Barrett Esophagus and Barrett Ulcer
- Author: Mark H Johnston, MD; Chief Editor: Julian Katz, MD more...
Background
The definition of Barrett esophagus (BE) has evolved considerably over the past 100 years. In 1906, Tileston, a pathologist, described several patients with "peptic ulcer of the oesophagus" in which the epithelium around the ulcer closely resembled that normally found in the stomach. The debate for the next 4 decades centered on the anatomical origin of this mucosal anomaly. Many investigators, including Barrett in his treatise published in 1950, supported the view that this ulcerated columnar-lined organ was, in fact, the stomach tethered within the chest by a congenitally short esophagus.[1]
In 1953, Allison and Johnstone argued that the columnar organ was more likely esophagus because the intrathoracic region lacked a peritoneal covering, contained submucosal glands and muscularis propria characteristic of the esophagus, and could harbor islands of squamous cells within the columnar segment.[2] In 1957, Barrett agreed and suggested that the condition that bears his name be referred to as "lower esophagus lined by columnar epithelium."[3] For the next 2 decades, descriptions of the histology of Barrett esophagus varied considerably from acid-secreting, fundic-type epithelium to intestinal-type epithelium with goblet cells.
Finally, in 1976, Paull et al published a report on the histologic spectrum of Barrett esophagus in which they used manometric guidance for their biopsies.[4] These patients had 1 or a combination of 3 types of columnar epithelium—a gastric fundic-type, a junctional type, and a distinctive type of intestinal metaplasia the investigators called "specialized columnar epithelium." This specialized intestinal metaplasia (SIM), complete with goblet cells, has become the sine qua non for the diagnosis of Barrett esophagus.
While the histologic lesion became clearly evident, the endoscopic definition of Barrett esophagus has continued to change over the past 25 years. Many people believed that the distal esophagus could contain a normal region of columnar mucosa. In addition, determining the exact location of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ) in patients with Barrett esophagus often is difficult. To avoid false-positive diagnoses, investigators selected arbitrary lengths of columnar-lined esophagus to establish a diagnosis for their studies. Eventually, community endoscopists embraced this practice and biopsy of this so-called normal distal columnar-lined esophagus was avoided.
The last 10 years have brought convincing evidence that SIM, the hallmark histologic lesion of Barrett esophagus, predisposes to dysplasia and cancer regardless of the endoscopic location. Thus, the definition of Barrett esophagus currently is the finding of SIM anywhere within the tubular esophagus.
Barrett esophagus (BE). The salmon-pink area has specialized intestinal metaplasia. The white area is squamous epithelium. Pathophysiology
Barrett esophagus is well recognized as a complication of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Patients with GERD who develop Barrett esophagus tend to have a combination of clinical features, including hiatal hernia, reduced lower esophageal sphincter (LES) pressures, delayed esophageal acid clearance time, and duodenogastric reflux (as documented by the presence of bile in the esophageal lumen). First understanding the pathogenesis of GERD is necessary to understand the relationship between GERD and Barrett esophagus. Esophageal defense mechanisms against the noxious substances in the refluxate include an antireflux barrier, an efficient clearing mechanism, and epithelial defense factors. The antireflux barrier is a high-pressure zone at the EGJ that is generated by tonic contraction of the LES coupled with extrinsic compression by the right crus of the diaphragm. The phrenoesophageal ligament, intra-abdominal location of the LES, and maintenance of an acute angle of entry into the stomach help toreinforce this barrier.
This system is imperfect due to the existence of physiologic transient LES relaxations (TLESR). TLESR occur primarily after meals but in the absence of a preceding swallow. Studies indicate that about 95% of reflux episodes in healthy controls occur during the TLESR. Most reflux in patients with GERD occurs via this same mechanism. The duration of esophageal acidification, and not the frequency, correlates best with presence of erosive esophagitis.
A healthy individual clears the esophagus through various means, including gravity, bicarbonate secretion from the salivary and esophageal glands, and peristalsis. Dysfunctional esophageal motility with failed or weak peristalsis is a contributing factor in 34-48% of patients with GERD.
An acid (pH < 4) contact time of 1-2 hours per day is considered normal in the distal esophagus. This physiologic reflux occurs in completely asymptomatic individuals. The esophagus, therefore, must have additional local means of protection. The esophagus is composed of a thick epithelial layer, with cells joined by tight junctions with lipid-rich intercellular spaces. This arrangement resists the diffusion of noxious substances by limiting entry of H+ into both cells and intercellular spaces. In addition, scattered submucosal glands in the distal esophagus that secrete bicarbonate and have an adequate blood supply to deliver bicarbonate and remove H+ help to maintain tissue acid-base balance.
The aggressors in the GERD battle reside in the refluxate. Mucosal injury depends on the pH of the refluxate and the duration of contact with the esophageal mucosa. Lower pH of the refluxate and extended contact with the esophagus increases the time required for intraesophageal pH to return to normal and increases the risk for mucosal injury.
Prolonged exposure of the esophagus to the refluxate can erode the esophageal mucosa, promote inflammatory cell infiltrate, and ultimately cause epithelial necrosis. This chronic damage is believed to promote the replacement of healthy esophageal epithelium with the metaplastic columnar cells, the cellular origin of which remains unknown. This likely is an adaptive response of the esophagus, which, if not for the increased risk of cancer, would have been beneficial. GERD symptoms and strictures are less common in the columnarized segment.
Interestingly, the features of GERD in relation to long-segment Barrett esophagus (LSBE >3 cm) and short-segment Barrett esophagus (SSBE < 3 cm) are quite different. Patients with LSBE tend to have a longer duration of reflux symptoms, and, when undergoing 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring, they have severe, combined patterns of reflux (both supine and erect) and low LES pressures. They also tend to be less sensitive to direct acid exposure. On the other hand, patients with SSBE are more sensitive to acid exposure but have had symptoms for a shorter duration, with normal LES pressures and only upright reflux on 24-hour esophageal pH testing.
Current clinical practice guidelines recommend screening for Barrett esophagus in patients with GERD when the patients have had long-standing symptoms (>5 y), especially in those older than 50 years.
Epidemiology
The average age of patients with Barrett esophagus is 55-65 years. More than 80% are white males, with some studies indicating a higher prevalence of smoking, alcohol intake, and obesity.
Estimates of the prevalence of Barrett esophagus vary considerably and range from 0.9-10% of the general adult population. One of the more recent studies from Sweden by Ronkainen and colleagues estimates the prevalence to be approximately 2% in the adult population.[5] This particular study is believed to be one of the more reliable because of the means by which epidemiological data can be assessed in Sweden. In US population terms, this prevalence would equate to approximately 3 million adults with Barrett esophagus.
The prevalence of LSBE in patients undergoing endoscopy for any clinical indication has been reported at 0.3-2% but is much higher, 8-20%, in patients with symptoms of GERD. A study conducted at the Mayo Clinic showed an autopsy prevalence about 17 times higher than a clinically matched population, suggesting that most cases of LSBE are asymptomatic and thus unrecognized. In patients undergoing endoscopy, the prevalence of SSBE ranges from 5-30%. The combined prevalence of SSBE and cardia-SIM is 7-8 times greater than LSBE, but the prevalence of dysplasia and cancer is much less.
Epidemiology
Frequency
United States
Cameron (1997) estimated the prevalence of LSBE in the general US population to be 376 cases per 100,000 population.[6]
International
The frequency of Barrett esophagus internationally probably parallels that in the United States by ethnicity.
In a Swedish study, Ronkainen (2005) estimates the overall prevalence of Barrett esophagus (SSBE and LSBE) to be 1.6% in the adult population.[5]
Mortality/Morbidity
The most significant morbidity associated with Barrett esophagus is the development of adenocarcinoma in the esophagus. The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma is rising faster than any other cancer in the United States. From 1926-1976, 4 large surgical series reported that only 0.8-3.7% of esophageal cancers were adenocarcinomas. From 1979-1992, this increased to 54-68%.
In 1991, Blot et al reported their findings in a review of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program of the National Cancer Institute.[7] The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in 1988-1990 was 3 times that in 1976-1978. In Olmstead County, Minnesota, Pera et al (1993) conducted a population-based study and found that the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma rose from 0.13 cases per 100,000 person-years in 1935-1971 to 0.74 cases per 100,000 person-years in 1974-1989.[8] The incidence of adenocarcinoma of the cardia rose from 0.25 to 1.34 cases per 100,000 person-years in the same time period, an increase of more than 5-fold for both locations. Patients with LSBE have the greatest risk for development of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.
Studies report the prevalence of dysplasia in LSBE at 20-35%, SSBE at 6-8%, and cardia-SIM at 0-6%, with the prevalence of adenocarcinoma being 7-15 times greater in LSBE versus SSBE and cardia-SIM. However, the total number of patients with SSBE and cardia-SIM is 7-8 times that of LSBE. Thus, even with a higher prevalence of dysplasia and cancer in the LSBE population, a greater total number of patients are likely to develop cancer from within the SSBE and EGJ-SIM group.
Race
Barrett esophagus primarily affects white people. It is rare in people of African ancestry, at this time.
Sex
Barrett esophagus is found in both men and women, with a 2:1 male-to-female ratio.
Age
The average age of patients with demonstrated Barrett esophagus is 55-65 years.
Barrett NR. Chronic peptic ulcer of the oesophagus and 'oesophagitis'. Br J Surg. Oct 1950;38(150):175-82. [Medline].
Allison PR, Johnstone AS. The oesophagus lined with gastric mucous membrane. Thorax. Jun 1953;8(2):87-101. [Medline].
Barrett NR. The lower esophagus lined by columnar epithelium. Surgery. Jun 1957;41(6):881-94. [Medline].
Paull A, Trier JS, Dalton MD, Camp RC, Loeb P, Goyal RK. The histologic spectrum of Barrett's esophagus. N Engl J Med. Aug 26 1976;295(9):476-80. [Medline].
Ronkainen J, Aro P, Storskrubb T, Johansson SE, Lind T, Bolling-Sternevald E, et al. Prevalence of Barrett's esophagus in the general population: an endoscopic study. Gastroenterology. Dec 2005;129(6):1825-31. [Medline].
Cameron AJ. Epidemiology of columnar-lined esophagus and adenocarcinoma. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. Sep 1997;26(3):487-94. [Medline].
Blot WJ, Devesa SS, Kneller RW, Fraumeni JF Jr. Rising incidence of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia. JAMA. Mar 13 1991;265(10):1287-9. [Medline].
Pera M, Cameron AJ, Trastek VF, Carpenter HA, Zinsmeister AR. Increasing incidence of adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction. Gastroenterology. Feb 1993;104(2):510-3. [Medline].
Haag S, Nandurkar S, Talley NJ. Regression of Barrett's esophagus: the role of acid suppression, surgery, and ablative methods. Gastrointest Endosc. Aug 1999;50(2):229-40. [Medline].
Prasad GA, Wang KK, Buttar NS, Wongkeesong LM, Krishnadath KK, Nichols FC 3rd, et al. Long-term survival following endoscopic and surgical treatment of high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus. Gastroenterology. Apr 2007;132(4):1226-33. [Medline].
Shaheen NJ, Sharma P, Overholt BF, et al. Radiofrequency ablation in Barrett's esophagus with dysplasia. N Engl J Med. May 28 2009;360(22):2277-88. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Allison H, Banchs MA, Bonis PA, Guelrud M. Long-term remission of nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus after multipolar electrocoagulation ablation: report of 139 patients with 10 years of follow-up. Gastrointest Endosc. Apr 2011;73(4):651-8. [Medline].
Overholt BF, Panjehpour M, Haydek JM. Photodynamic therapy for Barrett's esophagus: follow-up in 100 patients. Gastrointest Endosc. Jan 1999;49(1):1-7. [Medline].
Sampliner RE, Fennerty B, Garewal HS. Reversal of Barrett's esophagus with acid suppression and multipolar electrocoagulation: preliminary results. Gastrointest Endosc. Nov 1996;44(5):532-5. [Medline].
Bremner RM, Mason RJ, Bremner CG, DeMeester TR, Chandrasoma P, Peters JH, et al. Ultrasonic epithelial ablation of the lower esophagus without stricture formation. A new technique for Barrett's ablation. Surg Endosc. Apr 1998;12(4):342-6; discussion 346-7. [Medline].
Dodds WJ, Dent J, Hogan WJ, Helm JF, Hauser R, Patel GK, et al. Mechanisms of gastroesophageal reflux in patients with reflux esophagitis. N Engl J Med. Dec 16 1982;307(25):1547-52. [Medline].
Johnston CM, Schoenfeld LP, Mysore JV, Dubois A. Endoscopic spray cryotherapy: a new technique for mucosal ablation in the esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. Jul 1999;50(1):86-92. [Medline].
Kahrilas PJ, Dodds WJ, Hogan WJ, Kern M, Arndorfer RC, Reece A. Esophageal peristaltic dysfunction in peptic esophagitis. Gastroenterology. Oct 1986;91(4):897-904. [Medline].
Pereira-Lima JC, Busnello JV, Saul C, Toneloto EB, Lopes CV, Rynkowski CB, et al. High power setting argon plasma coagulation for the eradication of Barrett's esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. Jul 2000;95(7):1661-8. [Medline].
Sampliner RE. Ablative therapies for the columnar-lined esophagus. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. Sep 1997;26(3):685-94. [Medline].
Sampliner RE. Practice guidelines on the diagnosis, surveillance, and therapy of Barrett's esophagus. The Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol. Jul 1998;93(7):1028-32. [Medline].
Spechler SJ, Goyal RK. The columnar-lined esophagus, intestinal metaplasia, and Norman Barrett. Gastroenterology. Feb 1996;110(2):614-21. [Medline].
Ter RB, Castell DO. Gastroesophageal reflux disease in patients with columnar-lined esophagus. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. Sep 1997;26(3):549-63. [Medline].
Wong RKH. Barrett's esophagus. Pract Gastroenterol. 2000;24:15-35.

