MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391873575 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwad061.219

A219 EARLY CANADIAN EXPERIENCE WITH BALLOON CRYOTHERAPY FOR BARRETT’S ESOPHAGUS

2024· article· en· W4391873575 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rebecca Sullivan, Amara Fazal, M Gupta, Paul J. Belletrutti, Clarence Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCryotherapyBalloonEsophagusMedicineBarrett's esophagusGeneral surgeryRadiologySurgeryInternal medicineCancerAdenocarcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Balloon Cryotherapy (bCr) is a novel endoscopic treatment modality for Barrett’s esophagus (BE) associated dysplasia. Cryotherapy offers an additional approach, particularly in cases refractory to or with an anatomical impediment to radiofrequency ablation (RFA), currently first line in endoscopic eradiation therapy (EET). The use of bCr is new in Canada and it was introduced in Alberta in February 2023. Aims To present the early experience of bCr use for BE from a provincial Canadian cohort. Methods An Alberta health technology assessment approved bCr, which was then incorporated into the provincial BE treatment algorithm. Indications for bCr include: 1) RFA-refractory, 2) anatomical impediment to RFA, 3) need for concomitant biopsy/EMR, and 4) pain with RFA. All patients who underwent bCr for BE in Alberta from February to September 2023 at two tertiary care centers were included. Data on demographics, BE lesion characteristics, prior BE treatments, and bCr use are presented. Results During the 8-month period, 22 patients underwent a total of 32 bCr treatments. The median age was 68, with 77% of patients being male. At baseline, 81% had long-segment BE (≥3 cm), with a median maximal BE length of 7cm. The majority had baseline histology of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) (n=11, 50%), followed by low-grade dysplasia (LGD) (n=5, 22%), T1a (n=4, 18%), T1b (n=1, 4.5%), and intestinal metaplasia (IM) (n=1, 4.5%). All patients had previously received EET, with 77% undergoing a combination of EMR, RFA, APC, and/or ESD. Most had received RFA (n=18, 81%, median sessions=5) and EMR (n=13, 59%, median sessions=2). Some had prior APC (n=10, 45%, median sessions=1) and one had ESD. Prior to bCr, most patients had converted to short-segment (ampersand:003C3cm) BE (n=16, 72%), and histology was predominately IM (31%), followed by visible BE though no biopsy (27%), HGD (22%), T1a (13%), and LGD (4.5%). The primary indication for bCr was RFA-refractory BE (n=17, 77%), followed by anatomical impediment to RFA (n=4, 18%), and concomitant EMR (n=1, 4%). No procedures were aborted due to technical difficulties and there were no major adverse events such as perforation, bleeding, or pain requiring hospitalization. Among those with follow-up after a bCr session (n=19, 59%), one reported pain, two reported self-limited dysphagia, and one had a stricture requiring dilation. Of the 7 patients with post-bCr endoscopy, all had no dysplasia on the first set of biopsies (no IM, n=4; IM, n=2; indefinite for dysplasia, n=1). Conclusions Our early experience with bCr demonstrates there is a need for additional EET for BE. Cryotherapy, in accordance with gastroenterology society guidelines, is a promising next step in the BE algorithm. In our provincial cohort, bCr has shown technical success, and preliminary data suggests that it is safe and effective in ablating resistant BE segments. Funding Agencies None

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment→French-language works237,207→