Challenges in Endoscopic Therapy of Dysplastic Barrett’s Esophagus

  • Aurada Cholapranee
  • Arvind J TrindadeEmail author
Esophagus (PG Iyer, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Esophagus
  2. Topical Collection on Esophagus


Purpose of review

Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is the only known measurable factor associated with esophageal adenocarcinoma. The development of endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) has transformed the way BE is managed. Given the fairly recent development of EET, its role in BE is still evolving.

Recent findings

This paper discusses the challenges that endoscopists face at the preprocedural, intraprocedural, and postprocedural stages of BE management. These include challenges in risk stratification, dysplasia detection, ablation methods and dosimetry, choice of resection technique, and management of refractory disease.


Despite the advances in EET in BE, there remain challenges that this review focuses on. Future research into these challenges will optimize ablation techniques and strategies in the future.


Ablation Radiofrequency Endoscopy Cryotherapy Acid control Pain 


Authors’ contributions

Conception and design (AJT, AC)

Analysis and interpretation of the data (AJT, AC)

Drafting of the article (AJT, AC)

Critical revision of the article for important intellectual content (AJT, AC)

Final approval of the article (AJT, AC)

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Arvind Trindade reports personal fees as a consultant from Pentax Medical and CSA Medical.

Aurada Cholapranee declares no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Peery AF, et al. Burden of gastrointestinal disease in the United States: 2012 update. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:1179–1187.e3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Thrift AP, Whiteman DC. The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma continues to rise: analysis of period and birth cohort effects on recent trends. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2012;23:3155–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gatenby PAC, Caygill CPJ, Ramus JR, Charlett A, Watson A. Barrett’s columnar-lined oesophagus: demographic and lifestyle associations and adenocarcinoma risk. Dig Dis Sci. 2008;53:1175–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rastogi A, Puli S, el-Serag HB, Bansal A, Wani S, Sharma P. Incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett’s esophagus and high-grade dysplasia: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:394–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wang KK, Sampliner RE, Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Updated guidelines 2008 for the diagnosis, surveillance and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:788–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    American Gastroenterological Association, et al. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on the management of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:1084–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Standards of Practice Committee et al. Endoscopic eradication therapy for patients with Barrett’s esophagus-associated dysplasia and intramucosal cancer. Gastrointest Endosc. 87, 907–931.e9 (2018).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    •• Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG, Gerson LB, American College of Gastroenterology. ACG Clinical Guideline. Diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:30–50; quiz 51 The American College of Gastroenterology provides recommendations for clinical practice in identifying and managing patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE) in 2016. Although many of their suggestions are based on weak evidence, it provides an useful algorithm of care for BE patients based on expert opinion.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fitzgerald RC, di Pietro M, Ragunath K, Ang Y, Kang JY, Watson P, et al. British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut. 2014;63:7–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weusten B, Bisschops R, Coron E, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Dumonceau JM, Esteban JM, et al. Endoscopic management of Barrett’s esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) position statement. Endoscopy. 2017;49:191–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fouad YM, Mostafa I, Yehia R, El-Khayat H. Biomarkers of Barrett’s esophagus. World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol. 2014;5:450–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jin Z, Cheng Y, Gu W, Zheng Y, Sato F, Mori Y, et al. A multicenter, double-blinded validation study of methylation biomarkers for progression prediction in Barrett’s esophagus. Cancer Res. 2009;69:4112–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weston AP, Banerjee SK, Sharma P, Tran TM, Richards R, Cherian R. p53 protein overexpression in low grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett’s esophagus: immunohistochemical marker predictive of progression. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:1355–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rabinovitch PS, Longton G, Blount PL, Levine DS, Reid BJ. Predictors of progression in Barrett’s esophagus III: baseline flow cytometric variables. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:3071–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heeren PAM, et al. Predictive effect of p53 and p21 alteration on chemotherapy response and survival in locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. Anticancer Res. 2004;24:2579–83.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clark RJ, Craig MP, Agrawal S, Kadakia M. microRNA involvement in the onset and progression of Barrett’s esophagus: a systematic review. Oncotarget. 