AIM: To evaluate the preferred diagnosis and management practices of BE among Asian endoscopists.
METHODS: Endoscopists from across Asia were invited to participate in an online questionnaire comprising eleven questions regarding diagnosis, surveillance and management of BE.
RESULTS: Five hundred sixty-nine of 1016 (56.0%) respondents completed the survey, with most respondents from Japan (n = 310, 54.5%) and China (n = 129, 22.7%). Overall, the preferred endoscopic landmark of the esophagogastric junction was squamo-columnar junction (42.0%). Distal palisade vessels was preferred in Japan (59.0% vs 10.0%, P < 0.001) while outside Japan, squamo-columnar junction was preferred (59.5% vs 27.4%, P < 0.001). Only 16.3% of respondents used Prague C and M criteria all the time. It was never used by 46.1% of Japanese, whereas 84.2% outside Japan, endoscopists used it to varying extents (P < 0.001). Most Asian endoscopists (70.8%) would survey long-segment BE without dysplasia every two years. Adherence to Seattle protocol was poor with only 6.3% always performing it. 73.2% of Japanese never did it, compared to 19.3% outside Japan (P < 0.001). The most preferred (74.0%) treatment of non-dysplastic BE was proton pump inhibitor only when the patient was symptomatic or had esophagitis. For BE with low-grade dysplasia, 6-monthly surveillance was preferred in 61.9% within Japan vs 47.9% outside Japan (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Diagnosis and management of BE varied within Asia, with stark contrast between Japan and outside Japan. Most Asian endoscopists chose squamo-columnar junction to be the landmark for esophagogastric junction, which is incorrect. Most also did not consistently use Prague criteria, and Seattle protocol. Lack of standardization, education and research are possible reasons.
METHODS: A multi-center, prospective colonoscopy study involving 16 Asia-Pacific regions was performed from 2008 to 2015. Consecutive self-referred CRC screening participants aged 40-70 years were recruited, and each subject received one direct optical colonoscopy. The prevalence of CRC, ACN, and colorectal adenoma was compared among subjects with different FDRs affected using Pearson's χ2 tests. Binary logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the risk of these lesions, controlling for recognized risk factors including age, gender, smoking habits, alcohol drinking, body mass index, and the presence of diabetes mellitus.
RESULTS: Among 11,797 asymptomatic subjects, the prevalence of CRC was 0.6% (none: 0.6%; siblings: 1.1%; mother: 0.5%; father: 1.2%; ≥2 members: 3.1%, P<0.001), that of ACN was 6.5% (none: 6.1%; siblings: 8.3%; mother: 7.7%; father: 8.7%; ≥2 members: 9.3%, P<0.001), and that of colorectal adenoma was 29.3% (none: 28.6%; siblings: 33.5%; mother: 31.8%; father: 31.1%; ≥2 members: 38.1%, P<0.001). In multivariate regression analyses, subjects with at least one FDR affected were significantly more likely to have CRC (adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=2.02-7.89), ACN (AOR=1.55-2.06), and colorectal adenoma (AOR=1.31-1.92) than those without a family history. The risk of CRC (AOR=0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34-2.35, P=0.830), ACN (AOR=1.07, 95% CI 0.75-1.52, P=0.714), and colorectal adenoma (AOR=0.96, 95% CI 0.78-1.19, P=0.718) in subjects with either parent affected was similar to that of subjects with their siblings affected.
CONCLUSIONS: The risk of colorectal neoplasia was similar among subjects with different FDRs affected. These findings do not support the need to discriminate proband identity in screening participants with affected FDRs when their risks of colorectal neoplasia were estimated.
METHODS: We performed a prospective, population-based study of IBD incidence in predefined catchment areas, collecting data for 1 year, starting on April 1, 2011. New cases were ascertained from multiple overlapping sources and entered into a Web-based database. Cases were confirmed using standard criteria. Local endoscopy, pathology, and pharmacy records were searched to ensure completeness of case capture.
RESULTS: We identified 419 new cases of IBD (232 of ulcerative colitis [UC], 166 of Crohn's disease [CD], and 21 IBD-undetermined). The crude annual overall incidence values per 100,000 individuals were 1.37 for IBD in Asia (95% confidence interval: 1.25-1.51; 0.76 for UC, 0.54 for CD, and 0.07 for IBD-undetermined) and 23.67 in Australia (95% confidence interval: 18.46-29.85; 7.33 for UC, 14.00 for CD, and 2.33 for IBD-undetermined). China had the highest incidence of IBD in Asia (3.44 per 100,000 individuals). The ratios of UC to CD were 2.0 in Asia and 0.5 in Australia. Median time from symptom onset to diagnosis was 5.5 months (interquartile range, 1.4-15 months). Complicated CD (stricturing, penetrating, or perianal disease) was more common in Asia than Australia (52% vs 24%; P = .001), and a family history of IBD was less common in Asia (3% vs 17%; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: We performed a large-scale population-based study and found that although the incidence of IBD varies throughout Asia, it is still lower than in the West. IBD can be as severe or more severe in Asia than in the West. The emergence of IBD in Asia will result in the need for specific health care resources, and offers a unique opportunity to study etiologic factors in developing nations.