4.7 Article

Barrett's esophagus is common in older men and women undergoing screening colonoscopy regardless of reflux symptoms

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 101, 期 1, 页码 12-17

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00379.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Although Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma (ACA), most patients with ACA present outside of a BE surveillance program. This could be due to undiagnosed symptomatic GER and BE or BE/ACA occurring in patients without reflux symptoms. We have, therefore, studied the prevalence of BE and symptom status in older patients referred for colonoscopy. METHODS All patients referred for outpatient colonoscopy were eligible if they were at least 65 yr old and had not previously undergone esophagoscopy. After informed consent, the patients completed detailed GER questionnaires. During the research endoscopy, the endoscopist recorded the squamocolumnar junction (SCJ) as either long-segment BE (LSBE), short-segment BE (SSBE), or normal. If the SCJ was felt to be irregular the endoscopist was asked to predict, in their judgment, if BE was present. All patients had biopsies below the SCJ, which were examined by a gastrointestinal pathologist who was blinded to the endoscopic findings. RESULTS BE esophagus was present in 50 of the 300 patients studied (16.7%). BE was more common in men (35 of 161, 21.7%) than in women (15 of 139, 10.8%) (p < 0.025). GERD symptoms were reported in 106 patients (35%) and BE was present in 19.8% of symptomatic and 14.9% of asymptomatic cases (NS). The majority of the BE in this study was less than 3 cm in length (92%). The questionnaires did not predict the presence of BE. CONCLUSIONS BE is common in unscreened male and female patients at least 65 yr of age who are referred for colonoscopy. Men were more likely than women to have BE although it occurred in both sexes. Reflux symptoms were fairly common but a poor predictor of BE.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据