrett's esophagus: a multi-center case-control study. PLoS Med. 2015; 12(1): e1001780. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[27] 27. Januszewicz W, Tan WK, Lehovsky K, et al.: Safety and Acceptability of Esophageal Cytosponge Cell Collection Device in a Pooled Analysis of Data From Individual Patients. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019; 17(4): 647–656.e1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[28] 28. Heberle CR, Omidvari AH, Ali A, et al.: Cost Effectiveness of Screening Patients With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease for Barrett's Esophagus With a Minimally Invasive Cell Sampling Device. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017; 15(9): 1397–1404.e7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[29] 29. Moinova HR, LaFramboise T, Lutterbaugh JD, et al.: Identifying DNA methylation biomarkers for non-endoscopic detection of Barrett's esophagus. Sci Transl Med. 2018; 10(424): pii: eaao5848. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[30] 30. Moinova H, Leidner RS, Ravi L, et al.: Aberrant vimentin methylation is characteristic of upper gastrointestinal pathologies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012; 21(4): 594–600. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[31] 31. Gora MJ, Simmons LH, Quénéhervé L, et al.: Tethered capsule endomicroscopy: from bench to bedside at a primary care practice. J Biomed Opt. 2016; 21(10): 104001. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[32] 32. Park J, Cho YK, Kim JH: Current and Future Use of Esophageal Capsule Endoscopy. Clin Endosc. 2018; 51(4): 317–322. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[33] 33. Bhardwaj A, Hollenbeak CS, Pooran N, et al.: A meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of esophageal capsule endoscopy for Barrett's esophagus in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009; 104(6): 1533–9. PubMed Abstract | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[34] 34. Ramirez FC, Akins R, Shaukat M: Screening of Barrett's esophagus with string-capsule endoscopy: a prospective blinded study of 100 consecutive patients using histology as the criterion standard. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008; 68(1): 25–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[35] 35. Rubenstein JH, Inadomi JM, Brill JV, et al.: Cost utility of screening for Barrett's esophagus with esophageal capsule endoscopy versus conventional upper endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007; 5(3): 312–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[36] 36. Mallick R, Patnaik SK, Wani S, et al.: A Systematic Review of Esophageal MicroRNA Markers for Diagnosis and Monitoring of Barrett's Esophagus. Dig Dis Sci. 2016; 61(4): 1039–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[37] 37. Bus P, Kestens C, Ten Kate FJ, et al.: Profiling of circulating microRNAs in patients with Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma. J Gastroenterol. 2016; 51(6): 560–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[38] 38. Kumar S, Huang J, Abbassi-Ghadi N, et al.: Mass Spectrometric Analysis of Exhaled Breath for the Identification of Volatile Organic Compound Biomarkers in Esophageal and Gastric Adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2015; 262(6): 981–90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[39] 39. Chan DK, Zakko L, Visrodia KH, et al.: Breath Testing for Barrett’s Esophagus Using Exhaled Volatile Organic Compound Profiling With an Electronic Nose Device. Gastroenterology. 2017; 152(1): 24–26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[40] 40. Dunbar KB, Spechler SJ: The risk of lymph-node metastases in patients with high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal carcinoma in Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012; 107(6): 850–62; quiz 863. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[41] 41. El-Serag HB, Naik AD, Duan Z, et al.: Surveillance endoscopy is associated with improved outcomes of oesophageal adenocarcinoma detected in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. Gut. 2016; 65(8): 1252–60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[42] 42. Old O, Moayyedi P, Love S, et al.: Barrett's Oesophagus Surveillance versus endoscopy at need Study (BOSS): protocol and analysis plan for a multicentre randomized controlled trial. J Med Screen. 2015; 22(3): 158–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[43] 43. Qumseya BJ, Wang H, Badie N, et al.: Advanced imaging technologies increase detection of dysplasia and neoplasia in patients with Barrett's esophagus: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013; 11(12): 1562–70.e1-2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[44] 44. Kaye PV, Ilyas M, Soomro I, et al.: Dysplasia in Barrett's oesophagus: p53 immunostaining is more reproducible than haematoxylin and eosin diagnosis and improves overall reliability, while grading is poorly reproducible. Histopathology. 2016; 69(3): 431–40. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[45] 45. Coletta M, Sami SS, Nachiappan A, et al.: Acetic acid chromoendoscopy for the diagnosis of early neoplasia and specialized intestinal metaplasia in Barrett's esophagus: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016; 83(1): 57–67.e1. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[46] 46. Lee MM, Enns R: Narrow band imaging in gastroesophageal reflux disease and Barrett’s esophagus. Can J Gastroenterol. 2009; 23(2): 84–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[47] 47. Jayasekera C, Taylor AC, Desmond PV, et al.: Added value of narrow band imaging and confocal laser endomicroscopy in detecting Barrett’s esophagus neoplasia. Endoscopy. 2012; 44(12): 1089–95. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[48] 48. Sharma P, Hawes RH, Bansal A, et al.: Standard endoscopy with random biopsies versus narrow band imaging targeted biopsies in Barrett's oesophagus: a prospective, international, randomised controlled trial. Gut. 2012; 62(1): 15–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[49] 49. Everson MA, Lovat LB, Graham DG, et al.: Virtual chromoendoscopy by using optical enhancement improves the detection of Barrett's esophagus-associated neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019; 89(2): 247–256.e4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[50] 50. Leggett CL, Gorospe EC: Application of confocal laser endomicroscopy in the diagnosis and management of Barrett's esophagus. Ann Gastroenterol. 2014; 27(3): 193–9. PubMed Abstract | Free Full Text

