A127 ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION FOR DYSPLASTIC AND NEOPLASTIC BARRETT’S ESOPHAGUS: FINDINGS FROM A FOREGUT NEOPLASIA MULTIDISCIPLINARY DATABASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Previously, Barrett’s esophagus with high grade dysplasia (HGD) or neoplasia was treated with esophagectomy, which is associated with a high postoperative morbidity and mortality rate. Recent guidelines support the use of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and potentially T1b EAC; however, data on long term outcomes of endoscopic treatment is lacking. We created a combined prospective and retrospective multidisciplinary database to monitor outcomes of patients with Barrett’s esophagus undergoing endoscopic treatment. Aims Our primary aim was to compare outcomes of EMR and esophagectomy in patients presenting with BE and HGD, and/or early EAC. Methods A collaboration of gastroenterologists, general surgeons and thoracic surgeons from the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, provided input on the development of the database. All patients referred to the Northern Alberta Endoscopic Ablation Program from 2009–2021 who received at least one endoscopic treatment were included. A sub-analysis of all patients with pathologic confirmation of HGD, and/or early EAC was conducted to compare outcomes of EMR and esophagectomy. Results A total of 212 patients have been entered into the database. The most common findings were HGD, low grade dysplasia (LGD), and adenocarcinoma, respectively. All patients (n=48) who had at least LGD reached complete eradication of dysplasia (CE-D) and 95.8% reached complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM). Of those patients that reached CE-D, 8.3% developed recurrence of dysplasia (n=4). In the sub-analysis, 74 patients (76.3%) received endoscopic therapy while 23 patients (23.7%) received endoscopic therapy then ultimately an esophagectomy. There were significantly more T1b lesions in the esophagectomy group compared to the EMR group ( p<0.0001). Of all the patients in the EMR group, only 5.4% (n=4) had treatment related complications. Of patients receiving an esophagectomy, 60.9% (n=14) experienced treatment related complications. The mean length of stay for patients in the EMR group was 1.03 +/- 0.2 days, compared to 16.5 +/- 11.8 days for esophagectomy ( p<0.0001). Conclusions EMR provides definitive and durable treatment for BE lesions classified as T1b or less severe, with fewer complications and a shorter length of hospital stay than esophagectomy. Funding Agencies Alberta Innovates Health Solutions
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".