2018;9:8179–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Altaf K, Xiong J-J, la Iglesia, D. De, Hickey, L. & Kaul, A. Meta-analysis of biomarkers predicting risk of malignant progression in Barrett’s oesophagus. Br J Surg. 2017;104:493–502.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    • Kerkhof M, et al. Grading of dysplasia in Barrett’s oesophagus: substantial interobserver variation between general and gastrointestinal pathologists. Histopathology. 2007;50:920–7 This prospective multicenter study of 920 patients with endoscopically identified BE demonstrated that there was significant variability among pathologists (both experts and non-experts) when interpreting nondysplastic or low-grade dysplasia (LGD) via biopsies in BE patients.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Duits LC, Phoa KN, Curvers WL, ten Kate FJW, Meijer GA, Seldenrijk CA, et al. Barrett’s oesophagus patients with low-grade dysplasia can be accurately risk-stratified after histological review by an expert pathology panel. Gut. 2015;64:700–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Montgomery E, Bronner MP, Goldblum JR, Greenson JK, Haber MM, Hart J, et al. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus: a reaffirmation. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:368–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    • Duits LC, et al. Patients with Barrett’s esophagus and confirmed persistent low-grade dysplasia are at increased risk for progression to neoplasia. Gastroenterology. 2017;152:993–1001.e1 This retrospective study of 255 patients with a primary diagnosis of LGD demonstrated that interobserver variability for LGD is high, a problem that makes it difficult to determine the appropriate management for these patients. This study concluded that as the number of pathologists (up to three pathologists in the study) who agreed on a diagnosis of LGD increased the risk of developing high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and adenocarcioma (EAC) increased.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    • Wani S, Rubenstein JH, Vieth M, Bergman J. Diagnosis and management of low-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: expert review from the clinical practice updates Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association. Gastroenterology. 2016;151:822–35 The diagnosis and management of BE patients with LGD has been the most difficult and controversial for endoscopists. This clinical update offers expert opinion and a review of the best clinical practice guidelines for this particular patient population as decided in 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kara MA, Peters FP, Rosmolen WD, Krishnadath KK, ten Kate FJ, Fockens P, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sami SS, et al. High definition versus standard definition white light endoscopy for detecting dysplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Dis Esophagus Off J Int Soc Dis Esophagus. 28:742–9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bennett C, Vakil N, Bergman J, Harrison R, Odze R, Vieth M, et al. Consensus statements for management of Barrett’s dysplasia and early-stage esophageal adenocarcinoma, based on a Delphi process. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:336–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    •• ASGE Technology Committee, et al. ASGE Technology Committee systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the ASGE preservation and incorporation of valuable endoscopic innovations thresholds for adopting real-time imaging-assisted endoscopic targeted biopsy during endoscopic surveillance. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83:684–98.e7 This meta-analysis looked at the sensitivity and specificity of various advanced imaging technologies available for endoscopic real-time imaging of BE including chromoendoscopy with acetic acid , electronic chromoendoscopy using narrow-band imaging, and endoscopic confocal laser endomicroscopy for detection of dysplasia. This study found that each of these imaging methods met acceptable performance thresholds defined by the ASGE and are reasonable modalities to help guide targeted biopsies to detect dysplasia in BE patients.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    • Alshelleh M, et al. Incremental yield of dysplasia detection in Barrett’s esophagus using volumetric laser endomicroscopy with and without laser marking compared with a standardized random biopsy protocol. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;88:35–42 This retrospective study looked at the efficacy of volumetric laser endomicroscopy (VLE) as a surveillance strategy for management of dysplastic BE in comparison with random biopsies or random biopsies as per Seattle protocol. This study found that VLE with and without laser markings led to higher detection rates of dysplasia and neoplasia compared to random biopsies.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Abela J-E, Going JJ, Mackenzie JF, McKernan M, O’Mahoney S, Stuart RC. Systematic four-quadrant biopsy detects Barrett’s dysplasia in more patients than nonsystematic biopsy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103:850–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vennalaganti PR, Kaul V, Wang KK, Falk GW, Shaheen NJ, Infantolino A, et al. Increased detection of Barrett’s esophagus-associated neoplasia using wide-area trans-epithelial sampling: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:348–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Johanson JF, Frakes J, Eisen D, EndoCDx Collaborative Group. Computer-assisted analysis of abrasive transepithelial brush biopsies increases the effectiveness of esophageal screening: a multicenter prospective clinical trial by the EndoCDx Collaborative Group. Dig Dis Sci. 2011;56:767–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Canto MI, Montgomery E. Wide-area transepithelial sampling with 3-dimensional cytology: does it detect more dysplasia or yield more hype? Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:356–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Canto MI, Montgomery E. Response. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;88:202–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wani S, et al. Comparison of endoscopic therapies and surgical resection in patients with early esophageal cancer: a population-based study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79:224–232.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pech O, Bollschweiler E, Manner H, Leers J, Ell C, Hölscher AH. Comparison between endoscopic and surgical resection of mucosal esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus at two high-volume centers. Ann Surg. 2011;254:67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Phoa KN, van Vilsteren FGI, Weusten BLAM, Bisschops R, Schoon EJ, Ragunath K, et al. Radiofrequency ablation vs endoscopic surveillance for patients with Barrett esophagus and low-grade dysplasia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;311:1209–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    •• Shaheen NJ, et al. Radiofrequency ablation in Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2277–88 This multicenter randomized control trial looked at 127 patients with dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus who received either RFA or sham procedure. The study demonstrated that RFA was both a safe and effective treatment for intestinal metaplasia (IM) as well as dysplastic BE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    van Vilsteren FGI, Pouw RE, Seewald S, Alvarez Herrero L, Sondermeijer CMT, Visser M, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Cao Y, Liao C, Tan A, Gao Y, Mo Z, Gao F. Meta-analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopy. 2009;41:751–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tomizawa Y, Konda VJA, Coronel E, Chapman CG, Siddiqui UD. Efficacy, durability, and safety of complete endoscopic mucosal resection of Barrett esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018;52:210–6.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kataoka Y, Tsuji Y, Sakaguchi Y, Minatsuki C, Asada-Hirayama I, Niimi K, et al. Bleeding after endoscopic submucosal dissection: risk factors and preventive methods. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22:5927–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    ASGE Standards of Practice Committee et al. Management of antithrombotic agents for endoscopic procedures Gastrointest Endosc 70, 1060–1070 (2009).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Suchniak-Mussari K, Dye CE, Moyer MT, Mathew A, McGarrity TJ, Gagliardi EM, et al. Efficacy and safety of liquid nitrogen cryotherapy for treatment of Barrett’s esophagus. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;9:480–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Namasivayam V, Wang KK, Prasad GA. Endoscopic mucosal resection in the management of esophageal neoplasia: current status and future directions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;8:743–54; quiz e96.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kakushima N, Fujishiro M. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastrointestinal neoplasms. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14:2962–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    •• Terheggen G, et al. A randomised trial of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for early Barrett’s neoplasia. Gut. 2017;66:783–93 This randomised controlled trial compared the safety and efficacy of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). While this study showed that ESD achieved higher rates of complete resection, this had no overall clinical relevance. Compared to EMR, ESD was more time-consuming, technically difficult, and associated with more severe adverse events.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Belghazi K, Pouw RE, Bergman JJ. In the expanding arena of endoscopic management for Barrett’s neoplasia, how should we fit in endoscopic submucosal dissection? Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:1394–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Phoa KN, Pouw RE, Bisschops R, Pech O, Ragunath K, Weusten BLAM, et al. Multimodality endoscopic eradication for neoplastic Barrett oesophagus: results of an European multicentre study (EURO-II). Gut. 2016;65:555–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Abrams JA, et al. Depth of resection using two different endoscopic mucosal resection techniques. Endoscopy. 2008;40:395–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    May A, Gossner L, Behrens A, Kohnen R, Vieth M, Stolte M, et al. A prospective randomized trial of two different endoscopic resection techniques for early stage cancer of the esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:167–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Qumseya BJ, David W, Wolfsen HC. Photodynamic therapy for Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal carcinoma. Clin Endosc. 2013;46:30–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    • Orman ES, Li NAN, Shaheen NJ. Efficacy and durability of radiofrequency ablation for barrett’s esophagus: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11:1245–55 This meta-analysis of 18 studies and 3802 patients looked at the efficacy of RFA. It demonstrated that RFA is associated with a high proportion of CE-D and CE-IM (91% and 78% respectively) with a low rate of recurrent disease as well as adverse events.