Effect of aging on esophageal motility in patients with and without GERD

Background/Aims: The impact of aging on esophageal motility is not completely understood. This study aims at assessing 1) whether degeneration of esophageal body motility occurs with age and 2) whether this development is influenced by gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)

Effect of aging on esophageal motility in patients with and without GERD

Background/Aims: The impact of aging on esophageal motility is not completely understood. This study aims at assessing 1) whether degeneration of esophageal body motility occurs with age and 2) whether this development is influenced by gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)

External Validation of Pretreatment Pathological Tumor Extent in Patients with Neoadjuvant Chemoradiotherapy Plus Surgery for Esophageal Cancer

Background: This study was conducted to validate a pretreatment (i.e. prior to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy) pathological staging system in the resection specimen after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer. The study investigated the prognostic value of pretreatment pathological T and N categories (prepT and prepN categories) in both an independent and a combined patient cohort. Methods: Patients with esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and esophagectomy between 2012 and 2015 were included. PrepT and prepN categories were estimated based on the extent of tumor regression and regressional changes of lymph nodes in the resection specimen. The difference in Akaike’s information criterion (ΔAIC) was used to assess prognostic performance. PrepN and ypN categories were combined to determine the effect of nodal sterilization on prognosis. A multivariable Cox regression model was used to identify combined prepN and ypN categories as independent prognostic factors. Results: The prognostic strength of the prepT category was better than the cT and ypT categories (ΔAIC 7.7 vs. 3.0 and 2.9, respectively), and the prognostic strength of the prepN category was better than the cN category and similar to the ypN category (ΔAIC 29.2 vs. − 1.0 and 27.9, respectively). PrepN + patients who became ypN0 had significantly worse survival than prepN0 patients (2-year overall survival 69% vs. 86% in 137 patients; p = 0.044). Similar results were found in a combined cohort of 317 patients (2-year overall survival 62% vs. 85%; p = 0.002). Combined prepN/ypN stage was independently associated with overall survival. Conclusions: These results independently confirm the prognostic value of prepTNM staging. PrepTNM staging is of additional prognostic value to cTNM and ypTNM. PrepN0/ypN0 patients have a better survival than prepN +/ypN0 patients

Sex-Specific Genetic Associations for Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

Acknowledgments We thank Dr Stuart MacGregor for his input on the study proposal and review of prior versions of this manuscript. We also thank all patients and controls for participating in this study. The MD Anderson controls were drawn from dbGaP (study accession: phs000187.v1.p1). Genotyping of these controls were done through the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (UTMDACC) and the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR). We acknowledge the principal investigators of this study: Christopher Amos, Qingyi Wei, and Jeffrey E. Lee. Controls from the Genome-Wide Association Study of Parkinson Disease were obtained from dbGaP (study accession: phs000196.v2.p1). This work, in part, used data from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) dbGaP database from the CIDR: NeuroGenetics Research Consortium Parkinson’s disease study. We acknowledge the principal investigators and coinvestigators of this study: Haydeh Payami, John Nutt, Cyrus Zabetian, Stewart Factor, Eric Molho, and Donald Higgins. Controls from the Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort (CRIC) were drawn from dbGaP (study accession: phs000524.v1.p1). The CRIC study was done by the CRIC investigators and supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). Data and samples from CRIC reported here were supplied by NIDDK Central Repositories. This report was not prepared in collaboration with investigators of the CRIC study and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of the CRIC study, the NIDDK Central Repositories, or the NIDDK. We acknowledge the principal investigators and the project officer of this study: Harold I Feldman, Raymond R Townsend, Lawrence J. Appel, Mahboob Rahman, Akinlolu Ojo, James P. Lash, Jiang He, Alan S Go, and John W. Kusek. The following UK hospitals participated in sample collection through the Stomach and Oesophageal Cancer Study (SOCS) collaboration network: Addenbrooke’s Hospital, University College London, Bedford Hinchingbrooke Hospital, Peterborough City Hospital, West Suffolk Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Churchill Hospital, John Hospital, Velindre Hospital, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Queen’s Burton, Queen Elisabeth Hospital, Diana Princess of Wales, Scunthorpe General Hospital, Royal Devon & Exeter Hospital, New Cross Hospital, Belfast City Hospital, Good Hope Hospital, Heartlands Hospital, South Tyneside District General Hospital, Cumberland Infirmary, West Cumberland Hospital, Withybush General Hospital, Stoke Mandeville Hospital, Wycombe General Hospital, Wexham Park Hospital, Southend Hospital, Guy’s Hospital, Southampton General Hospital, Bronglais General Hospital, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Manor Hospital, Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology, Lincoln County Hospital, Pilgrim Hospital, Grantham & District Hospital, St Mary’s Hospital London, Croydon University Hospital, Whipps Cross University Hospital, Wansbeck General Hospital, Hillingdon Hospital, Milton Keynes General Hospital, Royal Gwent Hospital, Tameside General Hospital, Castle Hill Hospital, St Richard’s Hospital, Ipswich Hospital, St Helens Hospital, Whiston Hospital, Countess of Chester Hospital, St Mary’s Hospital IOW, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Glan Clwyd Hospital, Wrexham Maelor Hospital, Darent Valley Hospital, Royal Derby Hospital, Derbyshire Royal Infirmary, Scarborough General Hospital, Kettering General Hospital, Kidderminster General Hospital, Royal Lancaster Infirmary, Furness General Hospital, Westmorland General Hospital, James Cook University Hospital, Friarage Hospital, Stepping Hill Hospital, St George’s Hospital London, Doncaster Royal Infirmary, Maidstone Hospital, Tunbridge Hospital, Prince Charles Hospital, Hartlepool Hospital, University Hospital of North Tees, Ysbyty Gwynedd, St. Jame’s University Hospital, Leeds General Infirmary, North Hampshire Hospital, Royal Preston Hospital, Chorley and District General, Airedale General Hospital, Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, Calderdale Royal Hospital, Torbay District General Hospital, Leighton Hospital, Royal Albert Edward Infirmary, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Bradford Royal Infirmary, Burnley General Hospital, Royal Blackburn Hospital, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Freeman Hospital, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Victoria Hospital Blackpool, Weston Park Hospital, Royal Hampshire County Hospital, Conquest Hospital, Royal Bournemouth General Hospital, Mount Vernon Hospital, Lister Hospital, William Harvey Hospital, Kent and Canterbury Hospital, Great Western Hospital, Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary, Poole General Hospital, St Hellier Hospital, North Devon District Hospital, Salisbury District Hospital, Weston General Hospital, University Hospital Coventry, Warwick Hospital, George Eliot Hospital, Alexandra Hospital, Nottingham University Hospital, Royal Chesterfield Hospital, Yeovil District Hospital, Darlington Memorial Hospital, University Hospital of North Durham, Bishop Auckland General Hospital, Musgrove Park Hospital, Rochdale Infirmary, North Manchester General, Altnagelvin Area Hospital, Dorset County Hospital, James Paget Hospital, Derriford Hospital, Newham General Hospital, Ealing Hospital, Pinderfields General Hospital, Clayton Hospital, Dewsbury & District Hospital, Pontefract General Infirmary, Worthing Hospital, Macclesfield Hospital, University Hospital of North Staffordshire, Salford Royal Hospital, Royal Shrewsbury Hospital, and Manchester Royal Infirmary. Conflict of interest The authors disclose no conflicts. Funding This work was primarily funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01CA136725). The funders of the study had no role in the design, analysis, or interpretation of the data, nor in writing or publication decisions related to this article. Jing Dong was supported by a Research Training Grant from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT; RP160097) and the Research and Education Program Fund, a component of the Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin endowment at the Medical College of Wisconsin (AHW). Quinn T. Ostrom was supported by RP160097. Puya Gharahkhani was supported by a grant from National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (1123248). Geoffrey Liu was supported by the Alan B. Brown Chair in Molecular Genomics and by the CCO Chair in Experimental Therapeutics and Population Studies. The University of Cambridge received salary support for Paul D. Pharoah from the NHS in the East of England through the Clinical Academic Reserve. Brian J. Reid was supported by a grant (P01CA91955) from the NIH/National Cancer Institute (NCI). Nicholas J. Shaheen was supported by a grant (P30 DK034987) from NIH. Thomas L. Vaughan was supported by NIH Established Investigator Award K05CA124911. Michael B. Cook was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NCI, NIH, Department of Health and Human Services. Douglas A. Corley was supported by the NIH grants R03 KD 58294, R21DK077742, and RO1 DK63616 and NCI grant R01CA136725. Carlo Maj was supported by the BONFOR-program of the Medical Faculty, University of Bonn (O-147.0002). Jesper Lagergren was supported by the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) Research Prize. David C. Whiteman was supported by fellowships from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (1058522, 1155413).Peer reviewedPostprin

