Analysis evaluates progression rates in dysplastic Barrett's, suggesting surveillance is safe for low-risk patients.
Background and study aims: Current European and American guidelines conflict in their recommendations for surveillance versus endoscopic therapy for low-grade dysplastic Barrett’s (LGD). We aimed to evaluate the performance of a selective management algorithm and provide real-world outcomes. Patients and methods: Data on 497 patients with dysplastic Barrett’s were collected prospectively between 2008 and 2022 at a Barrett’s referral unit. LGD was defined as confirmation of LGD by an expert gastrointestinal pathologist. Persistent unifocal LGD or multifocal LGD were considered high-risk features for progression and patients underwent endoscopic eradication therapy (EET). Patients with non-persistent unifocal LGD were deemed low-risk and were surveilled. Primary outcome was progression rate to high grade dysplasia or neoplasia. Results: A total of 135 patients had LGD (median [interquartile range] follow up: 4.8 years [1.0-7.1]): 22 patients met low-risk criteria and were surveilled (LR-S), eight patients met high-risk criteria and were surveilled (HR-S; patient preference n = 4, medical comorbidities n = 4), and 105 patients met high-risk criteria and underwent EET (HR-EET). Progression rates were similar between the LR-S and HR-EET cohorts (4.5% [n = 1/22] vs. 6.7% [n = 8/105]; P = 0.43). The HR-S group had a significantly higher progression rate (25% [n = 2/8]; P = 0.04). Univariable analysis showed reflux esophagitis (sub-distribution hazard ratio 3.21, 95% confidence interval 1.02-10.1, P = 0.04) was associated with progression risk in the high-risk LGD cohort only. Conclusions: This selective management algorithm for LGD is safe. Surveillance is appropriate in low-risk LGD patients. Patients with high-risk features who are surveilled and/or have reflux esophagitis may have an increased progression risk and should undergo EET with optimized acid suppression therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
He et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: