0Gastroenterology Report 1 (2013) 95-104, doi:10.1093/gastro/got009 Advance access publication 26 March 2013
Review
Managing Barrett's esophagus with radiofrequency ablation
Junichi Akiyama1, Andrew Roorda2 and George Triadafilopoulos3'*
1National Center for Global Health and Medicine, 1-21-1 Toyama, Shinjuku, Tokyo, 162-8655, Japan, 2El Camino GI Medical Associates, Mountain View, CA 94040, USA and 3Division of Gastroenterology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
*Corresponding author. Division of Gastroenterology, Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Drive, # M-211, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. E-mail: vagt@stanford.edu
Keywords: Barrett's esophagus; radiofrequency ablation; esophageal cancer; adenocarcinoma; intestinal metaplasia; dysplasia.
INTRODUCTION symptoms in BE, healing of co-existent esophagitis and
preventing stricture formation, but also it increases the
Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a metaplastic random whei-e epithelial differentiation and decreases proliferation of
the squamous esophageal epithelium is replaced by colum- Barrett's mucosa [6]. Moreover, PPI therapy can lead to
nar epithelium containing goblet cells. BE occurs as a result partial regression of intestinal metaplasia (IM) in BE
of chronic injury and inflammation of esophageal epi- patients, as evidenced by the development of macroscopic
thelium due to reflux of gastro-duodenal contents in islands of squamous epithelium and an accompanying
the context of gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD) shortening of columnar epithelium, albeit inconsis-
and its estimated prevalence is about 10% among GERD tently [7, 9]. A recent large prospective cohort study also
patients [1]. BE is a well-established pre-malignant lesion showed that PPI use was associated with 75% reduction in
for esophageal adenocarcinoma [2, 3]. Adenocarcinoma the risk of neoplastic progression in patients with BE and
of the distal esophagus and gastro-esophageal junction that this effect increased with prolonged PPI use
(GEJ) have increased in incidence over the last several and good adherence [10]. However, complete elimination
decades at a rate exceeding that of any other cancer and of BE with medical therapy alone is rarely, if ever,
carry a dismal five-year overall survival rate of less than accomplished.
15% [4,5]. Several methods, including thermal ablation (laser,
Pharmacologic therapy with proton pump inhibitor multi-polar electrocoagulation (MPEC), argon plasma coag-
(PPI) is not only highly effective in relieving acid reflux ulation (APC), radiofrequency or cryotherapy), non-thermal
Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a well-established pre-malignant lesion for esophageal adenocarcinoma, a condition that carries gg
a dismal five-year overall survival rate of less than 15%. Among several available methods to eliminate BE, radiofrequency r
ablation (RFA) provides the most efficient modality, since it has been demonstrated to successfully eradicate BE with or x
without dysplasia with acceptable safety, efficacy and durability profiles. In conjunction with proton pump therapy, this r
new technology has quickly become the standard care for patients with dysplastic BE. However, several technical questions o'
remain about how to deploy RFA therapy for maximum effectiveness and long-term favorable outcomes for all stages of 3
the disease. These include how to select patient for therapy, what the best protocol for RFA is, when to use other o
modalities, such as endoscopic mucosal resection, and what should be considered for refractory BE. This review addresses "1
these questions with the perspective of the best available evidence matched with the authors' experience with the ^
technology. 5 ■
© The Author(s) 2013. Published by Oxford University Press and the Digestive Science Publishing Co. Limited.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
ablation (photodynamic therapy), or mechanical (endoscopic mucosal resection) have been introduced to eliminate BE [11]. Of these, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) using the HALO system (Covidien, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) provides the most efficient mode of treatment, since it has been demonstrated to successfully eradicate BE with or without dysplasia with an acceptable safety, efficacy and durability profiles [12-16]. In conjunction with PPI therapy, this new technology has quickly become the standard of care for patients with dysplastic BE.
Ablative therapy with RFA should be considered for patients with dysplastic BE for many reasons: Dysplasia is neoplasia, representing a cancer-cell phenotype confined to the esophageal epithelium. Over many years, this pheno-type accumulates a series of oncogenic alterations that enable cellular immortality, cellular autonomy, tissue invasion and other neoplastic characteristics. In patients with HGD undergoing surveillance, the risk of cancer progression is estimated to be approximately six per 100 patient-years during the first few years of follow-up in patients with HGD [17]. Further, the current practice of endo-scopic biopsy surveillance is permissive, in that it does not change the natural history of the disease. Endoscopic surveillance also carries a significant sampling error and inter-observer discordance between pathologists, that may erroneously downgrade a patient from high-grade dysplasia (HGD) to low-grade dysplasia (LGD), or LGD to no dysplasia [18]. In contrast, ablative treatment ensures that all neoplastic cells are eradicated. Further, cost-utility models show that ablation is the dominant or preferred strategy for managing dysplastic BE and that alternative management strategies for dysplastic Barrett's are less
optimal [19-21]. Esophagectomy is curative in that it removes the entire organ, yet is fraught with a high rate of morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic resection is technically challenging and is available at few centers with expertise. Overall, the net health benefit (benefit minus risk) of RFA for dysplastic BE is favorable and should be available to the patient as a primary option.
A critical question is when to treat BE with RFA based on the disease stage. The American Gastroenterological Association's (AGA) Medical Position Statement (MPS) recommends RFA treatment for patients with HGD [22]. For LGD, the MPS states that RFA is an appropriate treatment option to be discussed with the patient. There is less clarity around whether to treat patients with non-dysplastic disease: hence, many questions remain about how to deploy RFA therapy for maximum effectiveness and long-term favorable outcomes for all stages of the disease [Table 1]. This review addresses some of these questions with the perspective of the best available evidence matched with the authors' experience with the technology.
PATIENT SELECTION FOR RFA
The AGA MPS states that endoscopic eradication therapy (RFA, PDT or EMR) rather than surveillance is recommended for patients with HGD and should be a therapeutic option for patient with LGD [23]. It also states that, although endoscopic eradication therapy is not suggested for the general population of patients with BE in the absence of dysplasia, RFA with or without EMR should be a therapeutic option for select individuals with non-dysplastic Barrett's
Table 1. Current issues regarding radiofrequency therapy for Barrett's esophagus in clinical practice
Patient selection for radiofrequency therapy
-Which disease stages should physician consider treating?
