The design and power of this study is a much needed quantum leap in the quality of research that evaluates interventions in BE: it is sufficiently powered to allow use of the robust primary outcome measure of development of high-grade dysplasia or EA. The first major data from the AspECT study will be available in 2012. Already, safety monitoring indicates that aspirin therapy combined with PPI has a low rate of serious adverse events (Prof J Jankowski, personal communication). If the chemopreventive effect of low-dose aspirin predicted by

epidemiologic studies79,80 is confirmed, this is likely to become a widely recommended therapy for reduction of the cancer risk in BE patients (Fig. 2). Low-dose aspirin and NSAIDs are not the only plausible candidates for chemoprevention of EA. Evidence of a chemopreventive GSK2118436 price effect of statins, suggested by cell biology studies,80 has also been found by a recent epidemiologic study.81 Several other options X-396 chemical structure have also been proposed as worthy of investigation.80 Observational studies will need to give a consistently promising signal on the possible chemopreventive properties of a novel option before a definitive prospective, randomized intervention study is considered, because of the huge effort involved. It is most unlikely that positive results from chemopreventive studies will alter recommendations for endoscopic surveillance in the

near future, but in due course, such therapy might allow increases of intervals between surveillance endoscopies and so positively influence cost-effectiveness. A meta-analysis has found that the risk for EA was 1.63 per 1000 patients-years in 6847 patients treated selleck inhibitor in uncontrolled studies with a range of mucosa-ablative therapies.84 This contrasts with

an estimated risk of 5.98 per 1000 patient-years, determined in other studies of BE patients free of dysplasia who did not have ablative therapy.84 This impressive apparent risk reduction is potentially influenced by several confounders, but makes biological sense. The pros and cons of taking this aggressive approach in patients free of dysplasia are well reviewed by Sharma and colleagues85 who emphasize the need to weigh the risks and not insignificant cost of this intervention against the relatively low risk for EA in BE patients free of dysplasia.14 The number needed to treat to prevent one cancer, let alone one death from cancer is high, so the potential to harm is also high. In expert hands, the risks of ablation are relatively small. If mucosal ablation came to be widely practiced outside expert centers, its risks are likely to be greater in that setting. More randomized comparisons are needed on the long-term efficacy of the several options for ablation of metaplastic mucosa. Currently, mucosal ablation in patients with non-dysplastic BE should only be done within well-designed clinical trials.