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Trindade AJ, Pleskow DK, Sengupta N, Kothari S, Inamdar S, Berkowitz J, et al. Efficacy of liquid nitrogen cryotherapy for Barrett’s esophagus after endoscopic resection of intramucosal cancer: a multicenter study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;33:461–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ramay FH, Cui Q, Greenwald BD. Outcomes after liquid nitrogen spray cryotherapy in Barrett’s esophagus-associated high-grade dysplasia and intramucosal adenocarcinoma: 5-year follow-up. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;86:626–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Shaheen NJ, Greenwald BD, Peery AF, Dumot JA, Nishioka NS, Wolfsen HC, et al. Safety and efficacy of endoscopic spray cryotherapy for Barrett’s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:680–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Johnston MH, Eastone JA, Horwhat JD, Cartledge J, Mathews JS, Foggy JR. Cryoablation of Barrett’s esophagus: a pilot study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62:842–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ghorbani S, Tsai FC, Greenwald BD, Jang S, Dumot JA, McKinley MJ, et al. Safety and efficacy of endoscopic spray cryotherapy for Barrett’s dysplasia: results of the National Cryospray Registry. Dis Esophagus Off J Int Soc Dis Esophagus. 2016;29:241–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Dumot JA, Vargo JJ II, Falk GW, Frey L, Lopez R, Rice TW. An open-label, prospective trial of cryospray ablation for Barrett’s esophagus high-grade dysplasia and early esophageal cancer in high-risk patients. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:635–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Künzli HT, Schölvinck DW, Meijer SL, Seldenrijk KA, Bergman JGHM, Weusten BLAM. Efficacy of the CryoBalloon focal ablation system for the eradication of dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus islands. Endoscopy. 2017;49:169–75.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Canto MI, Shaheen NJ, Almario JA, Voltaggio L, Montgomery E, Lightdale CJ. Multifocal nitrous oxide cryoballoon ablation with or without EMR for treatment of neoplastic Barrett’s esophagus (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;88:438–446.e2. Scholar
  60. 60.
    Brown J, et al. Effectiveness of focal vs balloon radiofrequency ablation devices in the treatment of Barrett’s esophagus. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2016;4:236–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Thota PN, Arora Z, Dumot JA, Falk G, Benjamin T, Goldblum J, et al. Cryotherapy and radiofrequency ablation for eradication of Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia or intramucosal cancer. Dig Dis Sci. 2018;63:1311–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    van Vilsteren FGI, 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. 2013;11:491–98.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Komanduri S, Muthusamy VR, Wani S. Controversies in endoscopic eradication therapy for Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2018;154:1861–1875.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    •• Pouw RE, Bergman JJ. Safety signal for the simple double ablation regimen when using the Barrx 360 express radiofrequency ablation balloon catheter. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:614 This is a letter to the editors commenting on the interim findings of an ongoing randomized controlled multicenter trial looking at the efficacy and safety of RFA balloon catheter ablation using a standard regimen (2 × 10 J/cm2 with cleaning) versus two simplified regimens a) 2 × 10J/cm2 without cleaning and b) 1 × 10 J/cm2. Their interim findings showed unexpectedly high rates of stricturing (17%) in the 2 × 10 J/cm2 group without cleaning compared with the other two treatment groups.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    •• Pouw RE, et al. Simplified versus standard regimen for focal radiofrequency ablation of dysplastic Barrett’s oesophagus: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018. A simplified RFA regimen of 3 × 15 J/cm2 without cleaning has been shown to be as effective as the standard regimen of 2 × 15 J/cm2 with cleaning; however, it has been showed to be associated with higher stricturing rates. This randomized non-inferiority study looks at a new lower radiofrequency energy regimen of 3 × 12J/cm2 without cleaning versus the standard regimen for focal treatments. The results of this study demonstrated that the lower energy simplified version was noninferior to the standard regimen with no increase in adverse events or stricturing.
  66. 66.
    Tomizawa Y, et al. Safety of endoscopic mucosal resection for Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:1440–7; quiz 1448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Neuhaus H, Terheggen G, Rutz E, Vieth M, Schumacher B. Endoscopic submucosal dissection plus radiofrequency ablation of neoplastic Barrett’s esophagus. Endoscopy. 2012;44:1105–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Kagemoto K, Oka S, Tanaka S, Miwata T, Urabe Y, Sanomura Y, et al. Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial Barrett’s adenocarcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80:239–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Probst A, Aust D, Märkl B, Anthuber M, Messmann H. Early esophageal cancer in Europe: endoscopic treatment by endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endoscopy. 2014;47:113–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Höbel S, Dautel P, Baumbach R, Oldhafer KJ, Stang A, Feyerabend B, et al. Single center experience of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in early Barrett’s adenocarcinoma. Surg Endosc. 