Kelly R Haisley1, James P Dolan1, Susan B Olson2, Sergio A Toledo-Valdovinos1, Kyle D Hart1, Gene Bakis3, Brintha K Enestvedt3, John G Hunter4. 1. Division of Gastrointestinal and General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Pk Rd, L223A, Portland, OR, 97239, USA. 2. Department of Molecular and Medical Genetics, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA. 4. Division of Gastrointestinal and General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Pk Rd, L223A, Portland, OR, 97239, USA. hunterj@ohsu.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Sponge cytology is a novel screening tool for esophageal cancer but has been unable to be validated for widespread use. Our aim was to apply fluorescent in situ hybridization to sponge cytology samples in order to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this modality in screening for esophageal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At a single, multidisciplinary, NCI-designated cancer center, patients completed sponge cytology sampling prior to upper endoscopy. Samples were analyzed by p53 fluorescent in situ hybridization, and results were compared to the endoscopic diagnosis. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled (96 % Caucasian, 68 % male, median age of 67). All patients successfully swallowed the capsule. No complications (string breakage, bleeding, mucosal injury) occurred. Endoscopy revealed that 38 % had normal esophageal mucosa and 62 % had an esophageal mucosal abnormality. In total, six samples demonstrated p53 loss (94 % specificity for any abnormality). The sensitivity of the p53 fluorescent in situ hybridization probe was13.3 % for any abnormality, 10 % for intestinal metaplasia, and 0 % for dysplasia or esophageal cancer. DISCUSSION: Esophageal sponge cytology is a promising, safe, and tolerable method for collecting esophageal cell samples. However, our data suggest that p53 fluorescent in situ hybridization does not improve the sensitivity for detecting cancer in these samples.
INTRODUCTION: Sponge cytology is a novel screening tool for esophageal cancer but has been unable to be validated for widespread use. Our aim was to apply fluorescent in situ hybridization to sponge cytology samples in order to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this modality in screening for esophageal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: At a single, multidisciplinary, NCI-designated cancer center, patients completed sponge cytology sampling prior to upper endoscopy. Samples were analyzed by p53 fluorescent in situ hybridization, and results were compared to the endoscopic diagnosis. RESULTS: Fifty patients were enrolled (96 % Caucasian, 68 % male, median age of 67). All patients successfully swallowed the capsule. No complications (string breakage, bleeding, mucosal injury) occurred. Endoscopy revealed that 38 % had normal esophageal mucosa and 62 % had an esophageal mucosal abnormality. In total, six samples demonstrated p53 loss (94 % specificity for any abnormality). The sensitivity of the p53 fluorescent in situ hybridization probe was13.3 % for any abnormality, 10 % for intestinal metaplasia, and 0 % for dysplasia or esophageal cancer. DISCUSSION: Esophageal sponge cytology is a promising, safe, and tolerable method for collecting esophageal cell samples. However, our data suggest that p53 fluorescent in situ hybridization does not improve the sensitivity for detecting cancer in these samples.
Authors: Marcela Salomao; Tamas A Gonda; Elizabeth Margolskee; Vasco Eguia; Helen Remotti; John M Poneros; Amrita Sethi; Anjali Saqi Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: T T Wu; B Rezai; A Rashid; M C Luce; M C Cayouette; C Kim; N Sani; L Mishra; C A Moskaluk; J H Yardley; S R Hamilton Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 1997-03 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Daniela Kandioler; Sebastian F Schoppmann; Ronald Zwrtek; Sonja Kappel; Brigitte Wolf; Martina Mittlböck; Irene Kührer; Michael Hejna; Ursula Pluschnig; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Fritz Wrba; Johannes Zacherl Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Qin-Jing Pan; Mark J Roth; Hui-Qin Guo; Michael L Kochman; Guo-Qing Wang; Michael Henry; Wen-Qiang Wei; Carol A Giffen; Ning Lu; Christian C Abnet; Chang-Qing Hao; Philip R Taylor; You-Lin Qiao; Sanford M Dawsey Journal: Acta Cytol Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.319
Authors: G Roshandel; S Merat; M Sotoudeh; M Khoshnia; H Poustchi; P Lao-Sirieix; S Malhotra; M O'Donovan; A Etemadi; A Nickmanesh; A Pourshams; A Norouzi; I Debiram; S Semnani; C C Abnet; S M Dawsey; R C Fitzgerald; R Malekzadeh Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-09-23 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Liang Lim; Catherine J Streutker; Norman Marcon; Maria Cirocco; Alexandra Lao; Vladimir V Iakovlev; Ralph DaCosta; Brian C Wilson Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2017-08-07