-What clinical characteristics place a non-dysplastic Barrett's patient at increased risk for neoplastic progression? -Are all patients with Barrett's esophagus eligible for therapy?
Methods and practice
-What is the best protocol for radiofrequency therapy? -Who should be performing radiofrequency therapy?
Use of other modalities
-How to decide whether to use radiofrequency, endoscopic resection or combined modality therapy? -Which advanced endoscopic imaging is useful for endoscopic surveillance?
Post-therapy surveillance
-What should the follow-up care be?
Refractory disease
- Who is likely to be refractory after radiofrequency therapy? -What should be considered for the radiofrequency-refractory patient?
esophagus (ND-BE) who are judged to be at increased risk for progression to high-grade dysplasia or cancer. The recent ASGE guideline recommends endoscopic ablation for BE with HGD; RFA should also be considered and discussed with patients with LGD and for select cases of ND-BE, such as those with a family history of esophageal adenocarcinoma [24]. Given the safety and apparent efficacy of RFA, however, some authorities—including the authors—feel that these guidelines are too restrictive and argue that virtually all patients with BE, irrespective of dys-plasia, should be treated with RFA [25].
Although endoscopic surveillance is recommended in patients with BE, with intervals of 3-5 years for ND-BE, 6-12 months for LGD, 3 months for HGD (in the absence of ablation therapy), there are no controlled trials that examine the efficacy of such surveillance. Hence, the question of whether the current strategies to detect and diagnose BE are optimal or justified still remains unanswered. In addition, there has also been a problem with the method of biopsies. Targeted plus 4-quadrant biopsies every 1-2 cm along the length of the BE are recommended but several physicians were especially uncomfortable with surveillance for long-segment Barrett's esophagus because it is time-consuming and associated with sampling error. There is a need for an adequate, cost-effective screening and surveillance tool to have a significant impact on the rates of adenocarcinoma.
A recent multicenter, sham-controlled trial of RFA achieved complete eradication of dysplasia (CE-D) in 90.5% of patients and complete eradication of IM (CE-IM) in 81% of patients with LGD with 2-year follow-up data demonstrating complete eradication of dysplasia and BE in 98% of patients [15]. The annual rate of neoplastic progression in this study was one per 73 patient-years; however no subjects (sham or ablation) progressed from LGD to cancer [26]. Another multicenter study of RFA of ND-BE achieved complete eradication of BE in 98.4% of patients at 2.5 years and 92% at 5 years, with no patients progressing past ND-BE during follow-up [27]. A recent meta-analysis also demonstrated that endoscopic ablation significantly reduces the risk for cancer in patients with ND-BE and LGD [28]. Moreover, a cost-effectiveness model showed that endoscopic ablation therapy is the preferred strategy over surveillance in patients with ND-BE or LGD [19].
There are a number of reasons why physicians should consider endoscopic intervention rather than 'surveillance-only' for patients with ND-BE or LGD: (a) the inability to predict what patients will progress to HGD or invasive cancer, (b) the inability to predict the time course of such progression, should it occur, (c) the risk for misdiagnosis (under-staging) due to inadequate mucosal sampling, lack of compliance with endoscopic surveillance guidelines and inter-observer disagreement between pathologists, (d) the patients' anxiety for harboring a premalignant lesion and
its impact on quality of life and (e) the availability of endoscopic modalities for completely removing the diseased tissue in a safe, effective and cost-effective manner. Therefore, for patients with ND-BE or LGD, RFA plus surveillance or surveillance-alone could be offered after a thorough discussion of the risks and benefits. The risk-benefit discussion should be tailored to each patient's needs and underlying medical co-morbidities, with a higher emphasis on enrolling higher-risk patients with longsegment BE, a family history of esophageal adenocarci-noma and significant anxiety associated with the diagnosis of BE. In the real-life clinical settings, RFA is now commonly being performed in patients with both dysplastic and non-dysplastic diseases [29]. In fact, because ND-BE is the most common form of BE (95%), RFA is being performed more often in non-dysplastic than dysplastic BE patients.
Although it is generally assumed that BE progresses in a stepwise fashion from ND to LGD to HGD to intra-mucosal cancer and then eventually to invasive cancer, this is unusual in practice. Sharma etal. reported that EAC incidence in patients with BE was 0.5% per patient per year of follow-up, but also demonstrated that patients may develop invasive cancer despite having ND-BE as their worst histological grade immediately before being diagnosed with cancer [30].
Differentiating LGD from HGD is challenging and expert discordance in pathology interpretation is frequent and unsettling. This is particularly true for the diagnosis of LGD. Using standard endoscopic imaging—and in the absence of a nodule formation or other mucosal abnormality—it is extremely difficult to distinguish LGD from HGD. Such uncertainty with the diagnosis of dysplasia is enough to drive ablation not only of all dysplasia, but also of any metaplasia. Since we cannot reliably identify who will go on to develop cancer—and in what time frame—and since surveillance is imperfect and economically unsound, ablation for ND-BE and LGD seems even more reasonable to consider. In contrast, there are some circumstances where RFA is difficult and is therefore not recommended. RFA should be avoided in patients with severe co-morbidities, such as cardiopulmonary disease or whose anticoagulation therapy cannot be discontinued.
Formation of a columnar epithelium in the esophagus is the first clinically evident change in the metaplasia-dysplasia-carcinoma sequence, analogous to the precursor status of colon adenomas in the development of colorectal cancer. Hence both BE and colon adenomas represent en-doscopically detectable mucosal changes that signify malignant potential. Yet, to date, the clinical management strategies of these conditions have been widely divergent. ND-BE and LGD are approached with watchful endoscopic biopsy surveillance with the goal of detecting disease progression to EAC at a treatable stage. Adenomas, on the other hand, are endoscopically removed upon detection,
regardless of histological grade. In both scenarios, patients undergo long-term surveillance at regular intervals.
