Search

Background: Surveillance of nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE) is recommended to identify progression to dysplasia; however, the most cost-effective strategy remains unclear. Mutation of TP53 or aberrant expression of p53 have been associated with the development of dysplasia in BE. We sought to determine if surveillance intervals for BE could be stratified based on p53 expression., Methods: A Markov model was developed for NDBE. Patients with NDBE underwent p53 immunohistochemistry (IHC) and those with abnormal p53 expression underwent surveillance endoscopy at 1 year, while patients with normal p53 expression underwent surveillance in 3 years. Patients with dysplasia underwent endoscopic therapy and surveillance., Results: On base-case analysis, the strategy of stratifying surveillance based on abnormal p53 IHC was cost-effective relative to conventional surveillance and a natural history model, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $8258 for p53 IHC-based surveillance. Both the conventional and p53-stratified surveillance strategies dominated the natural history model. On probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the p53 IHC strategy ($28 652; 16.78 quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]) was more cost-effective than conventional surveillance ($25 679; 16.17 QALYs) with a net monetary benefit of $306 873 compared with conventional surveillance ($297 642), with an ICER <$50 000 in 96% of iterations. The p53-stratification strategy was associated with a 14% reduction in the overall endoscopy burden and a 59% increase in dysplasia detection., Conclusion: A surveillance strategy for BE based on abnormal p53 IHC is cost-effective relative to a conventional surveillance strategy and is likely to be associated with higher rates of dysplasia diagnosis., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: "Push" or "pull" techniques with the use of snares, forceps, baskets, and grasping devices are conventionally used to manage esophageal food bolus impaction (FBI). A novel cap-assisted technique has recently been advocated to reduce time taken for food bolus (FB) removal. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the cap-assisted technique against conventional methods of esophageal FB removal in a randomized controlled trial., Methods: Consecutive patients with esophageal FBI requiring endoscopic removal, from 3 Australian tertiary hospitals between 2017 and 2019, were randomized to either the cap-assisted technique or the conventional technique. Primary outcomes were technical success and FB retrieval time. Secondary outcomes were technical success rate, en bloc removal rate, procedure-related complication, length of hospital stay, and cost of consumables., Results: Over 24 months, 342 patients with esophageal FBI were randomized to a cap-assisted (n = 171) or conventional (n = 171) technique. Compared with the conventional approach, the cap-assisted technique was associated with (i) shorter FB retrieval time (4.5 ± 0.5 minutes vs 21.7 ± 0.9 minutes, P < 0.001), (ii) shorter total procedure time (23.0 ± 0.6 minutes vs 47.0 ± 1.3 minutes, P < 0.0001), (iii) higher technical success rate (170/171 vs 160/171, P < 0.001), (iv) higher rate of en bloc removal (159/171 vs 48/171, P < 0.001), and (v) lower rate of procedure-related mucosal tear and bleeding (0/171 vs 13/171, P < 0.001). There were no major adverse events or deaths within 30 days in either group. The total cost of consumables was higher in the conventional group (A$19,644.90 vs A$6,239.90)., Discussion: This multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed that the cap-assisted technique is more effective and less costly than the conventional approach and should be first-line treatment for esophageal FBI., (Copyright © 2021 by The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Importance: Upper gastrointestinal tract cancer, including esophageal and gastric cancers, in China accounts for 50% of the global burden. Endoscopic screening may be associated with a decreased incidence of and mortality from upper gastrointestinal tract cancer., Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic screening for esophageal and gastric cancers among people aged 40 to 69 years in areas of China where the risk of these cancers is high., Design, Setting, and Participants: For this economic evaluation, a Markov model was constructed for initial screening at different ages from a health care system perspective, and 5 endoscopic screening strategies with different frequencies (once per lifetime and every 10 years, 5 years, 3 years, and 2 years) were evaluated. The study was conducted between January 1, 2019, and October 31, 2020. Model parameters were estimated based on this project, government documents, and published literature. For each initial screening age (40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-59, 60-64, and 65-69 years), a closed cohort of 100 000 participants was assumed to enter the model and follow the alternative strategies., Main Outcomes and Measures: Cost-effectiveness was measured by calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), and the willingness-to-pay threshold was assumed to be 3 times the per capita gross domestic product in China (US $10 276). Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of model findings., Results: The study included a hypothetical cohort of 100 000 individuals aged 40 to 69 years. All 5 screening strategies were associated with improved effectiveness by 1087 to 10 362 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and increased costs by US $3 299 000 to $22 826 000 compared with no screening over a lifetime, leading to ICERs of US $1343 to $3035 per QALY. Screening at a higher frequency was associated with an increase in QALYs and costs; ICERs for higher frequency screening compared with the next-lower frequency screening were between US $1087 and $4511 per QALY. Screening every 2 years would be the most cost-effective strategy, with probabilities of 90% to 98% at 3 times the per capita gross domestic product of China. The model was the most sensitive to utility scores of esophageal cancer- or gastric cancer-related health states and compliance with screening., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that combined endoscopic screening for esophageal and gastric cancers may be cost-effective in areas of China where the risk of these cancers is high; screening every 2 years would be the optimal strategy. These data may be useful for development of policies targeting the prevention and control of upper gastrointestinal tract cancer in China.

