4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Eradication of Barrett esophagus with early neoplasia by radiofrequency ablation, with or without endoscopic resection

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL SURGERY
Volume 12, Issue 10, Pages 1627-1636

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-008-0629-1

Keywords

Barrett esophagus; high-grade dysplasia; radiofrequency ablation; endoscopic treatment; endoscopic resection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Radiofrequency ablation is safe and effective for complete eradication of nondysplastic Barrett esophagus (BE). The aim was to report the combined results of two published and two ongoing studies on radiofrequency ablation of BE with early neoplasia, as presented at SSAT presidential plenary session DDW 2008. Methods Enrolled patients had BE <= 12 cm with early neoplasia. Visible lesions were endoscopically resected. A balloon-based catheter was used for circumferential ablation and an endoscope-based catheter for focal ablation. Ablation was repeated every 2 months until the entire Barrett epithelium was endoscopically and histologically eradicated. Results Forty-four patients were included (35 men, median age 68 years, median BE 7 cm). Thirty-one patients first underwent endoscopic resection [early cancer (n=16), high-grade dysplasia (n=12), low-grade dysplasia (n=3)]. Worst histology remaining after resection was high-grade (n=32), low-grade (n=10), or no (n=2) dysplasia. After ablation, complete histological eradication of all dysplasia and intestinal metaplasia was achieved in 43 patients (98%). Complications following ablation were mucosal laceration at resection site (n=3) and transient dysphagia (n=4). After 21 months of follow-up (interquartile range 10-27), no dysplasia had recurred. Conclusions Radiofrequency ablation, with or without prior endoscopic resection for visible abnormalities, is effective and safe in eradicating BE and associated neoplasia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available