In order to identify who are the most appropriate candidates for RFA therapy in ND-BE patients, it is important to identify those who are at highest risk of disease progression. Although prospective data are lacking, most authorities agree that the following factors may increase the likelihood of disease progression: long-segment BE (>3cm) [31-34], large hiatal hernia [32, 35], family history (familial Barrett's or a primary relative with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or gastric cardia) [36, 37], male gender [31, 38-40], obesity [41], tobacco use [31, 42, 43], Caucasian race [44, 45], persistent Barrett's ulcer despite PPI therapy, long-duration or nocturnal GERD [34, 46] and H. pylori negative status [47]. With regards to biomarkers, detection of DNA content abnormalities by flow cytometry (aneuploidy or increased 4N fraction) [48-51], mutation or loss of heterozygosity of the p53 and p16 genes [5258] and methylation-based biomarkers panels [59, 60] have shown promise and may be superior to histology alone for risk stratification, especially in ND-BE and LGD. However, these biomarkers are not widely available and need to be validated further in large prospective multicenter studies before their routine use in the risk stratification of BE patients can be advocated. Development of a comprehensive BE risk progression score, comprised of both clinical and biomarker variables, should be the ultimate goal and can be achieved by multicenter prospective collaborative efforts. Creation of such a score has the potential to improve outcomes and make the management of patients with ND-BE more cost-effective.
RFA METHODS AND PRACTICE
For treating long-segment BE, it is best to first use the HALO-360 balloon (circumferential) ablation device then, two months later, check for remaining disease and re-treat as necessary with HALO-90 or HALO-60 focal catheter. Some endoscopists consider this protocol too complex as it requires a sizing process before the actual ablation. They find it quicker and more cost-effective to only use the HALO-90 device for ablation. In our experience, for long-segment BE (>2 cm) and in fairly straight esophageal anatomy, the HALO-360 balloon is definitely the preferred RFA device. In contrast, for disease consisting only of non-circumferential tongues of 1-3 cm (for example, a patient who is COM2, according to the Prague Classification System) or in patients with large hiatal hernias and tortuous esophageal anatomy, the focal devices—HALO-90 or HALO-60—are preferred.
The advised treatment regimen for HAL0-360 procedure comprises two ablation passes with cleaning of both the ablation zone and the ablation balloon after the first pass. This regimen requires multiple introductions and
removals of the endoscope, sizing catheter and ablation balloons, which is labor-intensive, time consuming and uncomfortable to the patient. A recent randomized study by van Vilsteren et al. showed that the efficacy of a simplified regimen—in which the cleaning step between ablations was completely abandoned—was non-inferior to the standard regimen, but that this regimen was twice as fast (5-13 vs 20 min) and required significantly fewer introductions (RFA devices/endoscope) than the standard approach (4 vs 7) [61]. Hence, the use of this simplified HALO-360 regimen without cleaning step may be considered as a quick and easy alternative for patients with an uncomplicated BE without scarring and luminal stenosis.
A large number of RFA clinical trials have shown high efficacy and safety rates to treat BE but such trials have been conducted at predominantly academic tertiary care centers. Lyday et al. reported that the safety and efficacy outcomes of RFA performed at community-based practice were comparable to those previously reported in multicenter trials from predominantly tertiary academic centers [62]. The main strengths of the HALO system include the precise and controlled delivery of a predetermined, standardized radiofrequency energy and its simplicity and ease, since it can be performed in a less operator-dependant manner. Hence, RFA may be performed by any clinician who has an in-depth understanding of esophageal pathophysiology, who has the equipment and expertise to perform adequate BE imaging (preferably with high-definition endoscope) and who is willing to make long-term commitment to the BE patient by performing surveillance adhering to the Society guidelines in order to assure durability of eradication. Although accurate staging is critical in making therapeutic decisions in patients with dysplastic BE, physicians performing RFA do not necessarily need to have EMR and EUS capabilities if there is an intention to refer challenging cases to an expert BE center [63].
USE OF OTHER MODALITIES
The primary goal of endoscopic treatment in BE is to prevent the development of invasive esophageal adenocarci-noma. There are currently two main endoscopic techniques employed for BE eradication: tissue ablation and tissue resection (EMR). The principle behind all ablative techniques is the superficial induction of necrosis of the metaplastic and dysplastic tissue. Cellular damage can be produced through thermal injury (RFA), photochemical injury (photo-dynamic therapy) or exposure to cold temperatures (cryo-therapy). The choice of ablative therapy is somewhat empiric, given the lack of comparative studies looking at long-term outcomes with different techniques. RFA may be best suited for flat mucosa, where the ablation catheter can establish direct contact with the entire mucosa. Treatment in patients with scarring and distorted anatomy, which
makes contact challenging, may be approached with cryoa-blation. PDT use has declined due to prolonged photo-sensitivity and a high rate of stricture formation.
As in most malignancies, EAC survival correlates with cancer staging, so accurate initial clinical staging is crucial. The first clinical assessment to make when EAC is diagnosed is the differentiation of intramucosal cancer (IMC) from submucosal (or deeper) adenocarcinoma. In general, routine biopsies are not adequate to provide a reliable pathological assessment of the depth of tumor invasion in order to make a safe clinical decision about utilization of local treatment alone. To address this limitation, both endo-scopic ultrasound (EUS) and EMR have been applied. EUS is currently regarded as the best local staging tool available for esophageal cancer. However, EUS is incapable of reliably differentiating between T1a and T1b tumors and, therefore, it cannot reliably stratify patients suitable for local rather than surgical treatment; but it is used to rule out lymph node metastases, as a suspicious lymph node can be detected and biopsied for cytological evaluation. In contrast to EUS, EMR provides large tissue specimens that can be used to assess the depth of any neoplastic involvement and the adequacy of the resection.