Background and Aims: Current guidelines recommend surveillance for patients with nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE) but do not include a recommended age for discontinuing surveillance. This study aimed to determine the optimal age for last surveillance of NDBE patients stratified by sex and level of comorbidity., Methods: We used 3 independently developed models to simulate patients diagnosed with NDBE, varying in age, sex, and comorbidity level (no, mild, moderate, and severe). All patients had received regular surveillance until their current age. We calculated incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained from 1 additional endoscopic surveillance at the current age versus not performing surveillance at that age. We determined the optimal age to end surveillance as the age at which incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 1 more surveillance was just less than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY., Results: The benefit of having 1 more surveillance endoscopy strongly depended on age, sex, and comorbidity. For men with NDBE and severe comorbidity, 1 additional surveillance at age 80 years provided 4 more QALYs per 1000 patients with BE at an additional cost of $1.2 million, whereas for women with severe comorbidity the benefit at that age was 7 QALYs at a cost of $1.3 million. For men with no, mild, moderate, and severe comorbidity, the optimal ages of last surveillance were 81, 80, 77, and 73 years, respectively. For women, these ages were younger: 75, 73, 73, and 69 years, respectively., Conclusions: Our comparative modeling analysis illustrates the importance of considering comorbidity status and sex when deciding on the age to discontinue surveillance in patients with NDBE., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The authors conducted a review of the literature of cost-effectiveness analyses regarding management of Barrett's esophagus, including screening, surveillance, and treatment strategies. Because of the presence of multiple systematic reviews on this topic, they chose to focus on more recent economic analyses, with an emphasis on comparative modeling because these analyses have been demonstrated to achieve greater validity and impact when there are multiple competing strategies that are clinically reasonable to pursue. The authors identified areas of consensus across studies regarding management strategies and also areas that require additional empirical data., Competing Interests: Disclosure Research effort provided for J.H. Rubenstein and J.M. Inadomi by the National Institutes for Health (U01CA152926, U01CA199336, U54CA163059). J.H. Rubenstein has served as a consultant to the American Gastroenterological Association Institute for work related to TissueCypher. J.M. Inadomi is on the scientific advisory board of Cernostics, which developed and produces TissueCypher., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The aim of this study was to identify the economic screening strategies for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) in high-risk regions. We used a validated ESCC health policy model for comparing different screening strategies for ESCC. Strategies varied in terms of age at initiation and frequency of screening. Model inputs were derived from parameter calibration and published literature. We estimated the effects of each strategy on the incidence of ESCC, costs, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Compared with no screening, all competing screening strategies decreased the incidence of ESCC from 0.35% to 72.8%, and augmented the number of QALYs (0.002-0.086 QALYs per person) over a lifetime horizon. The screening strategies initiating at 40 years of age and repeated every 1-3 years, which gained over 70% of probabilities that was preferred in probabilistic sensitivity analysis at a $1,151/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Results were sensitive to the parameters related to the risks of developing basal cell hyperplasia/mild dysplasia. Endoscopy screening initiating at 40 years of age and repeated every 1-3 years could substantially reduce the disease burden and is cost-effective for the general population in high-risk regions., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background and Aims: Reimbursement often presents a significant barrier to widespread adoption of innovative endoscopic devices. We aimed to determine the value (defined as cost savings to a payer) of endoscopic suturing devices in preventing the migration of esophageal stents placed for benign esophageal diseases., Methods: A decision-analytic model was constructed from a payer perspective evaluating fully covered metal stent placement for benign esophageal diseases (fistula, leak, perforation, or stricture) in a hospital outpatient setting. The model compared 2 strategies: endoscopic suturing to anchor the stent or no suture. Health care outcomes and costs were derived from published systematic reviews and national databases (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience [MAUDE] for safety data; 2018 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and Provider Utilization and Payment Data databases for reimbursement data)., Results: From a payer perspective, reimbursement for care increased by US$1487.98 without endoscopic suturing per patient, compared with US$621.06 with endoscopic suturing, to cover the risk of stent migration in addition to usual professional and facility reimbursement for stent placement. Thus, an average cost saving of US$866.92 per patient was achieved with endoscopic suturing to reduce stent migration risks. Cost savings associated with suturing ranged from US$147.48 to US$1586.36 per patient, based on the indication for the procedure in sensitivity analysis. Cost savings increased with higher rates of technical success in suture placement., Conclusions: Creating a defined reimbursement pathway for endoscopic suture fixation of a stent for the treatment of benign esophageal diseases appears to be justified from a payer perspective., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Evaluation and treatment of children with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) requires serial endoscopic, visual, and histologic assessment by sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Unsedated transnasal endoscopy (TNE) was reported to be successful in a pilot study of children. We evaluated video goggle and virtual reality-based unsedated TNE in children with EoE, collecting data on rates of completion, adverse events, and adequacy of visual and histologic findings., Methods: We performed a retrospective study of 190 children and young adults (age, 3-22 y) who underwent video goggle or virtual reality-based unsedated TNE from January 2015 through February 2018. We analyzed data on patient demographics, procedure completion, endoscope type, adverse events, visual and histologic findings, estimated costs, and duration in the facility. Esophageal biopsies from the first 173 subjects who underwent TNE were compared with those from previous EGD evaluations., Results: During 300 attempts, 294 TNEs were performed (98% rate of success). Fifty-four patients (age, 6-18 y) underwent multiple TNEs for dietary or medical management of EoE. There were no significant adverse events. Visual and histologic findings were adequate for assessment of EoE. TNE reduced costs by 53.4% compared with EGD (TNE $4393.00 vs EGD $9444.33). TNE was used increasingly from 2015 through 2017, comprising 31.8% of endoscopies performed for EoE. The total time spent in the clinic (front desk check-in to check-out) in 2018 was 71 minutes., Conclusions: In a retrospective study of 190 children and young adults (age, 3-22 y) who underwent video goggle or virtual reality-based unsedated TNE, TNE was safe and effective and reduced costs of EoE monitoring. Advantages of TNE include reduced risk and cost associated with anesthesia as well as decreased in-office time, which is of particular relevance for patients with EoE, who require serial EGDs., (Copyright © 2019 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Esophageal cancer is on the rise. The known precursor lesion is Barrett's esophagus (BE). Patients with dysplasia are at higher risk of developing esophageal cancer. Currently the gold standard for surveillance endoscopy involves taking targeted biopsies of abnormal areas as well as random biopsies every 1-2 cm of the length of the Barrett's. Unfortunately studies have shown that this surveillance can miss dysplasia and cancer. Advanced imaging technologies have been developed that may help detect dysplasia in BE. This opinion review discusses advanced imaging in BE surveillance endoscopy and its utility in clinical practice., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Purpose: Endoscopic surveillance for Barrett's oesophagus is undertaken to detect dysplasia and early cancer, and to facilitate early intervention. Evidence supporting current practice is of low quality and often influenced by opinion. This study investigated the preferences of patients for surveillance of Barrett's oesophagus in an Australian cohort., Methods: Four Barrett's oesophagus surveillance characteristics/attributes were evaluated within a discrete choice experiment based on literature and expert opinion: (1) surveillance method (endoscopy vs a blood test vs a novel breath test), (2) risk of missing a cancer over a 10-year period, (3) screening interval, and (4) out-of-pocket cost. The data from the discrete choice experiment was analysed within the framework of random utility theory using a mixed logit regression model., Results: The study sample comprised patients (n = 71) undergoing endoscopic surveillance for Barrett's oesophagus of whom n = 65 completed the discrete choice experiment. The sample was predominantly male (77%) with average age of 65 years. All attributes except surveillance method significantly influenced respondents' preference for Barrett's oesophagus surveillance. Policy analyses suggested that compared to the reference case (i.e. endoscopy provided annually at no upfront cost and with a 4% risk of missing cancer), increasing test sensitivity to 0.5% risk of missing cancer would increase participation by up to 50%; surveillance every 5 years would lead to 26% reduction, while every 3 to 3.5 years would result in 7% increase in participation. Respondents were highly averse to paying A$500 for the test, resulting in 48% reduction in participation. None of the other surveillance methods was preferred to endoscopy, both resulting in 11% reduction in participation., Conclusion: Test sensitivity, test frequency and out-of-pocket cost were the key factors influencing surveillance uptake. Patients prefer a test with the highest sensitivity, offered frequently, that incurs no upfront costs.

Background: Endoscopic therapy is considered to be comparable to esophagectomy with respect to oncologic outcomes in early (cT1) esophageal adenocarcinoma (EC). The current study aims to compare early outcomes and financial costs, associated with endoscopic versus surgical therapy for early esophageal adenocarcinoma., Methods: Retrospective review of patients undergoing either endoscopic or surgical therapy for cT1 EC between 2010 and 2015., Results: Age, BMI, and Charlson Comorbidity Scores were similar in patients undergoing endoscopic therapy (N = 20) and esophagectomy (N = 23). For patients undergoing endoscopic therapy a median of 6 endoscopic interventions, were performed per patient (range 2-18). Esophagectomy was associated with a median hospital stay of 9 (8-13) days and greater procedure specific morbidity compared to endoscopic therapy. Costs related to endoscopic therapy were significantly lower compared to esophagectomy ($22,640 vs. $53,849, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Endoscopic treatment is associated with decreased morbidity and financial costs when compared to esophagectomy., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: Population-level endoscopic screening for esophageal cancer has been conducted in China for years. In this study, we aim to provide an updated and precise cost estimation for esophageal cancer screening based on a randomized controlled trial in a high-risk area in China., Methods: We estimated the cost of esophageal cancer screening with chromoendoscopy using a micro-costing approach based on primary data of the ESECC (Endoscopic Screening for Esophageal Cancer in China) randomized controlled trial (NCT01688908) from a health sector perspective. Unit costs and quantities of resources were collected to obtain annual screening costs. The screening project was then theoretically expanded to a 10-year period to explore long-term trends of costs. Costs were adjusted to US dollars for the year 2018., Results: In the ESECC trial, screening cost per endoscopy with a valid pathologic diagnosis was $196, accounting for 3.82% of the gross domestic product per capita in Hua County, and the costs for detecting one esophageal cancer and one early-stage esophageal cancer were $26,347 and $37,687, respectively. In conventional screening in which protocol-driven costs were excluded, costs as above were $134, $18,074, and $25,853. The cost for detecting one gastric cardia cancer or stomach cancer was nine times higher than detecting one esophageal cancer owing to low prevalences of the two cancers. In a simulated 10-year screening project, annual cost decreased notably over time., Conclusions: Despite the relatively low absolute cost, population-level endoscopic screening will still be a heavy burden on local government considering the socioeconomic conditions. Long-lasting programs would be less costly and population-level screening would make little sense in non-high-risk regions.

Purpose: Although office-based transnasal esophagoscopy has been investigated extensively, a cost analysis is still lacking. We performed a cost analysis combined with feasibility study for two diagnostic processes: patients with globus pharyngeus and/or dysphagia, and hypopharyngeal carcinoma., Methods: Prospective cohort study., Results: Forty-one procedures were performed, of which 35 were fully completed. The procedure was well tolerated with mild complaints such as nasal or pharyngeal pain and burping. Four complications occurred: two minor epistaxis and two vasovagal reactions. In patients with globus pharyngeus and/or dysphagia, transnasal esophagoscopy resulted in a cost saving of €94.43 (p 0.026) per procedure, compared to our regular diagnostic process. In patients with suspicion of hypopharyngeal carcinoma, cost savings were €831.41 (p 0.000) per case., Conclusions: Cost analysis showed that office-based transnasal esophagoscopy can provide significant cost savings for the current standard of care. Furthermore, this procedure resulted in good patient acceptability and few complications.

Background and Aims: Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening is currently not considered to be cost effective in the general population but may be effective in high-risk subgroups, such as 50-year-old white men with chronic reflux disease (GERD). A new modality for screening is unsedated transnasal endoscopy using endosheath technology (uTNE), which has been shown to be safe and effective in clinical practice. In this study, we determined the cost-utility of uTNE in a high-risk subgroup compared with no screening or screening with standard endoscopy., Methods: A Markov model was used to simulate screening of 50-year-old white men with symptoms of GERD with either uTNE or standard endoscopy compared with no screening, over a lifetime horizon. Input variables were based on the literature and recent data on uTNE screening for BE. The study was designed from a healthcare payer perspective by using direct costs. Primary outcome measures were costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of uTNE and standard endoscopy compared with no screening. Sensitivity analysis was performed for several factors, such as prevalence of BE., Results: Costs of uTNE, standard endoscopy, and no screening were estimated at, $2495, $2957, and $1436, respectively. Compared with no screening, uTNE screening resulted in an overall QALY increase of 0.039 (95% percentile 0.018; 0.063) and an ICUR of $29,446 per QALY gained (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.516-53.091), whereas standard endoscopy compared with no screening resulted in a QALY increase of 0.034 (95% CI, 0.015-0.056) and an ICUR of $47,563 (95% CI, 31,036-82,970)., Conclusion: Both uTNE and standard endoscopy seem to be cost-effective screening methods in a screening cohort of 50-year-old white men with GERD at a willingness-to-pay cutoff of $50,000., (Copyright © 2019 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.)

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is an abnormality arising from gastroesophageal reflux disease that can progressively evolve into a sequence of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma. Progression of Barrett's esophagus into dysplasia is monitored with endoscopic surveillance. The current surveillance standard requests random biopsies plus targeted biopsies of suspicious lesions under white-light endoscopy, known as the Seattle protocol. Recently, published evidence has shown that narrow-band imaging (NBI) can guide targeted biopsies to identify dysplasia and reduce the need for random biopsies. We aimed to assess the health economic implications of adopting NBI-guided targeted biopsy vs. the Seattle protocol from a National Health Service England perspective. A decision tree model was developed to undertake a cost-consequence analysis. The model estimated total costs (i.e. staff and overheads; histopathology; adverse events; capital equipment) and clinical implications of monitoring a cohort of patients with known/suspected BE, on an annual basis. In the simulation, BE patients (N = 161,657 at Year 1; estimated annual increase: +20%) entered the model every year and underwent esophageal endoscopy. After 7 years, the adoption of NBI with targeted biopsies resulted in cost reduction of £458.0 mln vs. HD-WLE with random biopsies (overall costs: £1,966.2 mln and £2,424.2 mln, respectively). The incremental investment on capital equipment to upgrade hospitals with NBI (+£68.3 mln) was offset by savings due to the reduction of histological examinations (-£505.2 mln). Reduction of biopsies also determined savings for avoided adverse events (-£21.1 mln). In the base-case analysis, the two techniques had the same accuracy (number of correctly identified cases: 1.934 mln), but NBI was safer than HD-WLE. Budget impact analysis and cost-effectiveness analyses confirmed the findings of the cost-consequence analysis. In conclusion, NBI-guided targeted biopsies was a cost-saving strategy for NHS England, compared to current practice for detection of dysplasia in patients with BE, whilst maintaining at least comparable health outcomes for patients., Competing Interests: We have the following interests: This study was funded by Olympus. ZI and RK are employees of Olympus. Olympus is the manufacturer of NBI, a technology which is the focus of this study. GF and LH are employees of CBPartners. There are no further patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter our adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Objective: to evaluate the medical economics and safety of two methods for the endoscopic removal of jujube pits, one with a transparent cap combined with a stone basket and the other with a transparent cap combined with foreign body forceps., Methods: consecutive patients with a suspected jujube pit ingestion in the esophagus between January 2008 and December 2017 were enrolled into the study. Fifty-three patients who met the criteria were divided into two groups. Group A patients were treated by a transparent cap combined with a stone basket and group B patients were treated by a transparent cap combined with foreign body forceps. The following clinical data were collected: age, sex, location of jujube pits, complications, operation time, extraction success and average hospital costs., Results: a total of 53 patients who met the criteria were enrolled into the study; 29 cases in group A and 24 cases in group B. Endoscopic removal was successful in 98.1% (52/53) of the patients and the remaining 1.9% (1/53) required surgery. Severe complications were less frequent in group A than in group B (p = 0.017). Surgery time was not significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.647). The extraction success in group A was higher than in group B (p = 0.001). The medical costs including the total cost, inspection, treatment, radiation and drug cost were not significantly different between the two groups (p > 0.05 in all cases)., Conclusion: endoscopic baskets are suitable for cases of jujube pit ingestion and have a higher extraction success and a lower proportion of severe complications. Surgery time was not significantly extended and the medical costs did not increase.

