2016
DOI: 10.1007/s11605-016-3165-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Buried Barrett’s Esophagus—a Sheep in Sheep’s Clothing

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Early reports of dysplasia and cancer developing in buried Barrett's (SSIM) after endoscopic ablation procedures fueled considerable early concerns about the impact of SSIM on the efficacy of endoscopic eradication therapy for cancer prevention (33). However, modern authorities generally have downplayed the importance of SSIM (34), noting that (i) SSIM can be found as frequently or even more frequently in unablated patients than in ablated patients (35,36); (ii) the histologic diagnosis of SSIM can be the spurious result of biopsy processing artifact (37); (iii) when SSIM is found during a course of RFA treatment, it is typically found in areas where Barrett's metaplasia is visible endoscopically (as it often was in our study) and, therefore, it is eliminated by subsequent RFA treatments (36); (iv) the overlying layer of squamous epithelium might protect SSIM from the carcinogenic effects of refluxed acid and bile (38); and, perhaps most importantly, (v) the incidence of cancer development after RFA treatment is very low (26,34).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Early reports of dysplasia and cancer developing in buried Barrett's (SSIM) after endoscopic ablation procedures fueled considerable early concerns about the impact of SSIM on the efficacy of endoscopic eradication therapy for cancer prevention (33). However, modern authorities generally have downplayed the importance of SSIM (34), noting that (i) SSIM can be found as frequently or even more frequently in unablated patients than in ablated patients (35,36); (ii) the histologic diagnosis of SSIM can be the spurious result of biopsy processing artifact (37); (iii) when SSIM is found during a course of RFA treatment, it is typically found in areas where Barrett's metaplasia is visible endoscopically (as it often was in our study) and, therefore, it is eliminated by subsequent RFA treatments (36); (iv) the overlying layer of squamous epithelium might protect SSIM from the carcinogenic effects of refluxed acid and bile (38); and, perhaps most importantly, (v) the incidence of cancer development after RFA treatment is very low (26,34).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The biology and clinical relevance of subsquamous metaplasia remains unclear. To date, few cases of subsquamous neoplasia have been reported after the successful eradication of BE, the majority of which were associated with ablative therapies other than RFA [11,12]. Titi et al were the first to describe neosquamous neoplasia after the successful RFA of dysplastic BE [6].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CE‐IM and CE‐D was defined as endoscopic and histological remission of intestinal metaplasia (for CE‐IM) or dysplasia (for CE‐D) on biopsies every 1–2 cm in a four‐quadrant method of the length of the original BE . Our definition of CE‐IM and CE‐D, an accepted standard definition, does not detect subsquamous BE; however, this is of little clinical significance…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%