EMR is also used to remove focal, nodular areas of dysplasia and neoplasia within the BE segment. Thus, EMR has potential value as a diagnostic/staging procedure, as well as a therapeutic procedure for removing Barrett's epithelium with dysplasia. Although EMR removes any visibly suspicious areas and has the advantage of allowing histological evaluation of the specimen with subsequent risk stratification of the specimen for the presence of lymph node metastases, this leaves the patient at potential risk of metachronous lesions during follow-up. To prevent this, EMR has been combined with RFA to eradicate residual metaplasia. However, RFA after EMR could theoretically result in an increase in the incidence of procedural complications; scarring of the esophagus and change in compliance of the esophageal wall after EMR might make the performance more challenging and potentially increase the risk of perforations, tears and stricture formation. Recent studies have reported that, in patients with EMR before RFA for nodular BE with HGD or IMC, no differences in efficacy and safety outcomes were observed, compared with RFA alone, for non-nodular BE with HGD or IMC [64, 65]. EMR followed by RFA is a safe and effective treatment strategy for patients with nodular BE and advanced neoplasia.
A recent systematic review, that included 1874 patients with HGD and mucosal cancer undergoing esophagectomy, showed overall risk of lymph node metastasis of 1.39% (95% CI: 0.86-1.92) [66]. In contrast, in patients with submucosal invasion, the rate of lymph node metastasis is substantially higher (20-30%) [67]. The risk factors predictive of tumor recurrence or lymph node spread include
moderate-to-poor tumor differentiation, evidence of vascular lymphatic or neural invasion and the presence of multi-focal HGD [68]. Esophagectomy should be employed in patients with submucosal invasion or at risk with lymph node involvement, determined by staging EMR or EUS, or when patients cannot comply with post-treatment endo-scopic surveillance after endoscopic treatment for HDG or intra-mucosal cancer. A decision on endoscopic therapy vs resective surgery should be made following thorough discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Institutional endoscopic and surgical expertise, as well as patient preferences and risk tolerance, will likely influence choice of therapy.
Given the patchy and focal distribution of dysplasia within the Barrett's segment, advanced endoscopic imaging technologies—such as high definition (HD) endoscopy, narrow band imaging (NBI), autofluorescence imaging (AFI) and confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE)—have been developed to enhance detection of dysplasia and early cancer in BE. Some of these technologies (HD-WLE, AFI) are designed for detection of abnormalities, while other imaging modalities are better suited for tissue characterization (NBI, chro-moendoscopy) and histological confirmation (CLE). HD-WLE has a higher sensitivity for the detection of Barrett's-related neoplasia compared to standard endoscopy and is now the standard of care.
NBI allows for better detection and characterization of early neoplasia and IM by highlighting mucosal surface structures and microvasculature. It has been demonstrated that NBI can detect significantly more patients with dyspla-sia and higher grades of dysplasia with fewer biopsy samples compared with standard resolution WLE [69]. When compared to HD-WLE, the results have been less encouraging. Kara et al. found that targeted biopsies with HD-WLE alone had a sensitivity of 79% for the detection of HGD and the addition of NBI did not result in the additional detection of HGD/EAC [70]. Sharma etal. also reported that there was no difference between HD-WLE with four-quadrant biopsies and NBI-directed biopsies in the overall detection of dysplasia (55 vs 77%; P = 0.15), but NBI required fewer biopsies per procedure to establish the diagnosis (3.6 vs 7.6; P< 0.0001) [71]. On the other hand, NBI with magnification has been used to characterize and distinguish lesions detected by HD-WLE. A meta-analysis showed that NBI with magnification has high diagnostic precision in detecting HGD with a sensitivity and specificity of 96% (95%CI; 93-99) and 94% (95%CI; 84-100), respectively [72]. However, the results of NBI with magnification in characterizing SIM were inferior with a sensitivity of 95% (95%CI; 87-100) and a specificity of 65% (95% CI; 52-78). A uniform classification system is needed for the evaluation of mucosal and vascular patterns in BE with NBI with magnification and this classification needs to be validated, incorporating intra-observer and inter-observer agreement as well.
Endoscopic tri-modal imaging (ETMI) (not available in the USA) that includes HD-WLE, AFI and NBI with magnification, has shown no added benefits in the detection of dysplasia [73, 74].
CLE is one of the newest endoscopic technologies, which provides an in vivo microscopic assessment of BE mucosa. Currently there are two confocal platforms available for clinical use: endoscope-based CLE (eCLE) and probe-based CLE (pCLE) [75]. Recently, Sharma etal. published results of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial to determine the accuracy of pCLE in real time. Patients were examined by HD-WLE, NBI and pCLE. The sensitivity and specificity for HD-WLE were 34.2% and 92.7%, respectively, compared with 68.3% and 87.8%, respectively, for HD-WLE with pCLE (P=0.002 and P< 0.001, respectively). Development and validation of criteria for this technology in the detection of HGD/EAC was described with a high overall accuracy and short learning curve [76]. Unfortunately, data are lacking on standardized diagnostic criteria and differentiating LGD from ND-BE or HGD using these advanced imaging tools. Hence, the AGA MPS does not recommend use of these advanced imaging techniques for routine surveillance endoscopy.
POST-RFA SURVEILLANCE
Once BE has been removed by RFA, patients need follow-up surveillance to monitor disease recurrence. Histological assessment of the post-RFA esophagus is performed by surveillance endoscopy with systematic biopsies of the neo-squamous epithelium. The AGA MPS does not specify a protocol for how often patients should be brought back for further upper endoscopy examination, but most authorities agree that post-RFA surveillance (endoscopy with biopsies) should be performed at pre-RFA intervals based on the prior presence of dysplasia and its grade. Hence, HGD should be surveyed every three months, then every six months and yearly thereafter. Low-grade dysplasia should be surveyed every six months, then one year later and every one to five years thereafter. ND-BE should be surveyed every three to five years. Surveillance for any stage of disease should not be continued indefinitely but only until a patient's advanced age or co-morbidities suggested no further utility. Biopsies should be done according to the Seattle protocol; cardiac biopsies should also be taken but labeled separately. It is also commonly accepted that long-segment BE and presence of nodules should shorten surveillance intervals.
There have been several reports regarding the long-term outcomes and durability of the neo-squamous epithelium induced after RFA therapy [26, 77-82]. These studies showed that >80% were able to maintain CE-D and CE-IM without additional therapy. The recurrence rate of IM and dysplasia is low and, among those with recurrent
IM, most are histologically worse than the pretreatment grade and the area of recurrence is generally small. Recurrent IM is usually recognized in three distinct patterns: endoscopically invisible IM underneath the neosqua-mous epithelium (buried glands), visible recurrence in the tubular esophagus (recurrent tongues) and IM of GEJ (with a squamous-lined tubular esophagus) [83].