Objective: To review experience, safety, and cost of office-based esophageal dilation in patients with history of head and neck cancer (HNCA)., Methods: The medical records of patients undergoing esophageal dilation in the office were retrospectively reviewed between August 2015 and May 2017. Patients were given nasal topical anesthesia. Next, a transnasal esophagoscopy (TNE) was performed. If the patient tolerated TNE, we proceeded with esophageal dilation using Seldinger technique with the CRE™ Boston Scientific (Boston Scientific Corp., Marlborough, MA) balloon system. Patients were discharged directly from the outpatient clinic., Results: Forty-seven dilations were performed in 22 patients with an average of 2.1 dilations/patient (range 1-10, standard deviation [SD] ± 2.2). Seventeen patients (77%) were male. The average age was 67 years (range 35-78 years, SD ± 8.5). The most common primary site of cancer was oral cavity/oropharynx (n = 10), followed by larynx (n = 6). All patients (100%) had history of radiation treatment. Four patients were postlaryngectomy. The indication for esophageal dilation was esophageal stricture and progressive dysphagia. All dilations occurred in the proximal esophagus. There were no major complications. Three focal, superficial lacerations occurred. Two patients experienced mild, self-limited epistaxis. One dilation was poorly tolerated due to discomfort. One patient required pain medication postprocedure. Office-based esophageal dilation generated $15,000 less in health system charges compared to traditional operating room dilation on average per episode of care., Conclusion: In patients with history of HNCA and radiation, office-based TNE with esophageal dilation appears safe, well-tolerated, and cost-effective. In a small cohort, the technique has low complication rate and is feasible in an otolaryngology outpatient office setting., Level of Evidence: 4. Laryngoscope, 128:2261-2267, 2018., (© 2018 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

Current endoscopic surveillance protocols for Barrett's oesophagus have several limitations, mainly the poor cost-effectiveness and high miss rate. However, there is sufficient evidence that patients enrolled in a surveillance program have better survival chances of oesophageal cancer due to earlier tumor stages at diagnosis compared to patients with de novo diagnosed oesophagus cancer. Risk stratifications aim to identify patients at highest risk of developing adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus; most of them base on the length of the Barrett's segment and the presence of dysplasia. This review discusses prognostic factors and provides practical guidance on how to improve the efficacy and outcome in Barrett's surveillance programs., (Copyright © 2018 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In the past decade, the introduction of high-resolution manometry and the classification of achalasia into subtypes has made possible to accurately diagnose the disease and predict the response to treatment for its different subtypes. However, even to date, in an era of exponential medical progress and increased insight in disease mechanisms, treatment of patients with achalasia is still rather simplistic and mostly confined to mechanical disruption of the lower esophageal sphincter by different means. In addition, there is partial consensus on what is the best form of available treatments for patients with achalasia. Herein, we provide a comprehensive outlook to a general approach to the patient with suspected achalasia by: 1) defining the modern evaluation process; 2) describing the diagnostic value of high-resolution manometry and the Chicago Classification in predicting treatment outcomes and 3) discussing the available treatment options, considering the patient conditions, alternatives available to both the surgeon and the gastroenterologist, and the burden to the health care system. It is our hope that such discussion will contribute to value-based management of achalasia through promoting a leaner clinical flow of patients at all points of care., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aim: Endoscopic treatment is widely accepted as the first-line therapy selection for esophageal variceal bleeding. Nevertheless, endoscopic injection sclerotherapy requires experienced endoscopists and is associated with a high risk of bleeding. Our study evaluates the feasibility and efficacy of transparent cap-assisted endoscopic sclerotherapy in the management of esophageal varices., Patients and Methods: A randomized-controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary referral center from April 2015 to May 2016. Patients who received endoscopic sclerotherapy were randomized in a blinded manner into two groups: the transparent cap-assisted group (n=59) and the control group (n=61)., Results: The average injection sites were reduced in the transparent cap-assisted group compared with the control group (1.2±0.4 vs. 1.4±0.05, P=0.000), whereas no difference was observed in the dosage of lauromacrogol (16.97±4.91 vs. 16.85±4.57, P=0.662) and the hemorrhage that occurred during injection made no difference (50.8 vs. 61.0%, P=0.276); yet, salvage hemostasis methods were used in only nine patients in the transparent cap-assisted group compared with 17 patients in the control group (25.0 vs. 38.7%, P=0.0936). The cost of each procedure in the cap-assisted group was ¥2578 (1878-4202), whereas it was ¥3691 for the control group (2506-5791) (P=0.023). Moreover, in both groups, no esophageal constriction was observed during the 6-month follow-up period, whereas the rebleeding rate between two groups showed no statistical significance in 6 months (89.8 vs. 93.4%, P=0.563)., Conclusion: Transparent cap-assisted sclerotherapy provided a clear field of vision and helped to fix the targeted veins, thus significantly reducing the use of the salvage hemostasis method during sclerotherapy injection hemorrhage. It is also associated with reduced injection sites and endoscopic therapy cost.

Oesophageal adenocarcinoma is rapidly increasing in Western countries. This tumour frequently presents late in its course with metastatic disease and has a very poor prognosis. Barrett's oesophagus is an acquired condition whereby the native squamous mucosa of the lower oesophagus is replaced by columnar epithelium following prolonged gastro-oesophageal reflux and is the recognised precursor lesion for oesophageal adenocarcinoma. There are multiple national and society guidelines regarding screening, surveillance and management of Barrett's oesophagus, however all are limited regarding a clear evidence base for a well-demonstrated benefit and cost-effectiveness of surveillance, and robust risk stratification for patients to best use resources. Currently the accepted risk factors upon which surveillance intervals and interventions are based are Barrett's segment length and histological interpretation of the systematic biopsies. Further patient risk factors including other demographic features, smoking, gender, obesity, ethnicity, patient age, biomarkers and endoscopic adjuncts remain under consideration and are discussed in full. Recent evidence has been published to support earlier endoscopic intervention by means of ablation of the metaplastic Barrett's segment when the earliest signs of dysplasia are detected. Further work should concentrate on establishing better risk stratification and primary and secondary preventative strategies to reduce the risk of adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus., Competing Interests: Conflict-of-interest statement: Amadi C and Gatenby P declare no conflicts of interest related to this publication.

Aim: The aim was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) with combined endoscopic mucosal resection and radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) arising in patients with Barrett's esophagus compared with endoscopic surveillance alone in the UK., Materials & Methods: The cost-effectiveness model consisted of a decision tree and modified Markov model. A lifetime time horizon was adopted with the perspective of the UK healthcare system., Results: The base case analysis estimates that EET for the treatment of HGD is cost-effective at a GB£20,000 cost-effectiveness threshold compared with providing surveillance alone for HGD patients (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: GB£1272)., Conclusion: EET is likely to be a cost-effective treatment strategy compared with surveillance alone in patients with HGD arising in Barrett's esophagus in the UK.