[51] 51. Dunbar KB, Canto MI: Confocal laser endomicroscopy in Barrett's esophagus and endoscopically inapparent Barrett's neoplasia: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled, crossover trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010; 72(3): 668. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[52] 52. Fugazza A, Gaiani F, Carra MC, et al.: Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy in Gastrointestinal and Pancreatobiliary Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2016; 2016: 4638683. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[53] 53. Kandel P, Wallace MB: The Role of Adjunct Imaging in Endoscopic Detection of Dysplasia in Barrett's Esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2017; 27(3): 423–446. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[54] 54. Jain D, Fatima S, Jain S, et al.: Volumetric Laser Endomicroscopy for Barrett's Esophagus - Looking at the Fine Print. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2017; 26(3): 291–297. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[55] 55. Leggett CL, Gorospe EC, Chan DK, et al.: Comparative diagnostic performance of volumetric laser endomicroscopy and confocal laser endomicroscopy in the detection of dysplasia associated with Barrett's esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016; 83(5): 880–888.e2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[56] 56. de Souza LA Jr, Palm C, Mendel R, et al.: A survey on Barrett's esophagus analysis using machine learning. Comput Biol Med. 2018; 96: 203–213. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[57] 57. Trindade AJ, McKinley MJ, Fan C, et al.: Endoscopic Surveillance of Barrett’s Esophagus Using Volumetric Laser Endomicroscopy With Artificial Intelligence Image Enhancement. Gastroenterology. 2019; 157(2): 303–305. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[58] 58. Swager AF, van der Sommen F, Klomp SR, et al.: Computer-aided detection of early Barrett’s neoplasia using volumetric laser endomicroscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 86(5): 839–846. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[59] 59. Bollschweiler E, Schröder W, Hölscher AH, et al.: Preoperative risk analysis in patients with adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus. Br J Surg. 2000; 87(8): 1106–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[60] 60. Shaheen NJ, Sharma P, Overholt BF, et al.: Radiofrequency ablation in Barrett's esophagus with dysplasia. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(22): 2277–2288. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[61] 61. Phoa KN, van Vilsteren FGI, Weusten BL, et al.: Radiofrequency ablation vs endoscopic surveillance for patients with Barrett esophagus and low-grade dysplasia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014; 311: 1209. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[62] 62. Shaheen NJ, Overholt BF, Sampliner RE, et al.: Durability of radiofrequency ablation in Barrett's esophagus with dysplasia. Gastroenterology. 2011; 141(2): 460–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[63] 63. Mimura S: New strategies in cancer treatment - Photodynamic therapy. Journal of Tokyo Medical College. 1997; 54(3): 382–424.