Diagnostic criteria and symptom grading for delayed gastric conduit emptying after esophagectomy for cancer: international expert consensus based on a modified Delphi process

Delayed gastric conduit emptying (DGCE) after esophagectomy for cancer is associated with adverse outcomes and troubling symptoms. Widely accepted diagnostic criteria and a symptom grading tool for DGCE are missing. This hampers the interpretation and comparison of studies. A modified Delphi process, using repeated web-based questionnaires, combined with live interim group discussions was conducted by 33 experts within the field, from Europe, North America, and Asia. DGCE was divided into early DGCE if present within 14 days of surgery and late if present later than 14 days after surgery. The final criteria for early DGCE, accepted by 25 of 27 (93%) experts, were as follows: >500 mL diurnal nasogastric tube output measured on the morning of postoperative day 5 or later or >100% increased gastric tube width on frontal chest x-ray projection together with the presence of an air-fluid level. The final criteria for late DGCE accepted by 89% of the experts were as follows: the patient should have 'quite a bit' or 'very much' of at least two of the following symptoms; early satiety/fullness, vomiting, nausea, regurgitation or inability to meet caloric need by oral intake and delayed contrast passage on upper gastrointestinal water-soluble contrast radiogram or on timed barium swallow. A symptom grading tool for late DGCE was constructed grading each symptom as: 'not at all', 'a little', 'quite a bit', or 'very much', generating 0, 1, 2, or 3 points, respectively. For the five symptoms retained in the diagnostic criteria for late DGCE, the minimum score would be 0, and the maximum score would be 15. The final symptom grading tool for late DGCE was accepted by 27 of 31 (87%) experts. For the first time, diagnostic criteria for early and late DGCE and a symptom grading tool for late DGCE are available, based on an international expert consensus process

No Association Between Vitamin D Status and Risk of Barrett's Esophagus or Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Mendelian Randomization Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Epidemiology studies of circulating concentrations of 25 hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) and risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) have produced conflicting results. We conducted a Mendelian randomization study to determine the associations between circulating concentrations of 25(OH)D and risks of EAC and its precursor, Barrett's esophagus (BE). METHODS: We conducted a Mendelian randomization study using a 2-sample (summary data) approach. Six single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs; rs3755967, rs10741657, rs12785878, rs10745742, rs8018720, and rs17216707) associated with circulating concentrations of 25(OH)D were used as instrumental variables. We collected data from 6167 patients with BE, 4112 patients with EAC, and 17,159 individuals without BE or EAC (controls) participating in the Barrett's and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium, as well as studies from Bonn, Germany, and Cambridge and Oxford, United Kingdom. Analyses were performed separately for BE and EAC. RESULTS: Overall, we found no evidence for an association between genetically estimated 25(OH)D concentration and risk of BE or EAC. The odds ratio per 20 nmol/L increase in genetically estimated 25(OH)D concentration for BE risk estimated by combining the individual SNP association using inverse variance weighting was 1.21 (95% CI, 0.77-1.92; P = .41). The odds ratio for EAC risk, estimated by combining the individual SNP association using inverse variance weighting, was 0.68 (95% CI, 0.39-1.19; P = .18). CONCLUSIONS: In a Mendelian randomization study, we found that low genetically estimated 25(OH)D concentrations were not associated with risk of BE or EAC

