In the absence of secondary causes, eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, local, progressive, T-helper type 2 immune-mediated disorder characterized by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and eosinophil-predominant inflammation. In the last 20 years, the incidence and prevalence of EoE have risen sharply, and the chances of encountering affected patients in clinics and endoscopy rooms have increased. Nevertheless, it is estimated that the mean diagnostic delay of EoE is 4–6 years in both children and adults. Unfortunately, the longer the disease stays unrecognized, the likelier it is for the patient to have persistent or increased esophageal eosinophilic inflammation, to complain of non-resolving symptoms, and to develop fibrotic complications. Early detection depends on the recognition of initial clinical manifestations that vary from childhood to adulthood and even among patients of the same age. The disease phenotype also influences therapeutic approaches that include drugs, dietary interventions, and esophageal dilation. We have herein reviewed epidemiologic, clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features and therapeutic options of EoE focusing on differences and similarities between children and adults that may certainly serve in daily clinical practice.

Esophageal cancer (EC) is the seventh most common cancer and the sixth cause of cancer death worldwide. Histologically, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) account for up to 90% and 20% of all ECs, respectively. Clinical symptoms such as dysphagia, odynophagia, and bolus impaction occur late in the natural history of the disease, and the diagnosis is often delayed. The prognosis of ESCC and EAC is poor in advanced stages, being survival rates less than 20% at five years. However, when the diagnosis is achieved early, curative treatment is possible, and survival exceeds 80%. For these reasons, mass screening strategies for EC are highly desirable, and several options are currently under investigation. Blood biomarkers offer an inexpensive, non-invasive screening strategy for cancers, and novel technologies have allowed the identification of candidate markers for EC. The esophagus is easily accessible via endoscopy, and endoscopic imaging represents the gold standard for cancer surveillance. However, lesion recognition during endoscopic procedures is hampered by interobserver variability. To fill this gap, artificial intelligence (AI) has recently been explored and provided encouraging results. In this review, we provide a summary of currently available options to achieve early diagnosis of EC, focusing on blood biomarkers, advanced endoscopy, and AI.

Summary Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has recently been applied to endoscopy and questionnaires for the evaluation of oesophageal diseases (ODs). Aim We performed a systematic review with meta‐analysis to evaluate the performance of AI in the diagnosis of malignant and benign OD. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, EMBASE Classic and the Cochrane Library. A bivariate random‐effect model was used to calculate pooled diagnostic efficacy of AI models and endoscopists. The reference tests were histology for neoplasms and the clinical and instrumental diagnosis for gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease (GERD). The pooled area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (PLR and NLR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were estimated. Results For the diagnosis of Barrett's neoplasia, AI had AUROC of 0.90, sensitivity 0.89, specificity 0.86, PLR 6.50, NLR 0.13 and DOR 50.53. AI models’ performance was comparable with that of endoscopists (P = 0.35). For the diagnosis of oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma, the AUROC, sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR were 0.97, 0.95, 0.92, 12.65, 0.05 and DOR 258.36, respectively. In this task, AI performed better than endoscopists although without statistically significant differences. In the detection of abnormal intrapapillary capillary loops, the performance of AI was: AUROC 0.98, sensitivity 0.94, specificity 0.94, PLR 14.75, NLR 0.07 and DOR 225.83. For the diagnosis of GERD based on questionnaires, the AUROC, sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR and DOR were 0.99, 0.97, 0.97, 38.26, 0.03 and 1159.6, respectively. Conclusions AI demonstrated high performance in the clinical and endoscopic diagnosis of OD.

Summary Background Chicago classification version 4.0 (CCv4.0) introduced stringent diagnostic criteria for oesophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO), in order to increase the clinical relevance of the diagnosis, although this has not yet been demonstrated. Aims To determine the prevalence of EGJOO using CCv4.0 criteria in patients with CCv3.0‐based EGJOO, and to assess if provocative manoeuvres can predict a conclusive CCv4.0 diagnosis of EGJOO. Methods Clinical presentation, high resolution manometry (HRM) with rapid drink challenge (RDC), and timed barium oesophagogram (TBE) data were extracted for patients diagnosed with EGJOO as per CCv3.0 between 2018 and 2020. Patients were then re‐classified according to CCv4.0 criteria, using clinically relevant symptoms (dysphagia and/or chest pain), and abnormal barium emptying at 5 min on TBE. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses identified HRM predictors of EGJOO. Results Of 2010 HRM studies, 144 (7.2%) fulfilled CCv3.0 criteria for EGJOO (median age 61 years, 56.9% female). Upon applying CCv4.0 criteria, EGJOO prevalence decreased to 1.2%. On ROC analysis, integrated relaxation pressure during RDC (RDC‐IRP) was a significant predictor of a conclusive EGJOO diagnosis by CCv4.0 criteria (area under the curve: 96.1%). The optimal RDC‐IRP threshold of 16.7 mm Hg had 87% sensitivity, 97.1% specificity, 95.7% negative predictive value and 91.3% positive predictive value for a conclusive EGJOO diagnosis; lower thresholds (10 mmHg, 12 mmHg) had better sensitivity but lower specificity. Conclusion CCv4.0 criteria reduced the prevalence of EGJOO by 80%, thereby refining the diagnosis and identifying clinically relevant outflow obstruction. Elevated RDC‐IRP can predict conclusive EGJOO per CCv4.0.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a unique form of non-immunoglobulin E-mediated food allergy, restricted to the esophagus, characterized by esophageal eosinophil-predominant inflammation and dysfunction. The diagnosis requires an esophago-gastroduodenoscopy with esophageal biopsies demonstrating active eosinophilic inflammation with 15 or more eosinophils/high-power field, following the exclusion of alternative causes of eosinophilia. Food allergens trigger the disease, withdairy/milk, wheat/gluten, egg, soy/legumes, and seafood the most common. Therapeutic strategies comprise dietary restrictions, proton pump inhibitors, topical corticosteroids, biologic agents, and esophageal dilation when strictures are present. However, avoidance of trigger foods remains the only option targeting the cause, and not the effect, of the disease. Because EoE relapses when treatment is withdrawn, dietary therapy offers a long-term, drug-free alternative to patients who wish to remain off drugs and still be in remission. There are currently multiple dietary management strategies to choose from, each having its specific efficacy, advantages, and disadvantages that both clinicians and patients should acknowledge. In addition, dietary regimens should be tailored around each individual patient to increase the chance of tolerability and long-term adherence. In general, liquid elemental diets devoid of antigens and elimination diets restricting causative foods are valuable options. Designing diets on the basis of food allergy skin tests results is not reliable and should be avoided. This review summarizes the most recent knowledge regarding the clinical use of dietary measures in EoE. We discussed endpoints, rationale, advantages and disadvantages, and tailoring of diets, as well as currently available dietary regimens for EoE.