[64] 64. Overholt BF, Panjehpour M, Haydek JM: Photodynamic therapy for Barrett's esophagus: follow-up in 100 patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 1999; 49(1): 1–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[65] 65. Overholt BF, Panjehpour M, Halberg DL: Photodynamic therapy for Barrett's esophagus with dysplasia and/or early stage carcinoma: Long-term results. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003; 58(2): 183–188. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[66] 66. Wolfsen HC, Ng CS: Cutaneous consequences of photodynamic therapy. Cutis. 2002; 69(2): 140–2. PubMed Abstract

[67] 67. Wolfsen HC, Woodward TA, Raimondo M: Photodynamic therapy for dysplastic Barrett esophagus and early esophageal adenocarcinoma. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002; 77(11): 1176–1181. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[68] 68. Rajaram R, Hofstetter WL: Mucosal Ablation Techniques for Barrett's Esophagus and Early Esophageal Cancer. Thorac Surg Clin. 2018; 28(4): 473–480. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[69] 69. Singh A, Chak A: Advances in the management of Barrett's esophagus and early esophageal adenocarcinoma. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2015; 3(4): 303–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[70] 70. NICE: Barrett's oesophagus: ablative therapy [CG106]. 2010. Reference Source

[71] 71. Ghorbani S, Tsai FC, Greenwald BD, et al.: Safety and efficacy of endoscopic spray cryotherapy for Barrett's dysplasia: results of the National Cryospray Registry. Dis Esophagus. 2016; 29(3): 241–247. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[72] 72. Faivre J, Bory R, Moulinier B: Benign Tumors of Oesophagus: Value of Endoscopy. Endoscopy. 1978; 10(4): 264–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[73] 73. Ning B, Abdelfatah MM, Othma MO: Endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection for early stage esophageal cancer. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2017; 6(2): 88–98. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[74] 74. Conio M, Fisher DA, Blanchi S, et al.: One-step circumferential endoscopic mucosal cap resection of Barrett's esophagus with early neoplasia. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2014; 38(1): 81–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[75] 75. Zhang YM, Boerwinkel DF, Qin X, et al.: A randomized trial comparing multiband mucosectomy and cap-assisted endoscopic resection for endoscopic piecemeal resection of early squamous neoplasia of the esophagus. Endoscopy. 2016; 48(4): 330–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[76] 76. Alvarez Herrero L, Pouw RE, van Vilsteren FGI, et al.: Safety and efficacy of multiband mucosectomy in 1060 resections in Barrett's esophagus. Endoscopy. 2011; 43(3): 177–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[77] 77. Jin XF, Sun QY, Chai TH, et al.: Clinical value of multiband mucosectomy for the treatment of squamous intraepithelial neoplasia of the esophagus. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013; 28(4): 650–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[78] 78. Chadwick G, Groene O, Markar SR, et al.: Systematic review comparing radiofrequency ablation and complete endoscopic resection in treating dysplastic Barrett's esophagus: a critical assessment of histologic outcomes and adverse events. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014; 79(5): 718→731.e3. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[79] 79. Mino-Kenudson M, Hull MJ, Brown I, et al.: EMR for Barrett's esophagus-related superficial neoplasms offers better diagnostic reproducibility than mucosal biopsy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007; 66(4): 660–6; quiz 767, 769. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[80] 80. Desai M, Saligram S, Gupta N, et al.: Efficacy and safety outcomes of multimodal endoscopic eradication therapy in Barrett's esophagus-related neoplasia: a systematic review and pooled analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 85(3): 482–495.e4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

[81] 81. Menon D, Stafinski T, Wu H, et al.: Endoscopic treatments for Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review of safety and effectiveness compared to esophagectomy. BMC Gastroenterol. 2010; 10: 111. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[82] 82. Zehetner J, DeMeester SR, Hagen JA, et al.: Endoscopic resection and ablation versus esophagectomy for high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011; 141(1): 39–47. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[83] 83. Pollit V, Graham D, Leonard C, et al.: A cost-effectiveness analysis of endoscopic eradication therapy for management of dysplasia arising in patients with Barrett's oesophagus in the United Kingdom. Curr Med Res Opin. 2019; 35(5): 805–15. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation

Recent advances in understanding and preventing oesophageal cancer

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Figure 1. Development and progression of Barrett’s oesophagus to oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Chemoprevention

Screening

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy

CytospongeTM

Balloon cytology

Oesophageal capsule endoscopy

Liquid biopsy

Exhaled volatile organic compounds

Surveillance

Dye-based chromoendoscopy

Optical/digital chromoendoscopy

Virtual chromoendoscopy

Confocal laser endomicroscopy

Volumetric laser endomicroscopy

Artificial intelligence

Early endoscopic intervention

Ablation techniques

Resection-based strategies

Endoscopic eradication therapy

Conclusions

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Cytosponge^TM