Genome-wide association studies in oesophageal adenocarcinoma and Barrett's oesophagus: a large-scale meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal adenocarcinoma represents one of the fastest rising cancers in high-income countries. Barrett's oesophagus is the premalignant precursor of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. However, only a few patients with Barrett's oesophagus develop adenocarcinoma, which complicates clinical management in the absence of valid predictors. Within an international consortium investigating the genetics of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma, we aimed to identify novel genetic risk variants for the development of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We did a meta-analysis of all genome-wide association studies of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma available in PubMed up to Feb 29, 2016; all patients were of European ancestry and disease was confirmed histopathologically. All participants were from four separate studies within Europe, North America, and Australia and were genotyped on high-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays. Meta-analysis was done with a fixed-effects inverse variance-weighting approach and with a standard genome-wide significance threshold (p<5 × 10-8). We also did an association analysis after reweighting of loci with an approach that investigates annotation enrichment among genome-wide significant loci. Furthermore, the entire dataset was analysed with bioinformatics approaches-including functional annotation databases and gene-based and pathway-based methods-to identify pathophysiologically relevant cellular mechanisms. FINDINGS: Our sample comprised 6167 patients with Barrett's oesophagus and 4112 individuals with oesophageal adenocarcinoma, in addition to 17 159 representative controls from four genome-wide association studies in Europe, North America, and Australia. We identified eight new risk loci associated with either Barrett's oesophagus or oesophageal adenocarcinoma, within or near the genes CFTR (rs17451754; p=4·8 × 10-10), MSRA (rs17749155; p=5·2 × 10-10), LINC00208 and BLK (rs10108511; p=2·1 × 10-9), KHDRBS2 (rs62423175; p=3·0 × 10-9), TPPP and CEP72 (rs9918259; p=3·2 × 10-9), TMOD1 (rs7852462; p=1·5 × 10-8), SATB2 (rs139606545; p=2·0 × 10-8), and HTR3C and ABCC5 (rs9823696; p=1·6 × 10-8). The locus identified near HTR3C and ABCC5 (rs9823696) was associated specifically with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (p=1·6 × 10-8) and was independent of Barrett's oesophagus development (p=0·45). A ninth novel risk locus was identified within the gene LPA (rs12207195; posterior probability 0·925) after reweighting with significantly enriched annotations. The strongest disease pathways identified (p<10-6) belonged to muscle cell differentiation and to mesenchyme development and differentiation. INTERPRETATION: Our meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies doubled the number of known risk loci for Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma and revealed new insights into causes of these diseases. Furthermore, the specific association between oesophageal adenocarcinoma and the locus near HTR3C and ABCC5 might constitute a novel genetic marker for prediction of the transition from Barrett's oesophagus to oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Fine-mapping and functional studies of new risk loci could lead to identification of key molecules in the development of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma, which might encourage development of advanced prevention and intervention strategies. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute, US National Institutes of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Swedish Cancer Society, Medical Research Council UK, Cambridge NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, Else Kröner Fresenius Stiftung, Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca UK, University Hospitals of Leicester, University of Oxford, Australian Research Council

Effect of "white diet" during bile monitoring with Bilitec 2000 on esophageal pH-metry in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.