Buried glands after RFA are uncommon and have been found in less than 10% of patients enrolled in clinical trials evaluating RFA. A systematic review of 18 reports showed that buried metaplasia was noted in nine (0.9%) of the 1004 patients after RFA [84]. The buried glands are not visible by conventional endoscopy, even when supplemented by chromogen or narrow-band imaging. Although rigorous biopsies were performed over neosquamous epithelium after RFA treatment in study protocols, these buried glands are likely underappreciated with the current surveillance protocols because areas of neosquamous epithelium do not routinely undergo biopsy in clinical practice. Furthermore, the sampling area and depth of biopsy are limited, even with large-capacity forceps.
Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is an emerging biomedical imaging technology that detects light back-scattered from tissues to construct cross-sectional and three-dimensional (3D) images of tissue microstructures with micron-scale resolution. OCT imaging depth is 1 to 2 mm in the human esophagus, enabling evaluation of tissue morphology underneath the squamous epithelium. Because the location of buried glands is unpredictable, this imaging technology, which uniquely enables depth-resolved imaging of a broad area with near-microscopic resolution, holds great potential for identifying and characterizing buried glands before and after ablative therapies. Zhou et al. reported that 3D-OCT provided a 30 to 60 times larger field of view, compared with jumbo and standard forceps biopsy, and sufficient imaging depth to the lamina propria/muscularis mucosa to facilitate the detection of buried glands before and after RFA. It also detected a high prevalence of buried glands in 72% patients before RFA and in 63% patients after RF, although the number of buried glands per patient was significantly lower after RFA [85].
Only a few studies have evaluated the biological properties of buried metaplasia. Buried metaplasia following PDT appears to have a lower crypt proliferation rate and neo-plastic potential compared with pretreatment BE [86]. A recent report raised concerns on the development of sub-squamous neoplasia in three patients who were treated with RFA for BE (two developed adenocarcinoma and one developed HGD) [87]. Further investigation is needed to understand the longitudinal progression and clinical implications of buried glands.
The predictors for recurrence of BE have also not been well understood. In one study by Vaccaro et al., a longer
baseline BE length was shown to be associated with IM recurrence [81]. The reasons for such an association are unclear but longer length may be a marker of more severe reflux, or may be a surrogate measure of the likelihood of harboring a more genetically advanced dysplastic clone. Further studies are needed to identify predictors of recurrence, which would be valuable to risk-stratify patients after ablation to better target surveillance efforts.
REFRACTORY DISEASE
There are several factors associated with incomplete response to RFA. These include longer columnar segment, large hiatal hernia and ongoing uncontrolled reflux. The length of initial columnar segment may influence the ability to perform a successful ablation and the number of ablations needed to achieve success [15, 63, 88-90]. Although the increased surface area of the columnar mucosa may be responsible for this observation, another possible explanation may be that patients with longer columnar segments may have more severe reflux. Hiatal hernia size is also known to affect the ability to successfully ablate BE [63, 88, 91]. The widening of the distal esophagus into a hiatal hernia may make it difficult to bring the electrode of the HALO circumferential/focal devices into good contact with the mucosa at the GEJ, resulting in insufficient ablation of BE at this level.
Uncontrolled reflux, despite twice daily PPI therapy, is also reported to increase the incidence of persistent IM after ablation in patients with BE [88, 91, 92]. Persistent esophageal acid reflux without symptoms is frequently observed among BE patients treated with PPI, or even fundo-plication [91, 93-95]. In RFA clinical trials, patients typically receive double-dose PPI without evaluating their actual amount of acid reflux by pH/impedance monitoring. However, a significant number of BE patients will not demonstrate normalization of gastro-esophageal reflux, even when taking high-dose PPI therapy [95]. The potential explanation for this observation could be incompetent lower esophageal sphincter and ineffective esophageal motility [96], reduced chemo- and mechanoreceptor sensitivity to acid or balloon distension [97, 98] and reduced symptom perception in BE patients [99].
The number of RFA sessions required to eradicate BE and associated dysplasia is usually 2-3, but more sessions may be needed for longer BE segments [62]. There is no consensus on the number of treatments needed to define a non-responder or a refractory patient after several RFA sessions.
These patients may be considered to perform esopha-geal function testing, such as impedance, pH testing and/ or high-resolution manometry to assess for uncontrolled reflux despite therapy. If the reflux testing shows ongoing reflux despite PPI therapy, laparoscopic fundoplication
should be considered, since it may correct both reflux and underlying hiatal hernia, which are the major underlying causes responsible for incomplete response to RFA [89].
There have been several reports addressing no response after RFA, which is endoscopically characterized by replacement of the ablated area with a scar but without squamous regeneration. After 2 more months of follow-up, these patients heal with recurrent columnar lining in the ablated segment. This phenomenon is not well described in the literature but such patients may account for 9-15% of cases [63, 77, 79]. In one study, even after the fundoplication was carried out and resulted in normalization of intra-esophageal pH, two out of three patients still could not be successfully ablated [63]. Further study will be needed to assess the underlying mechanisms behind refractory disease other than ongoing acid reflux.
CONCLUSIONS
Significant evidence has been accumulated recently that supports the use of RFA in dysplastic and non-dysplastic BE but several technical questions remain. In general, however, the HALO systems have provided a safe and practical approach to BE management at the level of community practice and are expected to have a favorable impact on esophageal adenocarcinoma rates.
Conflict of interest: G.T. has received consulting honoraria from BARRx Medical, Inc.
REFERENCES
1. Altorki NK, Oliveria S and Schrump DS. Epidemiology and molecular biology of Barrett's adenocarcinoma. Semin Surg Oncol 1997;13: 270-80.
2. Barrett NR. The lower esophagus lined by columnar epithelium. Surgery 1957;41:881-94.
3. Spechler SJ and Goyal RK. The columnar-lined esophagus, intestinal metaplasia and Norman Barrett. Gastroenterology 1996;110: 614-21.
