Barrett’s Esophagus is an increasingly common disease that is strongly associated with reflux of stomach acid and usually a hiatus hernia. Barrett’s Esophagus strongly predisposes to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), a tumour with a very poor prognosis. We have undertaken the first genome-wide association study on Barrett’s Esophagus, comprising 1,852 UK cases and 5,172 UK controls in discovery and 5,986 cases and 12,825 controls in the replication. Two regions were associated with disease risk: chromosome 6p21, rs9257809 (Pcombined=4.09×10−9, OR(95%CI) =1.21(1.13-1.28)) and chromosome 16q24, rs9936833 (Pcombined=2.74×10−10, OR(95%CI) =1.14(1.10-1.19)). The top SNP on chromosome 6p21 is within the major histocompatibility complex, and the closest protein-coding gene to rs9936833 on chromosome 16q24 is FOXF1, which is implicated in esophageal development and structure. We found evidence that the genetic component of Barrett’s Esophagus is mediated by many common variants of small effect and that SNP alleles predisposing to obesity also increase risk for Barrett’s Esophagus.

SummaryBackgroundOesophageal adenocarcinoma is the sixth most common cause of cancer death worldwide and Barrett's oesophagus is the biggest risk factor. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of high-dose esomeprazole proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) and aspirin for improving outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus.MethodsThe Aspirin and Esomeprazole Chemoprevention in Barrett's metaplasia Trial had a 2 × 2 factorial design and was done at 84 centres in the UK and one in Canada. Patients with Barrett's oesophagus of 1 cm or more were randomised 1:1:1:1 using a computer-generated schedule held in a central trials unit to receive high-dose (40 mg twice-daily) or low-dose (20 mg once-daily) PPI, with or without aspirin (300 mg per day in the UK, 325 mg per day in Canada) for at least 8 years, in an unblinded manner. Reporting pathologists were masked to treatment allocation. The primary composite endpoint was time to all-cause mortality, oesophageal adenocarcinoma, or high-grade dysplasia, which was analysed with accelerated failure time modelling adjusted for minimisation factors (age, Barrett's oesophagus length, intestinal metaplasia) in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2004-003836-77.FindingsBetween March 10, 2005, and March 1, 2009, 2557 patients were recruited. 705 patients were assigned to low-dose PPI and no aspirin, 704 to high-dose PPI and no aspirin, 571 to low-dose PPI and aspirin, and 577 to high-dose PPI and aspirin. Median follow-up and treatment duration was 8·9 years (IQR 8·2–9·8), and we collected 20 095 follow-up years and 99·9% of planned data. 313 primary events occurred. High-dose PPI (139 events in 1270 patients) was superior to low-dose PPI (174 events in 1265 patients; time ratio [TR] 1·27, 95% CI 1·01–1·58, p=0·038). Aspirin (127 events in 1138 patients) was not significantly better than no aspirin (154 events in 1142 patients; TR 1·24, 0·98–1·57, p=0·068). If patients using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were censored at the time of first use, aspirin was significantly better than no aspirin (TR 1·29, 1·01–1·66, p=0·043; n=2236). Combining high-dose PPI with aspirin had the strongest effect compared with low-dose PPI without aspirin (TR 1·59, 1·14–2·23, p=0·0068). The numbers needed to treat were 34 for PPI and 43 for aspirin. Only 28 (1%) participants reported study-treatment-related serious adverse events.InterpretationHigh-dose PPI and aspirin chemoprevention therapy, especially in combination, significantly and safely improved outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus.FundingCancer Research UK, AstraZeneca, Wellcome Trust, and Health Technology Assessment.

SUMMARYUnkept outpatient appointments are a drain on resources. In a prospective study we asked non-attenders at a gastroenterology clinic why they had missed their appointment.103 patients missed their appointment (14% of the total invited); 3 had died. The remaining 100 were asked to complete questionnaires, 68 by mail (43 returned) and 32 by telephone (30 successful); the response rate was thus 73%. 49 of the respondents were new patients, 6 of them with urgent referrals. The explanations for non-attendance by the 73 patients were: forgot to attend or to cancel (30%); no reason (26%); clerical errors (10%); felt better (8%), fearful of being seen by junior doctor (3%); inpatient in another hospital (3%); miscellaneous other (20%). 13 (27%) of the review patients had not kept one or more previous appointments. The non-attendance rates for different clinics ranged from 10% to 25% (average 14%).A substantial number of non-attenders claimed to have forgotten their appointment or to cancel it. If, as we surmise, this re¯ects apathy, no strategy to improve attendance is likely to have great impact. Since the nonattendance rate is reasonably constant, it can be taken into account when patients are booked.

Quality of life in screen-detected coeliac patients did not differ significantly compared to controls. Two of eight QoL parameters improved significantly in typical coeliac patients compared to baseline data. Dietary gluten exclusion in typical coeliac patients led to a significant improvement in health at 1 year follow-up, in contrast to screen-detected coeliac patients.