Medical Policy: 02.01.23
Original Effective Date: July 2001
Reviewed: October 2015
Revised: October 2015
Benefit determinations are based on the applicable contract language in effect at the time the
services were rendered. Exclusions, limitations or exceptions may apply. Benefits may vary
based on contract, and individual member benefits must be verified. Wellmark determines medical
necessity only if the benefit exists and no contract exclusions are applicable. This medical
policy may not apply to FEP. Benefits are determined by the Federal Employee Program.
This Medical Policy document describes the status of medical technology at the time the document was developed. Since that time, new technology may have emerged or new medical literature may have been published. This Medical Policy will be reviewed regularly and be updated as scientific and medical literature becomes available.
More than 60 million people in United States suffer from a weakening or inappropriate relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter, which allows movement of stomach contents into the lower esophagus, a condition known as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). This has generated interest in creating minimally invasive transesophageal therapeutic alternatives to open or laparoscopic fundoplication or chronic medical therapy. The available FDA approved minimally invasive endoscopic treatments are based on a variety of technologies that involve improving the function of the lower esophageal sphincter. The following technologies have been investigated:
Transesophageal endoscopic gastroplasty (gastroplication or fundoplication) is an outpatient procedure. During this procedure, suture(s) are placed in the lower esophageal sphincter. The sutures are designed to strengthen and lengthen the sphincter to decrease reflux. Currently, four endoscopic suturing devices have received FDA 510(k) marketing clearance for use in the treatment of GERD:
Radiofrequency energy has been used to produce submucosal thermal lesions at the gastroesophageal junction. This technique has also been referred to as the Stretta® (Mederi Therapeutics, Greenwich, CT) procedure. Specifically, radiofrequency energy is applied through 4 electrodes inserted into the esophageal wall at multiple sites both above and below the squamocolumnar junction. The mechanism of action of the thermal lesions is not precisely known but may be related to ablation of the nerve pathways responsible for sphincter relaxation or may induce a tissue-tightening effect related to heat-induced collagen contraction.
Submucosal injection or implantation of a prosthetic or bulking agent to enhance the volume of the lower esophageal sphincter. In one procedure, a biocompatible liquid polymer is injected into the lower esophageal sphincter. On contact with the tissue, the polymer precipitates into a spongy mass. The mechanism of action in reducing reflux is not precisely known. One polymer, Enteryx™, received FDA approval in 2003 through the premarket approval process for the treatment of symptomatic GERD. However, in September 22005, Boston Scientific Corporation issued a recall of Enteryx™ due to the device polymerizing shortly after injection into a spongy material that cannot be removed. Serious adverse events involved unrecognized transmural injections of Enteryx™ into structures surrounding the esophagus, potentially resulting in serious injury or death.
Another bulking agent, pyrolytic carbon-coated zirconium oxide spheres (Durasphere®), is being evaluated. Durasphere® is a bulking agent approved for treatment of urinary and fecal incontinence. Use of this product for esophageal reflux would be considered off-label use. The website of Carbon Medical Technologies states that Durasphere GR is an investigational device in the United States "intended to treat problems associated with GERD."
The Gatekeeper Reflux Repair System (Medtronic, Shoreview, MN) utilizes a soft, pliable, expandable prosthesis made of a polyacrylonitrile-based hydrogel. The prosthesis is implanted into the esophageal submucosa and with time the prosthesis absorbs water and expands, creating bulk in the region of implantation.
Endoscopic submucosal implantation of polymethylmethacrylate beads into the lower esophageal folds has also been investigated.
Radiofrequency Ablation for Barrett's Esophagus
Barrett's esophagus is a condition in which the normal squamous epithelium is replaced by specialized columnar-type epithelium known as intestinal metaplasia, in response to irritation and injury caused by gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
The current management of Barrett's esophagus includes treatment of GERD, and surveillance endoscopy to detect progression to high-grade dysplasia or adenocarcinoma. The findings of low-grade dysplasia typically warrants only follow-up and surveillance biopsies, whereas the findings of high-grade dysplasia or early-stage adenocarcinoma warrants mucosal ablation or resection, either endoscopic mucosal resection or esophagectomy.
Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy (CLE)
Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) is a device that allows in vivo microscopic imaging of cells during endoscopy. For patients undergoing screening or surveillance multiple studies have evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of CLE. While the reported sensitivity and specificity in these studies is high, it may not be sufficiently high to replace biopsy and histolopathologic analysis. Several RCTs and a meta-analysis of RCTs and observational studies suggest that CLE has high accuracy for identifying dysplasia in patients with BE. The sensitivity of CLE in these studies was higher than for white-light endoscopy alone, but the specificity was not consistently higher. There are limited data comparing standard protocols using random biopsies to protocols using CLE and targeted biopsies, so data are inconclusive regarding the potential for CLE to reduce the number of biopsies in patients with BE undergoing surveillance without compromising diagnostic accuracy.
The patented PathFinderTG® test is a molecular test intended to be used adjunctively when a definitive pathologic diagnosis cannot be made, because of inadequate specimen or equivocal histologic or cytologic findings. RedPath Integrated Pathology (Pittsburgh, PA), the test provider, states that PathFinderTG® produces mutational profiles to help physicians resolve complex diagnostic dilemmas inpatients who are at risk of cancer.
The evidence reviewed does not demonstrate that PathFinderTG® testing for prognosis of Barrett esophagus adds value to current prognostic assessments.