4. Blot WJ, Devesa SS, Kneller RW et al. Rising incidence of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia. JAMA 1991;265: 1287-89.
5. Eloubeidi MA, Mason AC, Desmond RA et al. Temporal trends (1973-1997) in survival of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma in the United States: a glimmer of hope? Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:1627-33.
6. Ouatu-Lascar R, Fitzgerald RC and Triadafilopoulos G. Differentiation and proliferation in Barrett's esophagus and the effects of acid suppression. Gastroenterology 1999;117:327-35.
7. Cooper BT, Chapman W, Neumann CS et al. Continuous treatment of Barrett's oesophagus patients with proton pump inhibitors up to 13 years: observations on regression and cancer incidence. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006;23:727-33.
8. Peters FT, Ganesh S, Kuipers EJ et al. Endoscopic regression of Barrett's oesophagus during omeprazole treatment; a randomised double blind study. Gut 1999;45:489-94.
9. Sampliner RE. Effect of up to 3 years of high-dose lansoprazole on Barrett's esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 1994;89:1844-48.
10. Kastelein F, Spaander MCW, Steyerberg EW et al. Proton pump inhibitors reduce the risk of neoplastic progression in patients with Barrett's esophagus. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2012, Nov 28. [Epub ahead of print].
11.Yeh RW and Triadafilopoulos G. Endoscopic therapy for Barrett's esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2005;15:377-97.
12. Fleischer D, Overholt B, Sharma V et al. Endoscopic ablation of Barrett's esophagus: a multicenter study with 2.5-year follow-up. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:867-76.
13. Ganz R, Overholt B, Sharma V et al. Circumferential ablation of Barrett's esophagus that contains high-grade dysplasia: a U.S. Multicenter Registry. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:35-40.
14. Pouw R, Wirths K, Eisendrath P et al. Efficacy of radiofrequency ablation combined with endoscopic resection for Barrett's esophagus with early neoplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;8:23-29.
15. Shaheen NJ, Sharma P, Overholt BF et al. Radiofrequency ablation in Barrett's esophagus with dysplasia. New Engl J Med 2009;360: 2277-88.
16. Sharma V, Jae Kim H, Das A et al. Circumferential and focal ablation of Barrett's esophagus containing dysplasia. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104:310-317.
17. Rastogi A, Puli S, El-Serag HB et al. Incidence of esophageal ade-nocarcinoma in patients with Barrett's esophagus and high-grade dysplasia: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest endosc 2008;67:394-98.
18. Odze RD. What the gastroenterologist needs to know about the histology of Barrett's esophagus. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2011;27: 389-96.
19. Inadomi J, Somsouk M, Madanick R et al. A cost-utility analysis of ablative therapy for Barrett's esophagus. Gastroenterology 2009; 136:2101-14:e2106.
20. Das A, Wells C, Dkim H et al. An economic analysis of endoscopic ablative therapy for management of nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus. Endoscopy 2009;41:400-8.
21. Hur C, Choi SE, Rubenstein JH et al. The cost effectiveness of radio-frequency ablation for Barrett's esophagus. Gastroenterology 2012; 143:567-75.
22. Association AG, Spechler SJ, Sharma P et al. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on the management of Barrett's esophagus. Gastroenterology 2011; 140(3):1084-91.
23. Spechler SJ, Sharma P, Souza RF et al. American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the management of Barrett's esophagus. Gastroenterology 2011;140:e18-52: quiz e13.
24. Committee ASoP, Evans JA, Early DS et al. The role of endoscopy in Barrett's esophagus and other premalignant conditions of the esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:1087-94.
25. Fleischer DE, Odze R, Overholt BF et al. The case for endoscopic treatment of non-dysplastic and low-grade dysplastic Barrett's esophagus. Dig Dis Sci 2010;55:1918-31.
26. Shaheen NJ, Overholt BF, Sampliner RE et al. Durability of radio-frequency ablation in Barrett's esophagus with dysplasia. Gastroenterology 2011;141:460-68.
27. Fleischer DE, Overholt BF, Sharma VK et al. Endoscopic radiofrequency ablation for Barrett's esophagus: 5-year outcomes from a prospective multicenter trial. Endoscopy 2010;42:781-89.
28. Wani S, Puli SR, Shaheen NJ et al. Esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus after endoscopic ablative therapy: a metaanalysis and systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104: 502-13.
29. Sampliner RE. Management of non-dysplastic barrett esophagus with ablation therapy. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;7:461-64.
30. Sharma P, Falk GW, Weston AP et al. Dysplasia and cancer in a large multicenter cohort of patients with Barrett's esophagus. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;4:566-72.
31. Pohl H, Wrobel K, Bojarski C et al. Risk factors in the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Am J Gastroenterol 2012, Dec 18. [Epub ahead of print].
32. Weston AP, Sharma P, Mathur S et al. Risk stratification of Barrett's esophagus: updated prospective multivariate analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2004;99:1657-66.
33. Wani S, Falk G, Hall M et al. Patients with non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus have low risks for developing dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatology 2011;9:220-27: quiz e226.
34. Sikkema M, Looman CWN, Steyerberg EW et al. Predictors for neoplastic progression in patients with Barrett's esophagus: a prospective cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:1231-8.
35. Avidan B, Sonnenberg A, Schnell TG et al. Hiatal hernia size, Barrett's length and severity of acid reflux are all risk factors for esophageal adenocarcinoma. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:1930-36.
36. Munitiz V, Parrilla P, Ortiz A et al. High risk of malignancy in familial Barrett's esophagus: presentation of one family. J Clin Gastroenterol 2008;42:806-9.
37. Ash S, Vaccaro BJ, Dabney MK et al. Comparison of endoscopic and clinical characteristics of patients with familial and sporadic Barrett's esophagus. Dig Dis Sci 2011;56:1702-6.
38. Bani-Hani KE, Bani-Hani BK and Martin IG. Characteristics of patients with columnar-lined Barrett's esophagus and risk factors for progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma. World J Gastroenterol 2005;11:6807-14.
39. de Jonge PJ, Steyerberg EW, Kuipers EJ et al. Risk factors for the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:1421-29.
40. Bhat S, Coleman HG, Yousef F et al. Risk of malignant progression in Barrett's esophagus patients: results from a large population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:1049-57.
41. Hampel H, Abraham NS and El-Serag HB. Meta-analysis: obesity and the risk for gastroesophageal reflux disease and its complications. Ann Intern Med 2005;143:199-211.
42. Gray MR, Donnelly RJ and Kingsnorth AN. The role of smoking and alcohol in metaplasia and cancer risk in Barrett's columnar lined oesophagus. Gut 1993;34:727-31.
43. Menke-Pluymers MB, Hop WC, Dees J et al. Risk factors for the development of an adenocarcinoma in columnar-lined (Barrett) esophagus. The Rotterdam Esophageal Tumor Study Group. Cancer 1993;72:1155-58.
44. Sarr MG, Hamilton SR, Marrone GC et al. Barrett's esophagus: its prevalence and association with adenocarcinoma in patients with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux. Am J Surg 1985;149: 187-93.
45. Rogers EL, Goldkind SF, Iseri OA et al. Adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus. A disease primarily of white men with Barrett's esophagus. J Clin Gastroenterol 1986;8:613-18.
46. Lagergren J, Bergström R, Lindgren A et al. Symptomatic gastro-esophageal reflux as a risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma. New Engl J Med 1999;340:825-31.
47. Sharma P and Vakil N. Review article: Helicobacter pylori and reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2003;17:297-305.
48. Kerkhof M, Steyerberg EW, Kusters JG et al. Aneuploidy and high expression of p53 and Ki67 is associated with neoplastic progression in Barrett esophagus. Cancer Biomark 2008;4: 1-10.
49. Rabinovitch PS, Longton G, Blount PL et al. Predictors of progression in Barrett's esophagus III: baseline flow cytometric variables. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:3071-83.
50. Reid BJ, Levine DS, Longton G et al. Predictors of progression to cancer in Barrett's esophagus: baseline histology and flow cytometry identify low- and high-risk patient subsets. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;95:1669-76.
51. Teodori L, Gohde W, Persiani M et al. DNA/protein flow cytometry as a predictive marker of malignancy in dysplasia-free Barrett's esophagus: thirteen-year follow-up study on a cohort of patients. Cytometry 1998;34:257-63.
52. Kastelein F, Biermann K, Steyerberg EW et al. Aberrant p53 protein expression is associated with an increased risk of neoplastic progression in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. Gut 2012, Dec 20. [Epub ahead of print].
53. Rygiel AM, van Baal JWPM, Milano F et al. Efficient automated assessment of genetic abnormalities detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization on brush cytology in a Barrett esophagus surveillance population. Cancer 2007;109:1980-88.
54. Galipeau PC, Li X, Blount PL et al. NSAIDs modulate CDKN2A, TP53 and DNA content risk for progression to esophageal adenocarci-noma. PLoS Med 2007;4:e67.
55. Cestari R, Villanacci V, Rossi E et al. Fluorescence in situ hybridization to evaluate dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus: a pilot study. Cancer Lett 2007;251:278-87.
56. Wongsurawat VJ, Finley JC, Galipeau PC et al. Genetic mechanisms of TP53 loss of heterozygosity in Barrett's esophagus: implications for biomarker validation. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006; 15:509-16.
57. Fahmy M, Skacel M, Gramlich TL et al. Chromosomal gains and genomic loss of p53 and p16 genes in Barrett's esophagus detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization of cytology specimens. Mod Pathol 2004;17:588-96.
58. Reid BJ, Prevo LJ, Galipeau PC et al. Predictors of progression in Barrett's esophagus II: baseline 17p (p53) loss of heterozygosity identifies a patient subset at increased risk for neoplastic progression. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:2839-48.
59. Schulmann K, Sterian A, Berki A et al. Inactivation of p16, RUNX3 and HPP1 occurs early in Barrett's-associated neoplastic progression and predicts progression risk. Oncogene 2005;24: 4138-48.
60. Jin Z, Cheng Y, Gu W et al. A multicenter, double-blinded validation study of methylation biomarkers for progression prediction in Barrett's esophagus. Cancer Res 2009;69:4112-15.
61. van Vilsteren FGI, Phoa KN, Herrero LA et al. Circumferential balloon-based radiofrequency ablation of barrett's esophagus with dysplasia can be simplified, yet efficacy maintained, by omitting the cleaning phase. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012, Dec 22. [Epub ahead of print].
62. Lyday WD, Corbett FS, Kuperman DA et al. Radiofrequency ablation of Barrett's esophagus: outcomes of 429 patients from a multicenter community practice registry. Endoscopy 2010;42: 272-78.
63. Korst RJ, Santana-Joseph S, Rutledge JR et al. Effect of hiatal hernia size and columnar segment length on the success of
radiofrequency ablation for Barrett's esophagus: a single-center, phase II clinical trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011;142:1168-73.
64. Kim HP, Bulsiewicz WJ, Cotton CC et al. Focal endoscopic mucosal resection before radiofrequency ablation is equally effective and safe compared with radiofrequency ablation alone for the eradication of Barrett's esophagus with advanced neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:733-39.
65. Bulsiewicz WJ, Kim HP, Dellon ES et al. Safety and efficacy of en-doscopic mucosal therapy with radiofrequency ablation for patients wth neoplastic Barrett's esophagus. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012, Oct 25. [Epub ahead of print].
66. Dunbar KB and Spechler SJ. The risk of lymph-node metastases in patients with high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal carcinoma in Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:850-62:quiz 863.
67. Stein HJ, Feith M, Bruecher BLDM et al. Early esophageal cancer: pattern of lymphatic spread and prognostic factors for long-term survival after surgical resection. Ann Surg 2005;242:566-75.
68. Ancona E, Rampado S, Cassaro M et al. Prediction of lymph node status in superficial esophageal carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2008; 15:3278-88.
69. Wolfsen HC, Crook JE, Krishna M et al. Prospective, controlled tandem endoscopy study of narrow band imaging for dysplasia detection in Barrett's Esophagus. Gastroenterology 2008;135:24-31.
70. Kara MA, Peters FP, Rosmolen WD et al. High-resolution endoscopy plus chromoendoscopy or narrow-band imaging in Barrett's esophagus: a prospective randomized crossover study. Endoscopy 2005; 37:929-36.
71. Sharma P, Hawes RH, Bansal A et al. Standard endoscopy with random biopsies versus narrow band imaging targeted biopsies in Barrett's oesophagus: a prospective, international, randomised controlled trial. Gut 2013;62:15-21.
72. Mannath J, Subramanian V, Hawkey CJ et al. Narrow band imaging for characterization of high grade dysplasia and specialized intestinal metaplasia in Barrett's esophagus: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2010;42:351-59.
73. Curvers WL, Herrero LA, Wallace MB et al. Endoscopic tri-modal imaging is more effective than standard endoscopy in identifying early-stage neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus. Gastroenterology 2010;139:1106-14.
74. Curvers WL, van Vilsteren FG, Baak LC et al. Endoscopic trimodal imaging versus standard video endoscopy for detection of early Barrett's neoplasia: a multicenter, randomized, crossover study in general practice. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:195-203.
75. Sharma P, Meining AR, Coron E etal. Real-time increased detection of neoplastic tissue in Barrett's esophagus with probe-based con-focal laser endomicroscopy: final results of an international multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:465-72.
76. Gaddam S, Mathur SC, Singh M et al. Novel probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy criteria and interobserver agreement for the detection of dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:1961-69.
77. Herrero LA, van Vilsteren FGI, Pouw RE et al. Endoscopic radiofre-quency ablation combined with endoscopic resection for early neo-plasia in Barrett's esophagus longer than 10cm. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:682-90.
78. Orman ES, Kim HP, Bulsiewicz WJ et al. Intestinal metaplasia recurs infrequently in patients successfully treated for Barrett's esophagus with radiofrequency ablation. Am J Gastroenterol 2012, Dec 18. [Epub ahead of print].
79. Pouw P WK, Eisendrath P, Sondermeijer C et al. Efficacy of radio-frequency ablation combined with endoscopic resection for Barrett's esophagus with early neoplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;8:23-29.
80. Pouw RE, Gondrie JJ, Sondermeijer CM et al. Eradication of Barrett esophagus with early neoplasia by radiofrequency ablation, with or without endoscopic resection. J Gastrointest Surg 2008;12: 1627-37.
81.Vaccaro BJ, Gonzalez S, Poneros JM et al. Detection of intestinal metaplasia after successful eradication of Barrett's esophagus with radiofrequency ablation. Dig Dis Sci 2011;56: 1996-2000.
82. van Vilsteren FG, Pouw RE, Seewald S et al. Stepwise radical endoscopic resection versus radiofrequency ablation for Barrett's oesophagus with high-grade dysplasia or early cancer: a multicentre randomised trial. Gut 2011;60:765-73.
83. Korst RJ, Santana-Joseph S, Rutledge JR et al. Patterns of recurrent and persistent intestinal metaplasia after successful radiofrequency ablation of Barrett's esophagus. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2012, Dec 6. [Epub ahead of print].
84. Gray NA, Odze RD and Spechler SJ. Buried Metaplasia After Endoscopic Ablation of Barrett's Esophagus: A Systematic Review. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:1899-908.
85. Zhou C, Tsai TH, Lee HC et al. Characterization of buried glands before and after radiofrequency ablation by using 3-dimensional optical coherence tomography (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:32-40.
86. Hornick JL, Mino-Kenudson M, Lauwers GY et al. Buried Barrett's epithelium following photodynamic therapy shows reduced crypt proliferation and absence of DNA content abnormalities. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:38-47.
87. Titi M, Overhiser A, Ulusarac O et al. Development of sub-squamous high-grade dysplasia and adenocarcinoma after successful radiofrequency ablation of Barrett's esophagus. Gastroenterology 2012;143(3):564-66:e1.
88. Krishnan K, Pandolfino JE, Kahrilas PJ et al. Increased risk for persistent intestinal metaplasia in patients with Barrett's esophagus and uncontrolled reflux exposure before radiofrequency ablation. Gastroenterology 2012;143:576-81.
89. O'Connell K and Velanovich V. Effects of Nissen fundoplication on endoscopic endoluminal radiofrequency ablation of Barrett's esophagus. Surg Endosc 2011;25:830-34.
90. Zehetner J, Demeester SR, Hagen JA et al. Endoscopic resection and ablation versus esophagectomy for high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 141:39-47.
91. Akiyama J, Marcus SN and Triadafilopoulos G. Effective intra-esophageal acid control is associated with improved radiofre-quency ablation outcomes in Barrett's esophagus. Dig Dis Sci 2012; 57:2625-32.
92. Roorda AK, Marcus SN and Triadafilopoulos G. Early experience with radiofrequency energy ablation therapy for Barrett's esophagus with and without dysplasia. Dis Esophagus 2007;20:516-22.
93. Gerson LB, Boparai V, Ullah N et al. Oesophageal and gastric pH profiles in patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and Barrett's oesophagus treated with proton pump inhibitors. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004;20:637-43.
94. Ouatu-Lascar R and Triadafilopoulos G. Complete elimination of reflux symptoms does not guarantee normalization of intraesopha-geal acid reflux in patients with Barrett's esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 1998;93:711-16.
95. Yeh RW, Gerson LB and Triadafilopoulos G. Efficacy of esomepra-zole in controlling reflux symptoms, intraesophageal and intragas-tric pH in patients with Barrett's esophagus. Dis Esophagus 2003;16: 193-98.
96. Lidums I and Holloway R. Motility abnormalities in the columnar-lined esophagus. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 1997;26: 519-31.
97. Johnson DA, Winters C, Spurling TJ et al. Esophageal acid sensitivity in Barrett's esophagus. J Clin Gastroenterol 1987;9:23-27.
98. Trimble KC, Pryde A and Heading RC. Lowered oesophageal sensory thresholds in patients with symptomatic but not excess gastro-oesophageal reflux: evidence for a spectrum of visceral sensitivity in GORD. Gut 1995;37:7-12.
99. Stein HJ, Hoeft S and DeMeester TR. Functional foregut abnormalities in Barrett's esophagus. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1993; 105:107-11.
