476
NEOPLASIA DETECTION RATE (NDR) AND RISK OF POST-ENDOSCOPY ESOPHAGEAL ADENOCARCINOMA (PEEC) AND POST-ENDOSCOPY ESOPHAGEAL NEOPLASIA (PEEN) IN A POPULATION-BASED COHORT STUDY – THE NORDIC BARRETT’S ESOPHAGUS STUDY (NORDBEST)
Date
May 19, 2024
Background:
Similar to post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer, PEEC and PEEN undermine early cancer detection in BE. Analogous to adenoma detection rate, NDR (defined as rate of high-grade dysplasia (HGD)/EAC detected during index endoscopy associated with BE diagnosis), has been proposed as a quality measure in BE. Little is known about population-based estimates of NDR and the association between NDR and risk of PEEC/PEEN. Using a population-based cohort study, we evaluated the association between facility NDR (F-NDR) and the risk of PEEC/PEEN among newly diagnosed BE patients.
Methods:
This population-based cohort study was conducted in Finland and Sweden during the study period 2006-2020. Data were retrieved from the national and complete patient, cancer, and cause of death registries. PEEC and PEEN were defined as esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) or HGD/EAC, respectively, diagnosed 30-365 days from BE diagnosis (index endoscopy). NDR-1 was defined as EAC alone and NDR-2 as HGD/EAC diagnosed from 0-29 days and F-NDR was calculated as a 2-year moving average. Incident HGD/EAC was diagnosed >365 days from BE diagnosis. Patients were followed until HGD/EAC, death or end of study period. Incidence rates (IR) and mortality rates (MR) per 100,000 person-years were calculated using Poisson regression. The F-NDR was log transformed due to data skewness and association between F-NDR and PEEC/PEEN were assessed using the Poisson model using quadratic term for log(F-NDR).
Results:
15,126 newly diagnosed BE patients (mean age 64.6 yrs, 66% men) were included. Among 198 patients diagnosed with EAC: NDR-1 (n=36, 18.1%), PEEC (n=44, 22.2%) and incident EAC (118, 59.5%) (Table 1). The mean F-NDR-1 was 0.23 (SD 1.1). IRs/100,000 person-years for PEEC and incident EAC were 341 (95% CI 254-458) and 193 (161-231). All-cause and EAC specific MR/100,000 person-years were 3782 (95% CI 3645-3924) and 121 (98-149). Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for PEEC based on F-NDR using quadratic term were 0.16 (0.05-0.52) and 0.18 (0.06-0.56), respectively. Only Sweden reported HGD rates and in this database, 249 patients were diagnosed with HGD/EAC: NDR-2 (n=47, 18.8%), PEEN (n=47, 18.8%) and incident HGD/EAC (n=155, 62%). The mean F-NDR-2 was 0.39 (SD 1.8). IRs/100,000 person-years for PEEN and incident HGD/EAC were 474 (356-630) and 291 (248-340). The adjusted HRs for PEEN based on F-NDR-2 was 0.08 (0.02-0.36), respectively. Figure highlights the significant variability in F-NDR across participating sites and association between F-NDR and IRs of PEEC/PEEN.
Conclusions:
Results from this large population-based study demonstrate an inverse association between NDR and the risk of PEEC/PEEN. These findings support the validity of NDR and PEEC/PEEN as quality measures in BE and intervention studies to determine whether improving NDR leads to a reduction in PEEC/PEEN are warranted.
Similar to post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer, PEEC and PEEN undermine early cancer detection in BE. Analogous to adenoma detection rate, NDR (defined as rate of high-grade dysplasia (HGD)/EAC detected during index endoscopy associated with BE diagnosis), has been proposed as a quality measure in BE. Little is known about population-based estimates of NDR and the association between NDR and risk of PEEC/PEEN. Using a population-based cohort study, we evaluated the association between facility NDR (F-NDR) and the risk of PEEC/PEEN among newly diagnosed BE patients.
Methods:
This population-based cohort study was conducted in Finland and Sweden during the study period 2006-2020. Data were retrieved from the national and complete patient, cancer, and cause of death registries. PEEC and PEEN were defined as esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) or HGD/EAC, respectively, diagnosed 30-365 days from BE diagnosis (index endoscopy). NDR-1 was defined as EAC alone and NDR-2 as HGD/EAC diagnosed from 0-29 days and F-NDR was calculated as a 2-year moving average. Incident HGD/EAC was diagnosed >365 days from BE diagnosis. Patients were followed until HGD/EAC, death or end of study period. Incidence rates (IR) and mortality rates (MR) per 100,000 person-years were calculated using Poisson regression. The F-NDR was log transformed due to data skewness and association between F-NDR and PEEC/PEEN were assessed using the Poisson model using quadratic term for log(F-NDR).
Results:
15,126 newly diagnosed BE patients (mean age 64.6 yrs, 66% men) were included. Among 198 patients diagnosed with EAC: NDR-1 (n=36, 18.1%), PEEC (n=44, 22.2%) and incident EAC (118, 59.5%) (Table 1). The mean F-NDR-1 was 0.23 (SD 1.1). IRs/100,000 person-years for PEEC and incident EAC were 341 (95% CI 254-458) and 193 (161-231). All-cause and EAC specific MR/100,000 person-years were 3782 (95% CI 3645-3924) and 121 (98-149). Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for PEEC based on F-NDR using quadratic term were 0.16 (0.05-0.52) and 0.18 (0.06-0.56), respectively. Only Sweden reported HGD rates and in this database, 249 patients were diagnosed with HGD/EAC: NDR-2 (n=47, 18.8%), PEEN (n=47, 18.8%) and incident HGD/EAC (n=155, 62%). The mean F-NDR-2 was 0.39 (SD 1.8). IRs/100,000 person-years for PEEN and incident HGD/EAC were 474 (356-630) and 291 (248-340). The adjusted HRs for PEEN based on F-NDR-2 was 0.08 (0.02-0.36), respectively. Figure highlights the significant variability in F-NDR across participating sites and association between F-NDR and IRs of PEEC/PEEN.
Conclusions:
Results from this large population-based study demonstrate an inverse association between NDR and the risk of PEEC/PEEN. These findings support the validity of NDR and PEEC/PEEN as quality measures in BE and intervention studies to determine whether improving NDR leads to a reduction in PEEC/PEEN are warranted.
Presenter
University of Colorado
Speakers
University of North Carolina
Tracks
Related Products
LOW INCIDENCE OF RECURRENT NEOPLASTIC BARRETT’S ESOPHAGUS (BE) AFTER SUCCESSFUL ENDOSCOPIC ERADICATION THERAPY (EET): LONG-TERM OUTCOMES FROM A MULTICENTER PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY
INTRODUCTION: EET is endorsed by guidelines for treatment of BE-related neoplasia patients. Few studies describe long-term durability outcomes in BE patients who achieve complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) following EET…
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A MACHINE LEARNING (ML) BASED DECISION-MAKING TOOL TO DETERMINE RISK AND TIMING OF RECURRENCE OF BARRETT’S ESOPHAGUS (BE) NEOPLASIA AFTER SUCCESSFUL ENDOSCOPIC ERADICATION THERAPY (EET)
Recent studies have described the durability of EET for BE-related neoplasia and the risk of neoplastic recurrence after achieving complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM). Current guidelines for endoscopic surveillance intervals post-EET are based on limited evidence…
‘INCIDENTAL’ BARRETT’S ESOPHAGUS IS ASSOCIATED WITH HIGH RATES OF NEOPLASIA AND LOW RATES OF ADHERENCE TO QUALITY INDICATORS: A POPULATION-BASED ANALYSIS USING THE GIQUIC NATIONAL QUALITY BENCHMARKING REGISTRY
‘Incidental’ BE, defined as BE diagnosed during exams for reasons other than BE screening or surveillance, has unknown incidence and outcomes. Patient characteristics, detection of dysplasia, and adherence to established quality indicators in this patient population has not been described…
