Surgical esophagectomy, intensive endoscopic surveillance, and mucosal ablative techniques, particularly photodynamic therapy (PDT), have been proposed as possible management strategies for Barrett’s high-grade dysplasia (HGD). Each option has advantages and disadvantages, and no firm consensus exists for the preferred strategy at this time. The purpose of this pilot study was to gain insight into patient preferences in Barrett’s HGD management. Twenty patients with Barrett’s esophagus were enrolled in a questionnaire study. The three possible management options for Barrett’s HGD including each option’s potential benefits and harms were presented to the subject in a formalized presentation that was designed to be easily comprehendible by patients. The subjects rated each strategy using a health-related quality of life instrument and chose one of the management strategies assuming they were found to have HGD. The average feeling thermometer rating scale values for the management strategies were as follows: endoscopic surveillance, 79; esophagectomy, 46; and PDT, 60. When asked to choose a strategy, 14 (70%) chose endoscopic surveillance, 3 (15%) chose esophagectomy, and 3 (15%) chose PDT. These findings were statistically significant (P = 0.0024). The patients who chose endoscopic surveillance felt “comfortable” with endoscopy, while the most common concern about esophagectomy, and PDT was the risk of death and the unknown risk of recurrence, respectively. In summary, when patients with Barrett’s esophagus were presented with three options to manage HGD, the majority chose endoscopic surveillance. Familiarity with endoscopic surveillance was the predominant reason for the choice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
1. Locke GR 3rd, Talley NJ, Fett SL, Zinsmeister AR, Melton LJ 3rd: Prevalence and clinical spectrum of gastroesophageal reflux: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Gastroenterology 112(5):1448–1456, 1997
2. Lagergren J, Bergstrom R, Lindgren A, Nyren O: Symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux as a risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med 340(11):825–831, 1999
3. Devesa SS, Blot WJ, Fraumeni JF, Jr.: Changing patterns in the incidence of esophageal and gastric carcinoma in the United States. Cancer 83(10):2049–2053, 1998
4. Weston AP, Sharma P, Topalovski M, Richards R, Cherian R, Dixon A: long-term follow-up of Barrett’s high-grade dysplasia. Am J Gastroenterol 95(8):1888–1893, 2000
5. Edwards MJ, Gable DR, Lentsch AB, Richardson JD: The rationale for esophagectomy as the optimal therapy for Barrett’s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia. Ann Surg 223(5):585–589; discussion 589–591, 1996
6. Heitmiller RF, Redmond M, Hamilton SR: Barrett’s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia. An indication for prophylactic esophagectomy. Ann Surg 224(1):66–71, 1996
7. Rice TW, Falk GW, Achkar E, Petras RE: Surgical management of high-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 88(11):1832–1836, 1993
8. Pera M, Trastek VF, Carpenter HA, Allen MS, Deschamps C, Pairolero PC: Barrett’s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia: an indication for esophagectomy?. Ann Thorac Surg 54(2):199–204, 1992
9. Peters JH, Clark GW, Ireland AP, Chandrasoma P, Smyrk TC, DeMeester TR: Outcome of adenocarcinoma arising in Barrett’s esophagus in endoscopically surveyed and nonsurveyed patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 108(5):813–821; discussion 821–822, 1994
10. Falk GW, Rice TW, Goldblum JR, Richter JE: Jumbo biopsy forceps protocol still misses unsuspected cancer in Barrett’s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 49(2):170–176, 1999
11. Stein H: Esophageal cancer: Screening and surveillance. Results of a consensus conference held at the VIth World Congress of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus. Dis Esophagus 9:s3–s19, 1996
12. Begg CB, Cramer LD, Hoskins WJ, Brennan MF: Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. JAMA 280(20):1747–1751, 1998
13. Schnell TG, Sontag SJ, Chejfec G, Aranha G, Metz A, O’Connell S, Seidel UJ, Sonnenberg A: long-term nonsurgical management of barrett’s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia. Gastroenterology 120(7):1607–1619, 2001
14. Overholt BF, Panjehpour M, Haydek JM: Photodynamic therapy for Barrett’s esophagus: follow-up in 100 patients. Gastrointest Endosc 49(1):1–7, 1999
15. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Gwyn R, Grol R: Towards a feasible model for shared decision making: focus group study with general practice registrars. BMJ 319(7212):753–756, 1999
16. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P, Grol R: Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: The competences of involving patients in healthcare choices. Br J Gen Pract 50(460):892–899, 2000
17. Torrance GW, Boyle MH, Horwood SP: Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Oper Res 30:1043–1069, 1982
18. Fisher D, Jeffreys A, Bosworth H, Wang J, Lipscomb J, Provenzale D: Quality of life in patients with Barrett’s esophagus undergoing surveillance. Am J Gastroenterol 97(9):2193–2200, 2002
19. Provenzale D, Schmitt C, Wong JB: Barrett’s esophagus: a new look at surveillance based on emerging estimates of cancer risk. Am J Gastroenterol 94(8):2043–2053, 1999
20. Falk GW, Chittajallu R, Goldblum JR, Biscotti CV, Geisinger KR, Petras RE, Birgisson S, Rice TW, Richter JE: Surveillance of patients with Barrett’s esophagus for dysplasia and cancer with balloon cytology. Gastroenterology 112(6):1787–1797, 1997
21. Silvis SE, Nebel O, Rogers G, Sugawa C, Mandelstam P: Endoscopic complications. Results of the 1974 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Survey. JAMA 235(9):928–930, 1976
22. Sampliner RE: Updated guidelines for the diagnosis, surveillance, and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 97(8):1888–1895, 2002
23. Hulscher JB, van Sandick JW, de Boer AG, Wijnhoven BP, Tijssen JG, Fockens P, Stalmeier PF, ten Kate FJ, van Dekken H, Obertop H, Tilanus HW, van Lanschot JJ: Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. N Engl J Med 347(21):1662–1669, 2002
24. Ferguson MK, Naunheim KS: Resection for Barrett’s mucosa with high-grade dysplasia: Implications for prophylactic photodynamic therapy. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 114(5):824–829, 1997
25. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, Stukel TA, Lucas FL, Batista I, Welch HG, Wennberg DE: Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine 346(15):1128–1137, 2002
26. Headrick JR, Nichols FC, 3rd, Miller DL, Allen MS, Trastek VF, Deschamps C, Schleck CD, Thompson AM, Pairolero PC: High-grade esophageal dysplasia: long-term survival and quality of life after esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 73(6):1697–1702, discussion 1702–1703, 2002
27. Hur C, Nishioka NS, Gazelle GS: Cost-effectiveness of photodynamic therapy for treatment of Barrett’s esophagus with high grade dysplasia. Dig Dis Sci 48(7):1273–1283, 2003
28. Hur C, Nishioka NS, Gazelle GS: Cost-effectiveness of aspirin chemoprevention for Barrett’s esophagus. J Natl Cancer Inst 96(4):316–325, 2004
29. Bueno R, Swanson SJ, Jaklitsch MT, Lukanich JM, Mentzer SJ, Sugarbaker DJ: Combined antegrade and retrograde dilation: a new endoscopic technique in the management of complex esophageal obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc 54(3):368–372, 2001
30. Nishioka NS: Drug, light, and oxygen: a dynamic combination in the clinic. Gastroenterology 114(3):604–606, 1998
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hur, C., Wittenberg, E., Nishioka, N.S. et al. Patient Preferences for the Management of High-Grade Dysplasia in Barrett’s Esophagus. Dig Dis Sci 50, 116–125 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-005-1288-7
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-005-1288-7