Quality of life, clinical outcomes and cost utilization of endoscopic therapy in patients with Barrett’s esophagus and early esophageal cancer—an 8-year Canadian experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims: Endoscopic treatment is a definitive and cost-effective management strategy for early neoplasia in Barrett's oesophagus (BE). However, little is known of its impact on quality of life (QoL). This study reports outcomes of endoscopic eradication treatment (EET), focusing on QoL and costs in a Canadian tertiary referral centre. Methods: A retrospective cohort study using a prospectively maintained clinical database captured validated QoL metrics during and at the end of EET, risk factors for BE, treatment response, complications, costs, and follow-up response of all treated Barrett patients in Calgary and Southern Alberta, Canada. Results: A total of 147 BE patients were treated from 2013 to 2021. All patients showed significant improvement in almost all QoL parameters except depression. There was significant improvement in 7 of the 8 QoL metrics in those who achieved complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CEIM). EET was successful in achieving complete eradication of dysplasia (CED) and CEIM in 93.4% and 74.3% of patients, respectively, with a median of 3 radio frequency ablation treatments. Longer circumferential segments of BE (Cx) predicted a lower likelihood of achieving CEIM. The average total cost to achieve CED and CEIM were $10 414.58 and $9347.93CAD, respectively (compared to oesophagectomy estimated at $58 332.30 CAD). Conclusion: This Canadian cohort reports significant post-treatment improvement in QoL parameters in patients treated to CEIM or CED over an 8-year period. EET for BE eradication is cost-effective compared to oesophagectomy. There was a low rate of complications and recurrence post-CEIM.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".