Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2014 Aug;59(8):1831-50.
doi: 10.1007/s10620-014-3092-8. Epub 2014 Mar 21.

Screening for Barrett's esophagus: results from a population-based survey

Milli Gupta  1 , Timothy J Beebe, Kelly T Dunagan, Cathy D Schleck, Alan R Zinsmeister, Nicholas J Talley, G Richard Locke 3rd, Prasad G Iyer
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Screening for Barrett's esophagus: results from a population-based survey

Milli Gupta et al. Dig Dis Sci. 2014 Aug.

Abstract

Background: Screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) and adenocarcinoma (EAC) is controversial, but interest remains in finding the optimal method. Attitudes on screening within the community are unknown. We aimed to assess these attitudes via a survey.

Study: A mixed-mode survey was conducted in adults >50 years to assess awareness regarding BE, willingness to participate in screening, and preferences regarding method of screening. Methods evaluated were sedated endoscopy (sEGD), unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) and video capsule (VCE).

Results: A total of 136 from 413 (33%) adults responded [47% males, mean (SD) age 63 (10.2) years], and 26% of responders knew of BE at baseline. After reading the information on BE, 72% were interested in screening. A history of undergoing screening tests and GI symptoms were predictive of interest. Unsedated techniques were preferred by 64% (VCE: 56% and uTNE: 8%) versus sEGD (36%).

Conclusions: The majority of adults were willing to undergo screening for BE/EAC, with a preference for unsedated techniques.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Spechler SJ. Screening and surveillance for Barrett’s esophagusan unresolved dilemma. Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;4:470–471. - PubMed
    1. Pohl H, Welch HG. The role of overdiagnosis and reclassification in the marked increase of esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:142–146. - PubMed
    1. Wani S, Falk G, Hall M, et al. Patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus have low risks for developing dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;9:220–227. quiz e226. - PubMed
    1. Cameron AJ, Zinsmeister AR, Ballard DJ, Carney JA. Prevalence of columnar-lined (Barrett’s) esophagus. Comparison of population-based clinical and autopsy findings. Gastroenterology. 1990;99:918–922. - PubMed
    1. Jung KW, Talley NJ, Romero Y, et al. Epidemiology and natural history of intestinal metaplasia of the gastroesophageal junction and Barrett’s esophagus: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:1447–1455. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources