Russian
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Gastroenterology 2020-Feb

Validation and Comparison of Tools for Selecting Individuals to Screen for Barrett's Esophagus and Early Neoplasia.

Только зарегистрированные пользователи могут переводить статьи
Войти Зарегистрироваться
Ссылка сохраняется в буфер обмена
Joel Rubenstein
Daniel McConnell
Akbar Waljee
Valbona Metko
Kimberly Nofz
Maryam Khodadost
Li Jiang
Trivellore Raghunathan

Ключевые слова

абстрактный

Guidelines suggest endoscopic screening of individuals who are at increased risk for Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Tools based on clinical factors are available for identifying patients at risk, but only some have been validated. We aimed to compare and validate available tools.We performed a prospective study of 1241 patients, ages 40-79 y, presenting either for their first esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) or their first endoscopic therapy of early neoplastic BE, from April 2015 through June 2018. We calculated risk scores for 6 previously published tools (the Gerson, Locke, Thrift, Michigan BE pREdiction Tools [M-BERET], Nord-Trøndelag Health Study [HUNT], and Kunzmann tools). We also investigated the accuracy of frequency and duration of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), using data from a randomly selected 50% of patients undergoing their first EGD. We compared the ability of all these tools to discriminate patients with BE and early neoplasia from patients without BE, using findings from endoscopy as the reference standard.BE was detected in 81/1152 patients during their first EGD (7.0%). GERD symptoms alone identified patients with BE with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.579. All of the tools were more accurate in identifying patients with BE than the frequency and duration of GERD (AUROC for GERD, 0.579 vs range for other tools, 0.660-0.695), and predicted risk correlated well with observed risk (calibration). The AUROCs of the HUNT tool (0.796), the M-BERET (0.773), and the Kunzmann tool (0.763) were comparable in discriminating between patients with early neoplasia (n=94) vs no BE. Each tool was more accurate in discriminating BE with early neoplasia than GERD frequency and duration alone (AUROC, 0.667; P<.01).The HUNT, M-BERET, and Kunzmann tools identify patients with BE with AUROC values ranging from 0.665 to 0.695, and discriminate patients with early neoplasia from patients without BE with AUROC values ranging from 0.763 to 0.796. These tools are more accurate than frequency and duration of GERD in identifying individuals at risk for neoplastic BE.

Присоединяйтесь к нашей
странице facebook

Самая полная база данных о лекарственных травах, подтвержденная наукой

  • Работает на 55 языках
  • Травяные лекарства, подтвержденные наукой
  • Распознавание трав по изображению
  • Интерактивная карта GPS - отметьте травы на месте (скоро)
  • Прочтите научные публикации, связанные с вашим поиском
  • Ищите лекарственные травы по их действию
  • Организуйте свои интересы и будьте в курсе новостей исследований, клинических испытаний и патентов

Введите симптом или заболевание и прочтите о травах, которые могут помочь, введите лекарство и узнайте о болезнях и симптомах, против которых оно применяется.
* Вся информация основана на опубликованных научных исследованиях.

Google Play badgeApp Store badge