Background and Aims: Endoscopic dilation (ED) is still the mainstay of therapeutic management of benign esophageal strictures (BESs). This study aimed to establish risk factors for refractory BESs and assess longterm clinical outcomes of ED.Methods: We performed a retrospective study in 891 patients who underwent ED from 2003 to 2018 for BESs. We searched electronic medical records in 6 tertiary care centers in the Netherlands for data on clinical outcome of ED. Median follow-up was 39 months. The primary endpoint was risk factors for refractory BESs, defined as factors associated with an increased number of ED sessions during follow-up. Secondary endpoints were time from first to last ED session and adverse events.Results: Dilation up to 13 to 15 mm was associated with a higher number of ED sessions than dilation up to 16 to 18 mm (5.0 vs 4.1; hazard ratio [HR], 1.4; P Z .001). Compared with peptic strictures, anastomotic (4.9 vs 3.6; HR, 2.1; P < .001), radiation (5.0 vs 3.6; HR, 3.0; P < .001), caustic (7.2 vs 3.6; HR, 2.7; P < .001), and postendotherapy (3.9 vs 3.6; HR, 1.8; P Z .005) strictures were associated with a higher number of ED sessions. After 1 year of follow-up, the proportions of patients who remained free of ED was 75% in anastomotic, 71% in radiation, 70% in peptic, 83% in postendotherapy, and 62% in caustic strictures. Esophageal perforation occurred in 23 ED sessions (.4%) in 22 patients (2.4%).Conclusions: More than 60% of patients with BESs remain free of ED after 1 year of follow-up. Because dilation up to 16 to 18 mm diameter was associated with fewer ED sessions during follow-up, we suggest that clinicians should consider dilation up to at least 16 mm to reduce the number of ED sessions in these patients.

No abstract

No abstract

ObjectiveScreening for early oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), including its precursor Barrett’s oesophagus (BO), can potentially reduce OAC-related morbidity and mortality. This study explores Dutch at-risk individuals’ views of screening an at-risk population for BO/OAC.DesignWe invited 372 individuals with risk factors for OAC from primary care practices, 73 individuals with surveillance experience, and 221 participants of previous studies (BO/OAC screening trial or survey) to participate in focus groups. Transcripts were inductively and thematically analysed by two independent researchers.ResultsA total of 50 individuals (42% with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms) of 50–75 years participated. Themes that were raised included: theme 1 ‘screening intentions’ describing participants’ motivation to be screened (eg, early diagnosis, potential reassurance, physician recommendation, and knowing someone with cancer) or decline screening (eg, anticipated discomfort or suboptimal accuracy of the test); theme 2 ‘risk-based eligibility’ describing the tension between effectiveness (eg, targeting high-risk individuals) and inclusivity (eg, making screening available for everyone); theme 3 ‘distributive justice’, in which the pressure of a potential new screening programme on healthcare resources was discussed; and theme 4 ‘information needs’ describing the perceived lack of information access and individuals’ preference to discuss screening with their general practitioner.ConclusionIndividuals not only expressed high willingness to be screened but also voiced the concern that a new screening programme may pressure limited healthcare resources. If implemented, it is crucial to develop educational materials that meet the public’s information needs and explain the test procedures and eligibility criteria while avoiding stigmatising language.

No abstract