Background and Aims: The Surveillance versus Radiofrequency Ablation (SURF) trial randomized 136 patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) containing low-grade dysplasia (LGD), to receive radiofrequency ablation (ablation, n = 68) or endoscopic surveillance (control, n = 68). Ablation reduced the risk of neoplastic progression to high-grade dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) by 25% over 3 years (1.5% for ablation vs 26.5% for control). We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from a provider perspective alongside this trial., Methods: Patients were followed for 3 years to quantify their use of health care services, including therapeutic and surveillance endoscopies, treatment of adverse events, and medication. Costs for treatment of progression were analyzed separately. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated by dividing the difference in costs (excluding and including the downstream costs for treatment of progression) by the difference in prevented events of progression. Bootstrap analysis (1000 samples) was used to construct 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Results: Patients who underwent ablation generated mean costs of U.S.$13,503 during the trial versus $2236 for controls (difference $11,267; 95% CI, $9996-$12,378), with an ICER per prevented event of progression of $45,066. Including the costs for treatment of progression, ablation patients generated mean costs of $13,523 versus $4,930 for controls (difference $8593; 95% CI, $6881-$10,153) with an ICER of $34,373. Based on the various ICER estimates derived from the bootstrap analysis, one can be reasonably certain (>75%) that ablation is efficient at a willingness to pay of $51,664 per prevented event of progression or $40,915 including downstream costs of progression., Conclusions: Ablation for patients with confirmed BE-LGD is more effective and more expensive than endoscopic surveillance in reducing the risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia/EAC. The increase in costs of ablation can be justified to avoid a serious event such as neoplastic progression. At a willingness to pay of $40,915 per prevented event of progression, one can be reasonably certain that ablation is efficient. (www.trialregister.nl number: NTR 1198.)., (Copyright © 2017 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Guidelines for the screening and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus continue to evolve as the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma increases, identification of individuals at highest risk for cancer improves, and management of dysplasia evolves. This article reviews related studies and economic analyses. Advances in diagnosis offer promising strategies to help focus screening efforts on those individuals who are most likely to develop esophageal adenocarcinoma., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background/aim: Several uncontrolled studies comparing peroral endoscopic myotomy (POEM) and Heller myotomy have demonstrated equivalent short-term efficacy and safety. However, no data exists rergarding the cost of POEM and how it compares to that of robotic Heller myotomy (RHM). The primary aim of this study was to compare the inpatient charges incurred in patients who underwent POEM or RHM for the treatment of achalasia., Patients and Methods: A retrospective single center review was conducted among 52 consecutive POEM patients (2012-2014) and 52 consecutive RHM patients (2009-2014). All RHM procedures included a Toupet fundoplication and were performed via a transabdominal approach. All POEM procedures were performed by a gastroenterologist in the endoscopy unit. Clinical response was defined by improvement of symptoms and decrease in Eckardt stage to ≤I. All procedural and facility charges were obtained from review of the hospital finance records., Results: There was no difference between POEM and RHM with regards to age, gender, symptom duration, achalasia subtype, manometry findings, or Eckardt symptom stage. There was no significant difference in the rate of adverse events (19.2% vs 9.6%, P = 0.26) or the length of stay (1.9 vs. 2.3, P = 0.18) between both groups. Clinical response rate of patients in the POEM groups was similar to that in the RHM group (94.3% vs. 88.5%, P = 0.48). POEM incurred significantly less total charges compared to LHM ($14481 vs. $17782, P = 0.02)., Conclusions: POEM when performed in an endoscopy unit was similar in efficacy and safety to RHM. However, POEM was associated with significant cost savings ($3301/procedure).

Background/purpose: In pediatric cases of ingested foreign bodies, gastrointestinal foreign bodies (GIFB) have distinct factors contributing to longer and more costly hospitalizations., Methods: Patients admitted with ingested foreign bodies were identified in the Kids' Inpatient Database (1997-2009)., Results: Overall, 7480 cases were identified. Patients were most commonly <5years of age (44%), male (54%), and Caucasian (57%). A total of 2506 procedures were performed, GI surgical procedures (57%) most frequently, followed by GI endoscopy (24%), esophagoscopy (11%), and bronchoscopy - in cases of inhaled objects (9%). On multivariate analysis, length of stay increased when cases were associated with intestinal obstruction (OR=1.7), esophageal perforation (OR=40.0), intestinal perforation (OR=4.4), exploratory laparotomy (OR=1.9), and gastric (OR=2.9), small bowel (OR=1.5), or colon surgery (OR=2.5), all p<0.02. Higher total charges (TC) were associated with intestinal obstruction (OR=2.0), endoscopy of esophagus (OR=1.8), stomach (OR=2.1), or colon (OR=3.3), and exploratory laparotomy (OR=3.6) or surgery of stomach (OR=5.6), small bowel (OR=6.4), or colon (OR=3.4), all p<0.001., Conclusions: Surgical or endoscopic procedures are performed in approximately one third of GIFB cases. Associated psychiatric disorder or self-inflicted injury is seen in more than 20% of GIFB patients. Resource utilization is determined heavily by associated diagnoses and treatment procedures., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Esophageal foreign body retrieval is typically performed by rigid or flexible esophagoscopy. Despite evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of balloon extraction, it is rarely performed. We sought to establish the financial benefits of this minimally invasive approach., Methods: A retrospective review of 241 children with esophageal coins between 2011 and 2013 was performed. Coins were removed via endoscopy or fluoroscopic-guided balloon retrieval. Timing, symptoms, facility cost, and patient charges were compared., Results: Two hundred patients had attempted balloon retrieval with 80% success. Forty-one patients went directly for operative removal. Patients with respiratory difficulty (p=0.05), wheezing (p<0.01), or fever (p=0.03) were more often taken directly for endoscopic retrieval. The median cost and charges for attempted balloon extraction were $484 and $1647. The median cost and charges for primary endoscopy were $1834 and $6746. The median total cost and charges of attempted balloon extraction including ED, OR, transport, admission, and balloon retrieval were $1231 and $3539 versus $3615 and $12,204 in the primary endoscopy group (p<0.001, p<0.001). Seventeen percent of patients who underwent attempted balloon retrieval were admitted prior to removal compared to 76% who underwent primary endoscopy (p<0.001)., Conclusions: Fluoroscopic guided balloon extraction of esophageal coins is a financially prudent choice which shortens hospital stay., Level of Evidence: III., Type of Study: Retrospective treatment and economic study., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Neoplastic changes (mild or high grade intraepithelial neoplasia (L- or HGIEN) or early cancer) in Barrett esophagus are treated with various methods. This study compares clinical-economical aspects of sole stepwise radical endoscopic resection (SRER) against combination treatment with EMR (Endoscopic mucosal resection) and RFA (radiofrequency ablation)., Material and Methods: Based on clinical data from a randomized controlled trial 1 we developed an economic model for costs of treatment according to the German Hospital Remuneration System (G-DRG). Our calculating incorporated initial treatment costs and the cost of treating complications (both paid via G-DRG)., Results: Medical and economically, the treatment with EMR + RFA advantages over sole SRER treatment 1. The successful complete resection or destruction of neoplastic intestinal metaplastic tissue is similar in both procedures. Acute complications (24 vs. 13 % in SRER EMR + RFA) and late complications (88 vs. 13 % in SRER EMR + RFA) are significantly more likely in sole SRER than in the EMR + RFA., Discussion: While SRER initially appears more cost-effective as a sole therapy, cost levels move significantly above EMR+RFA due to higher complication rates and following procedures costs. Overall, the costs of treatment was € 13 272.11 in the SRER group and € 11 389.33 in the EMR + RFA group. The EMR + RFA group thus achieved a cost advantage of € 1882.78. The study shows that the treatment of neoplastic Barrett esophagus with EMR + RFA is also appropriate in economic terms., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Introduction: Published reports have demonstrated that many Barrett's esophagus patients are over-diagnosed as low-grade dysplasia (BE-LGD). We performed an analysis of the surveillance and treatment costs associated with the over-diagnosis of BE-LGD., Methods: As the principal cost variables, we used endoscopic and histologic procedures performed during the recommended surveillance intervals for patients with BE-LGD, the national average Medicare reimbursement for the Current Procedural Terminology codes of the procedures performed, and a spreadsheet-based tool we created to determine the overall healthcare cost associated with the over-diagnosis of BE-LGD in the US population., Results: The average excess cost (range) for every patient in the US who is over-diagnosed with BE-LGD is estimated to be $5557 ($3115 to $8072). The principal contributors to the excess cost of over-diagnosis of BE-LGD in these patients are: endoscopy ($2626 to $4639), pathologist biopsy review ($275 to $2185), and esophagogastroduodenoscopy-guided endoscopic ablation ($214 to $1249)., Conclusions: The healthcare cost of over-diagnosis of BE-LGD is significant. To reduce the overall healthcare cost impact of over-diagnosis of BE-LGD, strict adherence to the recommendations of the American Gastroenterological Association, American College of Gastroenterology, and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy that pathology review of all BE biopsy specimens be performed by a gastrointestinal pathologist is warranted.

