Completed Digestion, Kidneys & Other Organs Cancer

Randomised control trial of surveillance and no surveillance for patients with Barrett's oesophagus - BOSS (Barrett's Oesophagus Surveillance Study)

In plain English

AI plain-English summary

Every two to three years, thousands of UK patients with Barrett’s oesophagus undergo an uncomfortable endoscopic examination to check for early signs of gullet cancer—but no one knows for certain whether this surveillance actually saves lives. This matters because oesophageal adenocarcinoma is the fastest rising cancer in the developed world, and the UK has the highest incidence globally. Current guidelines recommend regular endoscopy based on weak observational data, not a randomised controlled trial. The procedure is expensive, causes anxiety, and carries rare but serious risks. Without solid evidence, patients and the NHS may be committing to a costly, invasive routine that offers little benefit. If this trial succeeds, it will provide the first definitive answer on whether surveillance improves survival or simply adds burden. A negative result could spare thousands of patients from unnecessary procedures and free up NHS resources. A positive result would confirm that regular endoscopy is a life-saving investment. Either way, the findings will reshape clinical guidelines and end decades of uncertainty.

View original technical description
Cancer of the gullet (oesophageal adenocarcinoma) is the fastest rising cancer in the developed world. Thirty years ago it was a rare malignancy and now there are over 5,000 cases each year in the UK. The most accepted sequence of events is that longstanding stomach acid reflux induces a cancerous change in the lining of the gullet (oesophagus) in susceptible individuals. The change in the cells is termed Barrett's oesophagus. The UK has the highest incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma worldwide. In advanced cancer, the prognosis is poor: half of the patients will die within a year. This concern has promoted the development of surveillance programs. Guidelines recommend that patients with Barrett's oesophagus have an endoscopy every 2-3 years to detect changes early when the prognosis is much more favourable. These guidelines acknowledge that the data to support surveillance in patients with Barrett's oesophagus using endoscopy are relatively weak, and the value of surveillance is still subject to considerable debate. There are some observational data to suggest that patients enrolled in surveillance programmes have oesophageal cancer detected at an earlier stage than non surveillance detected cancers and have a better survival. These are very weak data in epidemiological terms. A randomised controlled trial is needed. Surveillance by endoscopy for Barrett's oesophagus is expensive, it commonly causes minor adverse events (1-10%) and 10% of patients reported that it is inconvenient. It causes anxiety and very rarely can result in complications of oesophageal perforation or death (0.03% and 0.001% respectively). It is important to establish the efficacy and cost effectiveness of such an intervention before routinely offering it to patients.

Related Research

Grants with similar aims, by meaning.

Open label randomised controlled trial of intensive surveillance vs. standard postoperative follow-up in patients undergoing surgical resection for oesophageal and gastric cancer.
Open label randomised controlled trial of intensive surveillance vs. standard postoperative follow-up in patients undergoing surgical resection for oesophageal and gastric cancer
Assessing the Patient Impact and Burden of Current Care Pathways in Barrett’s Oesophagus
Prediction of Gastro-Oesophageal Disease using Non-Invasive Volatile Organic Compound Analysis from Exhaled Breath and Urine
BOSS Study: Barrett’s Oesophagus two yearly Surveillance versus endoscopy at need: a randomised controlled trial to estimate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness Study

Original classification

Research

Plain English summaries and category classifications on this site are generated by AI and may not perfectly reflect the original research.