A Survey of Expert Practice and Attitudes Regarding Advanced Imaging Modalities in Surveillance of Barrett's Esophagus.

Machicado JD, Han S, Yadlapati RH, Simon VC, Qumseya BJ, Sultan S, Kushnir VM, Komanduri S, Rastogi A, Muthusamy VR, Haidry R, Ragunath K, Singh R, Hammad HT, Shaheen NJ, Wani S. A Survey of Expert Practice and Attitudes Regarding Advanced Imaging Modalities in Surveillance of Barrett's Esophagus. Digestive diseases and sciences. 2018 Dec 1; 63(12):3262-3271.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Published guidelines do not address what the minimum incremental diagnostic yield (IDY) for detection of dysplasia/cancer is required over the standard Seattle protocol for an advanced imaging modality (AIM) to be implemented in routine surveillance of Barrett''s esophagus (BE) patients. We aimed to report expert practice patterns and attitudes, specifically addressing the minimum IDY in the use of AIMs in BE surveillance. METHODS: An international group of BE experts completed an anonymous electronic survey of domains relevant to surveillance practice patterns and use of AIMs. The evaluated AIMs were conventional chromoendoscopy (CC), virtual chromoendoscopy (VC), volumetric laser endomicroscopy (VLE), confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE), and wide-area transepithelial sampling (WATS). Responses were recorded using five-point balanced Likert items and analyzed as continuous variables. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 84% (61/73)-41 US and 20 non-US. Experts were most comfortable with and routinely use VC and CC, and least comfortable with and rarely use VLE, CLE, and WATS. Experts rated data from randomized controlled trials (1.4?±?0.9) and guidelines (2.6?±?1.2) as the two most influential factors for implementing AIMs in clinical practice. The minimum IDY of AIMs over standard biopsies to be considered of clinical benefit was lowest for VC (15%, IQR 10-29%) and highest for VLE (30%, IQR 20-50%). Compared to US experts, non-US experts reported higher use of CC for BE surveillance (p? < 0.001). CONCLUSION: These results should inform benchmarks that need to be met for guidelines to recommend the routine use of AIMs in the surveillance of BE patients.