2015;29:1591–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Chevaux J, et al. Clinical outcome in patients treated with endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial Barrett’s neoplasia. Endoscopy. 2014;47:103–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Haidry RJ, et al. Radiofrequency ablation and endoscopic mucosal resection for dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus and early esophageal adenocarcinoma: outcomes of the UK National Halo RFA registry. Gastroenterology. 2013;145:87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    •• Solomon SS, et al. Liquid nitrogen spray cryotherapy is associated with less postprocedural pain than radiofrequency ablation in barrett’s esophagus: a multicenter prospective study. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018. This multicenter prospective study compared focal RFA with liquid nitrogen spray cryotherapy and found that RFA was associated with five times greater odds of pain immediately following the procedure as well as 48 hours postprocedure compared to cryotherapy.
  74. 74.
    • van Munster SN, et al. Focal cryoballoon versus radiofrequency ablation of dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus: impact on treatment response and postprocedural pain. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018. This multicenter cohort study looked at the efficacy as well as the degree of postprocedural pain in focal cryoballoon therapy versus RFA. This study found no difference in efficacy for treatment of short-segment BE. However, cryotherapy was associated with less reported pain as well as fewer analgesic use compared with RFA.
  75. 75.
    Gupta M, et al. Recurrence of esophageal intestinal metaplasia after endoscopic mucosal resection and radiofrequency ablation of Barrett’s esophagus: results from a US Multicenter Consortium. Gastroenterology. 2013;145:79–86.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Pech O, Behrens A, May A, Nachbar L, Gossner L, Rabenstein T, et al. Long-term results and risk factor analysis for recurrence after curative endoscopic therapy in 349 patients with high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia and mucosal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut. 2008;57:1200–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Cotton CC, Wolf WA, Pasricha S, Li N, Madanick RD, Spacek MB, et al. Recurrent intestinal metaplasia after radiofrequency ablation for Barrett’s esophagus: endoscopic findings and anatomic location. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:1362–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Prasad GA, Dunagan KT, Tian J, Cadman L, Wang KK, Lutzke LS, et al. 718 recurrence of intestinal metaplasia following radiofrequency ablation: rates and predictors. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:AB145–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Guthikonda A, Cotton CC, Madanick RD, Spacek MB, Moist SE, Ferrell K, et al. Clinical outcomes following recurrence of intestinal metaplasia after successful treatment of Barrett’s esophagus with radiofrequency ablation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112:87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Trindade AJ, Inamdar S, Kothari S, Berkowitz J, McKinley M, Kaul V. Feasibility of liquid nitrogen cryotherapy after failed radiofrequency ablation for Barrett’s esophagus. Dig Endosc. 2017;29:680–5. Scholar
  81. 81.
    Sengupta N, Ketwaroo GA, Bak DM, Kedar V, Chuttani R, Berzin TM, et al. Salvage cryotherapy after failed radiofrequency ablation for Barrett’s esophagus-related dysplasia is safe and effective. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82:443–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    • Visrodia K, et al. Cryotherapy for persistent Barrett’s esophagus after radiofrequency ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:1396–1404.e1 This meta-analysis of 11 studies and 148 patients looked at the efficacy of cryoablation as salvage therapy in patients with persistent BE despite prior initial RFA treatment. The study found that cryotherapy successfully achieved CE-D and CE-IM (76% and 46% respectively) in this patient population.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Kia L, Komanduri S. Care of the postablation patient: surveillance, acid suppression, and treatment of recurrence. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2017;27:515–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    •• Komanduri S, et al. recurrence of Barrett’s esophagus is rare following endoscopic eradication therapy coupled with effective reflux control. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112:556–66 This 2017 study found that concurrent use of PPI with RFA was associated with a lower number of required RFA sessions to achieve CE-IM as well as lower disease recurrence rates following eradiation therapy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    • Krishnan K, 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 This study demonstrated that ongoing mild reflux despite twice a day PPI therapy before initiation of RFA was associated with persistent IM after BE ablation. The study also showed an association between the size of the hiatal hernia and length of BE with persistent IM after RFA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Skrobić O, Simić A, Radovanović N, Ivanović N, Micev M, Peško P. Significance of Nissen fundoplication after endoscopic radiofrequency ablation of Barrett’s esophagus. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:3802–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Gastroenterology, Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Northwell Health SystemLong Island Jewish Medical CenterNew Hyde ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations