ArticleGastroenterology2015
An Accurate Cancer Incidence in Barrett's Esophagus: A Best Estimate Using Published Data and Modeling.
Article in Gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Endoscopic Eradication Therapy of Barrett's Esophagus and Related Neoplasia.Gastroenterology · 2024Guideline
- Improving cost-effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance for Barrett's esophagus by reducing low-value care: a review of economic evaluations.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Pooled it
- Evaluating Cost-Effectiveness of 85 Endoscopic Surveillance Strategies of Nondysplastic Barrett's Esophagus.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- A Scoping Review on Calibration Methods for Cancer Simulation Models.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Article
- Liquid biopsy to identify Barrett's oesophagus, dysplasia and oesophageal adenocarcinoma: theGut · 2025Article
- High rate of missed Barrett's esophagus when screening with forceps biopsies.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2023Article
- Endoscopic Screening Program for Control of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in Varied Populations: A Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Use of a Cytosponge biomarker panel to prioritise endoscopic Barrett's oesophagus surveillance: a cross-sectional study followed by a real-world prospective pilot.The Lancet. Oncology · 2022Article
- Barrett's esophagus: The pathomorphological and molecular genetic keystones of neoplastic progression.Cancer medicine · 2022Review
- Challenges in Determining the Role of Microbiome Evolution in Barrett's Esophagus and Progression to Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.Microorganisms · 2021Review
- Competing endogenous RNA network for esophageal cancer progression.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- The Optimal Age to Stop Endoscopic Surveillance of Patients With Barrett's Esophagus Based on Sex and Comorbidity: A Comparative Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Impact of assumptions on future costs, disutility and mortality in cost-effectiveness analysis; a model exploration.PloS one · 2021Article
- Chaperones and Ubiquitin Ligases Balance Mutant p53 Protein Stability in Esophageal and Other Digestive Cancers.Cellular and molecular gastroenterology and hepatology · 2021Review
- Article
- Is Malignant Potential of Barrett's Esophagus Predictable by Endoscopy Findings?Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Chronic High-Fat Diet Induces Early Barrett's Esophagus in Mice through Lipidome Remodeling.Biomolecules · 2020Article
- Relationship between Barrett's esophagus and colonic diseases: a role for colonoscopy in Barrett's surveillance.Journal of gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Interactive decision support for esophageal adenocarcinoma screening and surveillance.BMC gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Barretts's carcinogenesis.Pathology international · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsPublished estimates for the rate of progression from Barrett's esophagus (BE) to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) vary. We used simulation modeling to reconcile published data and more accurately estimate the incidence of EAC among people with BE.
methodsWe calibrated the ERASMUS/UW model (a collaboration between Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands and the University of Washington, Seattle) for EAC to match the 0.18% annual rate of progression from population-based studies. This model was then used to simulate the design of prospective studies, introducing more endoscopic surveillance. We used the model to predict rates of progression for both types of studies and for different periods of follow-up, and compared the predicted rates with published data.
resultsFor the first 5 years of follow-up, the model reproduced the 0.19% mean annual rate of progression observed in population-based studies; the same disease model predicted a 0.36% annual rate of progression in studies with a prospective design (0.41% reported in published articles). After 20 years, these rates each increased to 0.63% to 0.65% annually, corresponding with a 9.1% to 9.5% cumulative cancer incidence. Between these periods, the difference between the progression rates of both study designs decreased from 91% to 5%.
conclusionsIn the first 5 years after diagnosis, the rate of progression from BE to EAC is likely to more closely approximate the lower estimates reported from population-based studies than the higher estimates reported from prospective studies in which EAC is detected by surveillance. Clinicians should use this information to explain to patients their short-term and long-term risks if no action is taken, and then discuss the risks and benefits of surveillance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.