Pieter C.J. ter Borg

Bio: Pieter C.J. ter Borg is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Internal medicine & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 2237 citations.

Sex Differences in Neoplastic Progression in Barrett’s Esophagus: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study

Abstract: Simple Summary Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is the only known precursor lesion of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Endoscopic surveillance plays an important role in the timely detection of neoplastic progression. However, the cost-effectiveness of current surveillance strategies is debatable. Previous studies have shown that male Barrett’s patients have lower neoplastic progression risk than females. However, these studies do not provide a more practical translation of these sex disparities into different surveillance intervals. The current multicenter prospective cohort study aimed to evaluate sex differences in 868 BE patients; not only with respect to neoplastic progression risk, but also concerning the difference in time to detection of high-grade dysplasia (HGD)/EAC: time to neoplastic progression was estimated to be almost twice as low in males than in females. In contrast, the stage of neoplasia appeared to be higher in females. Our results can guide future discussions for sex-specific guidelines, supporting the implementation of neoplastic risk stratification per individual patient in BE surveillance. Abstract Recommendations in Barrett’s esophagus (BE) guidelines are mainly based on male patients. We aimed to evaluate sex differences in BE patients in (1) probability of and (2) time to neoplastic progression, and (3) differences in the stage distribution of neoplasia. We conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study including 868 BE patients. Cox regression modeling and accelerated failure time modeling were used to estimate the sex differences. Neoplastic progression was defined as high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and/or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Among the 639 (74%) males and 229 females that were included (median follow-up 7.1 years), 61 (7.0%) developed HGD/EAC. Neoplastic progression risk was estimated to be twice as high among males (HR 2.26, 95% CI 1.11–4.62) than females. The risk of HGD was found to be higher in males (HR 3.76, 95% CI 1.33–10.6). Time to HGD/EAC (AR 0.52, 95% CI 0.29–0.95) and HGD (AR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19–0.86) was shorter in males. Females had proportionally more EAC than HGD and tended to have higher stages of neoplasia at diagnosis. In conclusion, both the risk of and time to neoplastic progression were higher in males. However, females were proportionally more often diagnosed with (advanced) EAC. We should strive for improved neoplastic risk stratification per individual BE patient, incorporating sex disparities into new prediction models.

Efficacy of different bowel preparation regimen volumes for colorectal cancer screening and compliance with European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance measures

Abstract: Abstract Background Various volumes of bowel preparation are used in clinical practice. There is conflicting data on the effectiveness of individual regimens. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and compliance of currently used bowel preparations with the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) performance measures using data of the Dutch nationwide colorectal cancer screening (CRC) program. Methods In a prospective, multicenter endoscopy database, we identified all CRC screening colonoscopies performed in 15 Dutch endoscopy centers from 2016 to 2020. We excluded procedures without documented bowel preparation or the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score. Bowel preparation regimens were categorized into three groups, that is, 4‐L (polyethylene glycol (PEG)), 2‐L (2‐L PEG with ascorbic acid) and ≤1‐L volumes (sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate, 1L‐PEG with sodium sulfate and ascorbic acid or oral sulfate solution). European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy performance measures included adequate BBPS score (≥6) (>90%), cecal intubation rate (CIR, >90%), adenoma detection rate (ADR, >25%) and polyp detection rate (PDR, >40%). Logistic regression was performed to identify predictive factors for adequate BBPS and patient discomfort. Results A total of 39,042 CRC screening colonoscopies were included. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores, CIR, ADR and PDR for 4L, 2L and ≤1L regimens all met the minimum ESGE performance measures standards. However, an adequate BBPS score was more frequently seen with 2L regimens (98.0%) as compared to 4L (97.1%) and ≤1L regimens (97.0%) (p < 0.001), respectively. In addition, CIR was higher for ≤1L (98.4%) versus 4L (97.7%) and 2L (97.9%) regimens (p = 0.001), ADR higher for lower volume (≤1L (60.0%) and 2L (61.2)) versus higher volume (4L (58.6%)) regimens (p < 0.001), and PDR higher for ≤1L (70.0%) and 2L (70.8%) versus 4L (67.2%) regimens (p < 0.001). Boston Bowel Preparation Scale for ≤1L regimens was higher when combined with bisacodyl (97.3%) than without (95.6%) (p < 0.001). Overall, bisacodyl use was independently associated with higher patient discomfort (odds ratios = 1.47, confidence intervals = 1.26–1.72). Conclusions Despite variations in bowel preparation volumes, all regimens meet the minimum ESGE performance measures for bowel preparation and other quality parameters. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale can be further improved if ultra low volume regimens are combined with bisacodyl. The choice for either bowel preparation volume can therefore be based on volume‐tolerance and patient preference.