Autofluorescence endoscopy in surveillance of Barrett's esophagus: a multicenter randomized trial on diagnostic efficacy

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The reference surveillance method in patients with Barrett's esophagus is careful endoscopic observation, with targeted as well as random four-quadrant biopsies. Autofluorescence endoscopy (AFE) may make it easier to locate neoplasia. The aim of this study was to elucidate the diagnostic accuracy of surveillance with AFE-guided plus four-quadrant biopsies in comparison with the conventional approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 187 of 200 consecutive Barrett's esophagus patients who were initially enrolled (73 % male, mean age 67 years, mean Barrett's segment length 4.6 cm), who underwent endoscopy for Barrett's esophagus in four study centers, were randomly assigned to undergo either AFE-targeted biopsy followed by four-quadrant biopsies or conventional endoscopic surveillance, also including four-quadrant biopsies (study phase 1). After exclusion of patients with early cancer or high-grade dysplasia, who underwent endoscopic or surgical treatment, as well as those who declined to participate in phase 2 of the study, 130 patients remained. These patients were examined again with the alternative method after a mean of 10 weeks, using the same methods described. The main study parameter was the detection of early cancer/adenocarcinoma or high-grade dysplasia (HGD), comparing both approaches in study phase 1; the secondary study aim in phase 2 was to assess the additional value of the AFE-guided approach after conventional surveillance, and vice versa. Test accuracy measures were derived from study phase 1. RESULTS: In study phase 1, the AFE and conventional approaches yielded adenocarcinoma/HGD rates of 12 % and 5.3 %, respectively, on a per-patient basis. With AFE, four previously unrecognized adenocarcinoma/HGD lesions were identified (4.3 % of the patients); with the conventional approach, one new lesion (1.1 %) was identified. Of the 19 adenocarcinoma/HGD lesions detected during AFE endoscopy in study phase 1, eight were visualized, while 11 were only detected using untargeted four-quadrant biopsies (sensitivity 42 %). Of the 766 biopsies classified at histology as being nonneoplastic, 58 appeared suspicious (specificity 92 %, positive predictive value 12 %, negative predictive value 98.5 %). In study phase 2, AFE detected two further lesions in addition to the initial alternative approach in 3.2 % of cases, in comparison with one lesion with conventional endoscopy (1.7 %). CONCLUSIONS: In this referral Barrett's esophagus population with a higher prevalence of neoplastic lesions, the AFE-guided approach improved the diagnostic yield for neoplasia in comparison with the conventional approach using four-quadrant biopsies. However, AFE alone was not suitable for replacing the standard four-quadrant biopsy protocol.

Training primary care physicians to offer their patients faecal occult blood testing and colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening on an equal basis: a pilot intervention with before-after and parallel group surveys.

OBJECTIVES Primary care physicians (PCPs) should prescribe faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) or colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening based on their patient's values and preferences. However, there are wide variations between PCPs in the screening method prescribed. The objective was to assess the impact of an educational intervention on PCPs' intent to offer FIT or colonoscopy on an equal basis. DESIGN Survey before and after training seminars, with a parallel comparison through a mailed survey to PCPs not attending the training seminars. SETTING All PCPs in the canton of Vaud, Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS Of 592 eligible PCPs, 133 (22%) attended a seminar and 106 (80%) filled both surveys. 109 (24%) PCPs who did not attend the seminars returned the mailed survey. INTERVENTION A 2 h-long interactive seminar targeting PCP knowledge, skills and attitudes regarding offering a choice of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening options. OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was PCP intention of having their patients screened with FIT and colonoscopy in equal proportions (between 40% and 60% each). Secondary outcomes were the perceived role of PCPs in screening decisions (from paternalistic to informed decision-making) and correct answer to a clinical vignette. RESULTS Before the seminars, 8% of PCPs reported that they had equal proportions of their patients screened for CRC by FIT and colonoscopy; after the seminar, 33% foresaw having their patients screened in equal proportions (p<0.001). Among those not attending, there was no change (13% vs 14%, p=0.8). Of those attending, there was no change in their perceived role in screening decisions, while the proportion responding correctly to a clinical vignette increased (88-99%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS An interactive training seminar increased the proportion of physicians with the intention to prescribe FIT and colonoscopy in equal proportions.