Background: Controversy exists about the utility of pharmacologic agents and endoscopic technique used for esophageal food bolus impaction., Aim: To evaluate the utility of glucagon and the technique used for endoscopic removal, including the rate of success and the adverse events of the techniques., Methods: The database of the largest healthcare provider in southeastern Wisconsin was retrospectively reviewed for patients presenting with esophageal food bolus impaction. Data extracted included glucagon administration and its success rate, outcome of radiographic studies, and the endoscopic method of removal and adverse events associated with it, including 30-day mortality., Results: A total of 750 patients were identified with food bolus impaction from 2007 to 2012. Glucagon was administered in 440 patients and was successful in 174 (39.5%). Endoscopic removal was performed in 470 patients and was successful in 469 (99.8%). The push technique was utilized in 209 patients, reduction in the bolus size by piecemeal removal followed by the push technique was utilized in 97 patients, and the pull technique was utilized in 107 patients. There were no perforations with endoscopic removal. Only 4.5% of the X-rays performed reported a possible foreign body within the esophagus. Glucagon was a significantly less-expensive strategy than endoscopic therapy (p < 0.0001)., Conclusion: Glucagon is low cost, is moderately effective, and may be considered as an initial strategy. Endoscopic removal regardless of technique is safe and effective. The yield of radiography is poor in the setting of food bolus impaction.

Background: Ingested foreign bodies are a frequent presentation in pediatric emergency departments. Although some pass spontaneously through the gastrointestinal tract, the majority of esophageal-ingested foreign bodies (EFB) require removal., Materials and Methods: Kids' Inpatient Database (1997-2009) was used to identify children (aged <20 y) with EFB (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 935.1). Multivariate logistic regression analyses were constructed to identify predictors of resource utilization., Results: Overall, 14,767 EFB cases were identified. Most patients were <5 y of age (72%), boys (57%), and non-Caucasian (55%), with a median (interquartile range) length of stay (LOS) of 1 (1) d, and total charges of $11,003 (8503). A total of 11,180 procedures were performed, most commonly esophagoscopy (77%), followed by bronchoscopy (20%), gastroscopy (2%), and rarely surgery (0.8%). By multivariate logistic regression, increased total charges were associated with a diagnosis of esophageal ulceration (odds ratio [OR] = 1.57), esophagoscopy (OR = 1.42), and bronchoscopy (OR = 1.62), all P < 0.001. Total charges also increased with admission to urban nonteaching hospitals (OR = 1.51) versus urban teaching hospitals, P < 0.001. Prolonged LOS (≥1 d) was associated with admission to a hospital in the Midwest (OR = 3.18) and with esophageal ulceration (OR = 2.11) and esophagoscopy (OR = 1.13), P < 0.03. Boys had higher odds of longer hospitalization (OR = 1.21), P < 0.001. Overall hospital mortality was 0.1% (n = 16)., Conclusions: Most EFB occur in children <5 y of age. Esophageal ulceration, esophagoscopy, and bronchoscopy are associated with increased total charges. Esophageal ulceration, esophagoscopy, and boys are associated with an increased LOS. Surgery and hospital mortality are both extremely rare in children with EFB., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Coins are the foreign body most commonly ingested in infants and children. Coins retained in the esophagus require intervention to prevent complications. Management of retained esophageal coins remains variable both between and within institutions. We hypothesize that the incorporation of bougienage in the management of pediatric esophageal coins is safe and more cost-effective compared with traditional management strategies that use endoscopy., Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of infants and children diagnosed with an esophageal foreign body managed at Children's Hospital of Wisconsin between January 2003 and June 2012. Pediatric otolaryngologists (ear-nose-throat, ie, ENTs) or pediatric surgeons manage all children with esophageal foreign bodies in a prospective call schedule that alternates weekly., Results: During an 8.5-year period, 1,642 children were diagnosed with esophageal foreign bodies and 518 had a retained coin. For esophageal coins, ENT managed 218 cases and pediatric surgery managed 300. ENTs preferentially used endoscopy for coin removal, whereas pediatric surgeons used either endoscopy or esophageal bougienage for selected children meeting specific criteria. Bougienage was successful at advancing the coin into the stomach in 94% of patients, and endoscopy was successful at removing the coin from the esophagus in 100% of patients. The mean duration of stay was 0.6 days for endoscopy by ENT, 0.6 days for endoscopy by pediatric surgery, and 0.1 days for bougienage (P < .05). The median hospital charge was $4,593 for endoscopy by ENT, $5,379 for endoscopy by pediatric surgery, and $579 for bougienage (P < .05). There were 3 complications each in the endoscopy group for ENT and pediatric surgery. There were no complications in children undergoing bougienage., Conclusion: This is the first case series evaluating the management of children with esophageal coins using a prospective assignment to endoscopy versus endoscopy or bougienage. Our data support bougienage as a safe and cost-effective treatment for managing retained esophageal coins in selected children., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has risen rapidly over the past decades in Western countries. As a premalignant lesion, Barrett's esophagus (BE) is an established risk factor of EAC. This study estimated the impact of surveillance endoscopy for BE on population's survival upon EAC by a whole-population cost-effectiveness analysis among modeled Western population. Possibilities and survival payoffs were retrieved through literature searching based on PubMed database. Patients with BE were classified as adequate surveillance (AS), inadequate surveillance (IAS), and no surveillance groups. Direct cost of endoscopy per person-year was estimated from diagnosis of BE to before diagnosis of EAC in the whole-population model, whereas the payoff was 2-year disease-specific survival rate of EAC. AS for patients with BE had lower cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) than that of IAS group, as well as lower incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (6116 ∈/% vs 118,347 ∈/%). Prolonging the surveillance years could decrease the yearly cost in whole population and also relevant CERs, despite increased total cost. Increasing the proportion of participants in AS group could improve the survival benefit. The maximal payoff was up to 2-year mortality reduction of 2.7 per 100,000 persons by spending extra ∈ 1,658,913 per 100,000 person-years. A longer endoscopic surveillance among BE subpopulation plan can reduce yearly budget. Attempt to increase the proportion of AS participants can induce decline in population mortality of EAC, despite extra but acceptable expenditure. However, regarding optimal cost-effectiveness, further studies are still required to identify a high-risk subpopulation out of BE patients for endoscopic surveillance.

