4.7 Article

Circumferential and Focal Ablation of Barrett's Esophagus Containing Dysplasia

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 104, Issue 2, Pages 310-317

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2008.142

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. BARRX Medical, Sunnyvale, California

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES: Dysplasia in a Barrett's esophagus (BE) is associated with an increased risk for developing esophageal adenocarcinoma. Ablation using the HALO system has shown promise for the treatment of BE with dysplasia. The objective of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of a stepwise regimen of circumferential and focal ablation using the HALO system for the treatment of BE with dysplasia. METHODS: BE patients with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) or high-grade dysplasia (HGD) were enrolled. Primary circumferential ablation was followed every 3 months by further circumferential ablation or focal ablation until complete endoscopic eradication of BE was achieved. At 3- or 6-month intervals, depending on baseline grade, targeted and four quadrant random biopsies were obtained to assess the histological response to ablation. A complete response (CR) is defined as all biopsies negative for intestinal metaplasia (IM) (CR-IM) or dysplasia (CR-D) at last available follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 63 patients were treated (57 men; median age 71 years; median BE length 5 cm), with worst grade of dysplasia being LGD (n = 39) and HGD (n = 24). Follow-up is available for 62 patients (median 24 months). Overall, CR-IM is 79% and CR-D is 89%. For the LGD cohort, CR-IM is 87% and CR-D is 95%. For the HGD cohort, CR- IM is 67% and CR- D is 79%. CONCLUSIONS: Stepwise circumferential and focal ablation of BE containing dysplasia appears to be a safe and effective intervention, achieving a CR for dysplasia in 95% and 79% of LGD and HGD patients, respectively.

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