In 2011, the American Gastroenterological Association published a position statement on the management of Barrett esophagus. For patients with Barrett esophagus who are undergoing surveillance, the guideline developers recommend:
The guideline developers suggest against requiring chromoendoscopy or advanced imaging techniques for the routine surveillance of patients with Barrett esophagus at this time.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines
NCCN guidelines for esophageal cancer indicate resection is the preferred treatment choice for Barrett’s esophagus but ablative therapy such as RFA is listed as an alternative option to resection for Barrett’s esophagus with high-grade dysplasia. NCCN guidelines state that, for primary treatment, endoscopic mucosal resection or ablative therapy may be appropriate for Barrett’s esophagus associated with Tis (HGD or carcinoma in-situ). Patients with superficial T1a disease should have ablation (preferred) or esophagectomy performed following mucosal resection. For post-treatment surveillance, the guidelines state that ablation of residual flat or recurrent high-grade and low-grade dysplasia using RFA or cryoablation should be considered. Ablation of non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus is not recommended.
The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) considers RF treatment an appropriate therapy for patients being treated for GERD who are 18 years of age or older; who have had symptoms of heartburn, regurgitation, or both for six months or more; and who have been partially or completely responsive to anti-secretory pharmacologic therapy.
At this time, the key gastroenterological societies (American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association and American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy) do not have any guidelines or position statements endorsing laser ablation, argon plasma ablation or electrocoagulation as a treatment for Barrett's esophagus. Current literature consists primarily of uncontrolled studies with small group sizes, with only a limited number of randomized controlled trials comparing treatments for Barrett's esophagus. While these endoscopic techniques are promising in terms of treating Barrett's esophagus, few long-term results are available (Li, 2008). In 2010, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued a clinical guideline for "Ablative therapy for the treatment of Barrett's oesophagus." For ablative therapies, they concluded to "not use argon plasma coagulation, laser ablation or multipolar electrocoagulation alone, or in combination with each other, unless part of a clinical trial." The authors of a Cochrane review in 2010 concluded that ablative therapies have a role in the management of Barrett's esophagus, however; "more clinical trial data and in particular randomized controlled trials are required to assess whether or not the cancer risk is reduced in routine clinical practice."
The American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) published a medical position statement on the use of Endoscopic Therapy for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in 2006. This document states:
Most studies of endoscopic therapy have only limited follow-up information of a relatively small number of patients. Thus, the durability of these technologies beyond 1–2 years remains unclear. Short-term and long-term safety issues are unresolved, but serious adverse events led to the voluntary withdrawal of Enteryx by the manufacturer in September 2005 and suspension of the Gatekeeper clinical program in late 2005. … While newer devices and improvements in endoscopic antireflux techniques may yield better and more durable treatment outcomes, current data suggest that there are no definite indications for endoscopic therapy for GERD at this time. Both practitioners and patients need to be aware of the limitations in the evidence that exist with these devices at present.
Updated guidelines released by the American College of Gastroenterology in 2013 state that the usage of current endoscopic therapy or transoral incisionless fundoplication cannot be recommended as an alternative to medical or traditional surgical therapy. (Conditional recommendation, moderate level of evidence)
Transesophageal endoscopic gastroplasty is considered investigational as a treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease (e.g., Endocinch™, NDO Plicator™, Medigus Ultrasonic Surgical Endostapler (MUSE™ System) or EsophysX™ procedures).
Transesophageal radiofrequency to create submucosal thermal lesions of the gastroesophageal junction (i.e., the Stretta procedure) is considered investigational as a treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.
Endoscopic submucosal implantation of a prosthesis or injection of a bulking agent (e.g., biocompatible liquid polymer, polymethylmethacrylate beads, zirconium oxide spheres) is considered investigational as a treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.
Radiofrequency ablation may be considered medically necessary for the treatment of Barrett's esophagus with high-grade dysplasia.
Radiofrequency ablation may be considered medically necessary for the treatment of Barrett's esophagus with low-grade dysplasia when the initial diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia is confirmed by two physicians.
Radiofrequency ablation is considered investigational for treatment of Barrett's esophagus in the absence of dysplasia.
Cryoablation is considered is considered investigational for Barrett's esophagus, with or without dysplasia.
Argon plasma coagulation, electrocoagulation and laser ablation are considered investigational for the treatment of Barrett's esophagus.
Magnetic esophageal ring implant (LINX) for the treatment of GERD is investigational because the safety and/or effectiveness of this service cannot be established.
Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy is considered investigational at this time the evidence is not sufficient to conclude that CLE improves outcomes when used as an adjunct to endoscopy.
Molecular testing using the PathFinderTG® system is considered investigational for all indications.
There is insufficient evidence at present to establish the safety and efficacy of these procedures, particularly in the long term. Some of the unresolved issues include questions about the safety and durability of the device/treatment, and lack of consistent improvement in objective measures (esophageal acid exposure) using these devices. Laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication is considered the gold standard surgical intervention for individuals with GERD. Evidence for newer endoluminal and laparoscopic therapies is limited in quality and quantity and concerns remain about the safety and long-term effectiveness of many of these procedures. Well-designed RCTs and comparative studies with longer follow-up time are needed in order to better assess the safety and effectiveness of these interventions. Well-designed trials should use standardized outcome measures to examine whether subjective improvement, such as discontinuation of medication therapy and GERD-HRQL scores, is supported by objective improvement, such as esophageal acid exposure.
Wellmark medical policies address the complex issue
of technology assessment of new and emerging treatments, devices,
drugs, etc. They are developed to
assist in administering plan benefits and constitute neither offers of
coverage nor medical advice. Wellmark medical policies contain only a
partial, general description of plan or program benefits and do not
constitute a contract. Wellmark does not provide health care services
and, therefore, cannot guarantee any results or outcomes.
Participating providers are independent contractors in private
practice and are neither employees nor agents of Wellmark or its
affiliates. Treating providers are solely responsible for medical
advice and treatment of members. Our medical policies may be updated
and therefore are subject to change without notice.
*Current Procedural Terminology © 2012 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.