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of esophageal cancer endoscopic screening once-in-a-lifetime and to predict the optimal screening age for people in high-risk areas of rural China., Methods: A Markov model was constructed to predict and compare the effect of four esophageal cancer endoscopic screening modalities which varied with different screening ages. Long-term epidemiological effectiveness and cost-effectiveness were predicted by simulation of the model., Results: Compared with the control group, strategies starting at 40, 45, 50 and 55 year-old had saved life-years of 629.51, 769.88, 738.98 and 533.21 years per 100 000 people, respectively, of which the strategy starting at 45 year-old saved the maximum life years. All strategies were cost-effective and starting at 40 year-old cost the most per life-year saved. Among all alternatives, strategies starting age at 45 year-old and 50 year-old were incremental cost-effective, and the incremental cost-effective ratios were 34 962.87 and 3 346.43 RMB per life year saved, respectively., Conclusions: The strategy starting at 40 year-old implemented at present and other strategies were cost-effective in high-risk areas of rural China. However, the 45-year-old group is more aligned with the principle of cost-effectiveness. Considering the cost-effectiveness of different strategies and social economic status, 45 year-old is regarded as the optimal starting age of esophageal cancer once-in-a-lifetime endoscopic screening and is recommended in areas lacking health resources. The strategy of starting age at 40 year-old which could obtain better screening effects would be preferable in wealthy regions.

Approximately 10% to 15% of the chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease population is at risk for the development of Barrett's esophagus, particularly in the setting of other risk factors, including male gender, Caucasian race, age more than 50, and central obesity. The risk of cancer progression for patients with nondysplastic BE has been estimated to be approximately 0.2% to 0.5% per year. Given these low progression rates and the high cost of endoscopic surveillance, cost-effectiveness analyses in this area are useful to determine appropriate resource allocation., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Surveillance is recommended for Barrett's oesophagus (BO) to detect early oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of surveillance., Design: We included 714 patients with long-segment BO in a multicentre prospective cohort study and used a multistate Markov model to calculate progression rates from no dysplasia (ND) to low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and OAC. Progression rates were incorporated in a decision-analytic model, including costs and quality of life data. We evaluated different surveillance intervals for ND and LGD, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and oesophagectomy for HGD or early OAC and oesophagectomy for advanced OAC. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated in costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)., Results: The annual progression rate was 2% for ND to LGD, 4% for LGD to HGD or early OAC and 25% for HGD or early OAC to advanced OAC. Surveillance every 5 or 4 years with RFA for HGD or early OAC and oesophagectomy for advanced OAC had ICERs of €5.283 and €62.619 per QALY for ND. Surveillance every five to one year had ICERs of €4.922, €30.067, €32.531, €41.499 and €75.601 per QALY for LGD. EMR prior to RFA was slightly more expensive, but important for tumour staging., Conclusions: Based on a Dutch healthcare perspective and assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of €35.000 per QALY, surveillance with EMR and RFA for HGD or early OAC, and oesophagectomy for advanced OAC is cost-effective every 5 years for ND and every 3 years for LGD., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Aim: To study the cost-effectiveness of high-resolution microendoscopy (HRME) in an esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) screening program in China., Methods: A decision analytic Markov model of ESCC was developed. Separate model analyses were conducted for cohorts consisting of an average-risk population or a high-risk population in China. Hypothetical 50-year-old individuals were followed until age 80 or death. We compared three different strategies for both cohorts: (1) no screening; (2) standard endoscopic screening with Lugol's iodine staining; and (3) endoscopic screening with Lugol's iodine staining and an HRME. Model parameters were estimated from the literature as well as from GLOBOCAN, the Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide cancer database. Health states in the model included non-neoplasia, mild dysplasia, moderate dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia, intramucosal carcinoma, operable cancer, inoperable cancer, and death. Separate ESCC incidence transition rates were generated for the average-risk and high-risk populations. Costs in Chinese currency were converted to international dollars (I$) and were adjusted to 2012 dollars using the Consumer Price Index., Results: The main outcome measurements for this study were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). For the average-risk population, the HRME screening strategy produced 0.043 more QALYs than the no screening strategy at an additional cost of I$646, resulting in an ICER of I$11808 per QALY gained. Standard endoscopic screening was weakly dominated. Among the high-risk population, when the HRME screening strategy was compared with the standard screening strategy, the ICER was I$8173 per QALY. For both the high-risk and average-risk screening populations, the HRME screening strategy appeared to be the most cost-effective strategy, producing ICERs below the willingness-to-pay threshold, I$23500 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that, for the average-risk population, higher specificity of Lugol's iodine (> 40%) and lower specificity of HRME (< 70%) could make Lugol's iodine screening cost-effective. For the high-risk population, the results of the model were not substantially affected by varying the follow-up rate after Lugol's iodine screening, Lugol's iodine test characteristics (sensitivity and specificity), or HRME specificity., Conclusion: The incorporation of HRME into an ESCC screening program could be cost-effective in China. Larger studies of HRME performance are needed to confirm these findings.

Objectives: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has rapidly become a major cause of upper GI morbidity, but health-care costs related to EoE have not been described. This study aimed to estimate EoE-related health-care costs and utilization in the United States., Methods: We performed a study on health-care utilization of EoE cases compared with age- and sex-matched controls using administrative claims data, representative of the commercially insured population in the United States. Cases of EoE were identified using a previously validated definition. We assessed inpatient, outpatient, emergency department, outpatient prescription, and endoscopy-related costs for patients with EoE, and estimated total costs related to EoE extrapolated to the US population., Results: We identified 8,135 cases of EoE and 32,540 controls. The median total annual cost per EoE case was $3,304 compared with $1,001 for controls (P<0.001). For EoE, the median costs included $2,508/year for outpatient visits, $157 for endoscopies, and $325 for pharmacy claims, compared with $699, $0, and $76 for controls (P<0.001 for all). The overall median cost associated with EoE was $2,302/year/patient. Total costs in the United States ranged from $503 million to $1.36 billion/year, depending on the prevalence estimate, with costs attributable to EoE ranging from $350 to $947 million/year., Conclusions: Patients with EoE have an estimated annual health-care cost of as much as $1.4 billion in the United States. This represents a remarkable burden of disease for an entity that was essentially unknown two decades ago. These cost data can be used by policy makers to guide resource allocation.

