British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett's oesophagus

<p>These guidelines provide a practical and evidence-based resource for the management of patients with Barrett's oesophagus and related early neoplasia. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument was followed to provide a methodological strategy for the guideline development. A systematic review of the literature was performed for English language articles published up until December 2012 in order to address controversial issues in Barrett's oesophagus including definition, screening and diagnosis, surveillance, pathological grading for dysplasia, management of dysplasia, and early cancer including training requirements. The rigour and quality of the studies was evaluated using the SIGN checklist system. Recommendations on each topic were scored by each author using a five-tier system (A+, strong agreement, to D+, strongly disagree). Statements that failed to reach substantial agreement among authors, defined as &gt;80% agreement (A or A+), were revisited and modified until substantial agreement (&gt;80%) was reached. In formulating these guidelines, we took into consideration benefits and risks for the population and national health system, as well as patient perspectives. For the first time, we have suggested stratification of patients according to their estimated cancer risk based on clinical and histopathological criteria. In order to improve communication between clinicians, we recommend the use of minimum datasets for reporting endoscopic and pathological findings. We advocate endoscopic therapy for high-grade dysplasia and early cancer, which should be performed in high-volume centres. We hope that these guidelines will standardise and improve management for patients with Barrett's oesophagus and related neoplasia.</p>

Wide Variation in Adenoma Detection Rates at Screening Flexible Sigmoidoscopy

<p>Background &amp; Aims: Wide between-center variation in adenoma detection rates (ADRs) was observed in the U.K. Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial (overall, 12.1%; range, 8.6%-15.9%; P &lt;0.0001). The aim of this study was to determine whether the observed differences could be attributed to varying performance by endoscopists, to examine the effect of experience on performance, and to identify an attainable, standard ADR to which endoscopists could aspire. </p><p>Methods: Thirteen medical endoscopists, one per trial center, each performed about 3000 examinations (200 per month) using the same equipment and protocol. Overall and monthly ADRs were compared using multivariable logistic regression. </p><p>Results: Differences in ADRs were not explained by patient characteristics, incidence of colorectal cancer in the local population, or the endoscopists' medical specialty or previous experience. Average ADRs increased significantly with screening experience (up to 400 examinations). Endoscopists were classified as higher, intermediate, or lower adenoma detectors, and performance levels were maintained over time. Higher detectors had ADRs of 15% overall (men, 20%; women, 10%) and also detected more adenomas per case (higher/lower detectors, 21.7/10.4 adenomas per :100 examinations). </p><p>Conclusions: The differences in ADRs were due to variation in performance of the endoscopists. Long-term follow-up will determine whether this variation is clinically important. We suggest that the standards in higher detecting centers should be achievable by all endoscopists screening unscreened populations aged older than 55 years. Endoscopists should aim to stay above the lower 95% confidence interval band for 200 examinations (10% overall; 5% in women, 15% in men).</p>