4.7 Article

PERSPECTIVES IN CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY

Journal

CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Volume 13, Issue 4, Pages 623-634

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.03.036

Keywords

Screening; Barrett's Esophagus; Esophageal Adenocarcinoma; Screening Tools; Risk Stratification

Funding

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [RC4DK090413]
  2. Mayo Foundation
  3. Olypmpus-Core National Endoscopy Fellowship grant, Core charity, United Kingdom
  4. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [P30CA015083] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [RC4DK090413] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As the incidence and mortality of esophageal adenocarcinoma continue to increase, strategies to counter this need to be explored. Screening for Barrett's esophagus, which is the known precursor of a large majority of adenocarcinomas, has been debated without a firm consensus. Given evidence for and against perceived benefits of screening, the multitude of challenges in the implementation of such a strategy and in the downstream management of subjects with Barrett's esophagus who could be diagnosed by screening, support for screening has been modest. Recent advances in the form of development and initial accuracy of noninvasive tools for screening, risk assessment tools, and biomarker panels to risk stratify subjects with BE, have spurred renewed interest in the early detection of Barrett's esophagus and related neoplasia, particularly with the advent of effective endoscopic therapy. In this review, we explore in depth the potential rationale for screening for Barrett's esophagus, recent advances that have the potential of making screening feasible, and also highlight some of the challenges that will have to be overcome to develop an effective approach to improve the outcomes of subjects with esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available