A 57-year-old man presented to the hospital because of swallowing of a small marble precipitated by a hallucination. He subsequently developed chest discomfort. He had a history of psychiatric problem and an esophageal corrosive injury complicated by stricture of the middle esophagus.This report describes the novel idea of endoscopic intervention for the retrieval of an esophageal foreign body. Its inventiveness and the use of limited resources, by adapting a 30-mm aseptic common tubing into an endoscopic retrieving device, make the method novel. This novel low-cost endoscopic cap (NLCEC) was adapted to 25 mm of the front end of the endoscope, with 5 mm maintained for the soft part to prevent esophageal mucosal injury during the retrieval process. An 8-mm green marble was found impacted in the esophagus 32 cm from the incisors. The use of forced suction allowed for the successful retrieval of the marble within minutes. The patient had an uneventful recovery without any serious complications.This NLCEC may be a viable and safe tool for the endoscopic retrieval of esophageal foreign objects without general anesthesia. This innovative design is beneficial in terms of patient safety, easy preparation, and low cost.

There is increasing concern over the rising costs of healthcare leading to debate regarding the use of resources to implement preventive strategies. Oesophageal adenocarcinoma and its precursor, Barrett's oesophagus provides an excellent opportunity to highlight this issue since cancer is uncommon even among individuals with documented Barrett's oesophagus. This review provides a brief introduction to economic analysis in healthcare and summarizes published studies of the cost-effectiveness of strategies to reduce mortality from cancer. Current best estimates highlight the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic ablation among patients with Barrett's oesophagus and high-grade dysplasia and the low cost-effectiveness of ablation among patients without dysplasia. The cost-effectiveness of ablation among patients with Barrett's and low-grade dysplasia is poorly defined due to the ambiguity of diagnosing dysplasia, the unknown risk of cancer among patients with low-grade dysplasia, and the uncertain durability of ablation to maintain remission from metaplasia and dysplasia and prevent cancer., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The surgical management of esophageal perforation (EP) often results in mortality and significant morbidity. Recent less invasive approaches to EP management include endoscopic luminal stenting and minimally invasive surgical therapies. We wished to establish therapeutic efficacy of minimally invasive therapies in a consecutive series of patients., Study Design: An IRB-approved retrospective review of all acute EPs between 2007 and 2013 at a single institution was performed. Patient demographic, clinical outcomes data, and hospital charges were collected., Results: We reviewed 76 consecutive patients with acute EP presenting to our tertiary care center. Median age was 64 ± 16 years (range 25 to 87 years), with 50 men and 26 women. Ninety percent of EPs were in the distal esophagus, with 67% of iatrogenic perforations occurring within 4 cm of the gastroesophageal junction. All patients were treated within 24 hours of initial presentation with a removable covered esophageal stent. Leak occlusion was confirmed within 48 hours of esophageal stent placement in 68 patients. Median lengths of ICU and hospital stay were 3 and 10 days, respectively (range 1 to 86 days). One-third of the patients were noted to have prolonged intubation (>7 days) and pneumonia that required a tracheostomy. One in-hospital (1.3%) mortality occurred within 30 days. Median total hospital charges for EP were $85,945., Conclusions: Endoscopically placed removable esophageal stents with minimally invasive repair of the perforation and feeding access is an effective treatment method for patients with EP. This multidisciplinary method enabled us to care for severely ill patients while minimizing morbidity and mortality and avoiding open esophageal surgery., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Surgeons. All rights reserved.)

Background: Endoscopic surveillance for non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE) is contentious and its cost effectiveness unclear., Objective: To perform an economic analysis of endoscopic surveillance strategies., Design: Cost-utility analysis by using a simulation Markov model to synthesize evidence from large epidemiologic studies and clinical data for surveillance, based on international guidelines, applied in a coordinator-managed surveillance program., Setting: Tertiary care hospital, South Australia., Patients: A total of 2040 patient-years of follow-up., Intervention: (1) No surveillance, (2) 2-yearly endoscopic surveillance of patients with non-dysplastic BE and 6-monthly surveillance of patients with low-grade dysplasia, (3) a hypothetical strategy of biomarker-modified surveillance., Main Outcome Measurements: U.S. cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) ratios., Results: Compared with no surveillance, surveillance produced an estimated incremental cost per QALY ratio of $60,858. This was reduced to $38,307 when surveillance practice was modified by a hypothetical biomarker-based strategy. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the likelihood that surveillance alone was cost-effective compared with no surveillance was 16.0% and 60.6% if a hypothetical biomarker-based strategy was added to surveillance, at an acceptability threshold of $100,000 per QALY gained., Limitations: Treatment options for BE that overlap those for symptomatic GERD were omitted., Conclusion: By using best available estimates of the malignant potential of BE, endoscopic surveillance of patients with non-dysplastic BE is unlikely to be cost-effective for the majority of patients and depends heavily on progression rates between dysplasia grades. However, strategies that modify surveillance according to cancer risk might be cost-effective, provided that high-risk individuals can be identified and prioritized for surveillance., (Copyright © 2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

These guidelines provide a practical and evidence-based resource for the management of patients with Barrett's oesophagus and related early neoplasia. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument was followed to provide a methodological strategy for the guideline development. A systematic review of the literature was performed for English language articles published up until December 2012 in order to address controversial issues in Barrett's oesophagus including definition, screening and diagnosis, surveillance, pathological grading for dysplasia, management of dysplasia, and early cancer including training requirements. The rigour and quality of the studies was evaluated using the SIGN checklist system. Recommendations on each topic were scored by each author using a five-tier system (A+, strong agreement, to D+, strongly disagree). Statements that failed to reach substantial agreement among authors, defined as >80% agreement (A or A+), were revisited and modified until substantial agreement (>80%) was reached. In formulating these guidelines, we took into consideration benefits and risks for the population and national health system, as well as patient perspectives. For the first time, we have suggested stratification of patients according to their estimated cancer risk based on clinical and histopathological criteria. In order to improve communication between clinicians, we recommend the use of minimum datasets for reporting endoscopic and pathological findings. We advocate endoscopic therapy for high-grade dysplasia and early cancer, which should be performed in high-volume centres. We hope that these guidelines will standardise and improve management for patients with Barrett's oesophagus and related neoplasia.

Esophageal cancer (EC) is the eighth common cancer and the sixth most common cause of death from cancer worldwide. Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) remains the most common type of EC in the developing world and an important health problem in high-risk areas. Most of ESCC cases present in late stages, resulting in delayed diagnosis and poor prognosis. Prevention is the most effective strategy to control ESCC. Primary and secondary preventive methods may be considered for ESCC. In primary prevention, we try to avoid known risk factors. The aim of the secondary preventive method (ESCC screening programs) is to detect and eliminate premalignant precursor lesion of ESCC, preventing its progression into advanced stages. Similar to all population-based screening programs, any screening for early detection of ESCC must be cost-effective; otherwise, screening may not be indicated in that population. Endoscopy with iodine staining has been accepted as a population-level ESCC screening program in some high-risk areas including parts of China. This method may be too expensive and invasive in other high-risk communities. Nonendoscopic methods may be more applicable in these populations for population-based screenings. The limitations (questionable validity and costs) of new endoscopic imaging modalities, including narrow-band imaging (NBI), made them inappropriate to be used in population-level ESCC screening programs. Low-cost, less-invasive endoscopic imaging methods with acceptable diagnostic performance may make screening of ESCC in high-risk areas cost-effective.