With introduction of the Bilitec 2000 device, intraluminal bile monitoring has become a standard technique for evaluation of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and symptoms of bile reflux. A specific "white diet" excluding colored food is necessary to provide correct measurements. The influence of this specific diet on simultaneous esophageal pH monitoring is unknown. Forty patients with reflux symptoms were studied prospectively. Meal times and supine and erect phases of measurement were recorded in a standardized fashion using a patient protocol. Esophageal 24-hour pH monitoring with administration of a "colorless" diet (water, milk, potatoes, fish, chicken) was started on day 1, followed by esophageal 24-hour pH-metry with intake of a normal diet on day 2. Data from the two successive pH measurements were compared. The prevalence of a pathologic esophageal pH-metry was significantly higher during intake of a normal diet compared with a colorless diet (P=0.025). During total and upright phases, administration of a white diet led to significant reduction in the percentage of time with a pH less than 4 (P </= 0.01), the total number of reflux episodes (P </= 0.001), and the DeMeester's score (P=0.01). This difference was exclusively found in patients with a normal pH-metry (group 1, n=13) and pathologic upright reflux (group 2, n=12). No change in reflux pattern was found in patients with isolated supine reflux (group 3, n=7) and combined upright and supine reflux (group 4, n=8). In patients with a pathologic upright reflux pattern, administration of a white diet results in a significant modification of esophageal pH-metry. Data derived from simultaneous esophageal pH and bile monitoring should be interpreted with care

Impact of antireflux surgery on Barrett's esophagus.

The rising incidence of Barrett's carcinoma is a matter of major concern in Western societies. We realized a review of the literature to evaluate the impact of antireflux surgery on prevention of Barrett's carcinoma. We used MedLine- and PubMed-based review of the literature published since 1970 on surgical treatment of Barrett's esophagus. There is no report in the literature that describes de novo development of Barrett's metaplasia after successful antireflux surgery. Compared with medical therapy, the risk for malignant degeneration of Barrett's metaplasia is reduced in surgical patients according to some studies. On the other hand, regression of Barrett's metaplasia after antireflux surgery is rare and Barrett's carcinoma after surgery has been observed repeatedly. The combination of antireflux surgery and ablation of metaplastic mucosa in order to obtain regression has led to encouraging preliminary results; however, experience is still limited and numerous studies currently are underway. Dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a precancerosis and should not be treated as BE without dysplasia; strategies other than antireflux surgery need to be discussed. A prophylactic effect of early antireflux surgery upon de novo development of Barrett's metaplasia is probable. The impact of surgery on malignant degeneration of Barrett's epithelium remains uncertain. Data currently available show no clear benefit of antireflux surgery on cancerogenesis in patients with Barrett's metaplasia

Long-term quality of life after surgery for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction: extended gastrectomy or transthoracic esophagectomy?

BACKGROUND Esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction and extended transhiatal gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction are alternative procedures in current therapeutic concepts for adenocarcinoma of the esophagogastric junction (AEG). The impact of these operations on long-term health-related quality of life (HRQL) is incompletely understood. METHODS Patients with cancer-free survival of at least 24 months after esophagectomy (ESO) or extended gastrectomy (GAST) for AEG were identified from a prospectively maintained database. EORTC questionnaires were sent out to assess health-related general (QLQ-C30) and cancer-specific (OG-25) quality of life. Numeric scores were calculated for each conceptual area and compared with those of healthy reference populations. RESULTS 123 patients (ESO n = 71; GAST n = 52) completed the self-rated questionnaires. HRQL was consistently lower in surgical patients (GAST and ESO) compared with healthy reference populations. Also, there was a general trend for a better HRQL in GAST compared with ESO patients. This trend was statistically significant for physical function (p = 0.04), dyspnea (p = 0.02), and reflux (p = 0.03). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences between patients with or without prior neoadjuvant therapy. CONCLUSIONS After mid- and long-term follow-up, HRQL after extended gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction is superior to that after esophagectomy and gastric tube reconstruction. Improved HRQL after gastrectomy is mainly due to less pulmonary and reflux-related symptoms. Our findings may influence the choice of the surgical strategy for patients with AEG