3.8 Review

Risk factors affecting the Barrett's metaplasia-dysplasia-neoplasia sequence

Journal

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Volume 7, Issue 5, Pages 438-445

Publisher

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i5.438

Keywords

Barrett's esophagus; Esophageal adenocarcinoma; Endoscopy; Risk factors; Radiofrequency ablation; Antireflux surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Esophageal adenocarcinoma has the fastest growing incidence rate of any cancer in the United States, and currently carries a very poor prognosis with 5 years relative survival rates of less than 15%. Current curative treatment options are limited to esophagectomy, a procedure that suffers from high complication rates and high mortality rates. Metaplasia of the esophageal epithelium, a condition known as Barrett's esophagus (BE), is widely accepted as the precursor lesion for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Recently, radio-frequency ablation has been shown to be an effective method to treat BE, although there is disagreement as to whether radio-frequency ablation should be used to treat all patients with BE or whether treatment should be reserved for those at high risk for progressing to esophageal adenocarcinoma while continuing to endoscopically survey those with low risk. Recent re-search has been targeted towards identifying those at greater risk for progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma so that radio-frequency ablation therapy can be used in a more targeted manner, decreasing the total health care cost as well as improving patient outcomes. This review discusses the current state of the literature regarding risk factors for progression from BE through dysplasia to esophageal adenocarcinoma, as well as the current need for an integrated scoring tool or risk stratification system capable of differentiating those patients at highest risk of progression in order to target these endoluminal therapies.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available