Literature DB >> 28404010

Risk stratification of Barrett's oesophagus using a non-endoscopic sampling method coupled with a biomarker panel: a cohort study.

Caryn S Ross-Innes1, Hamza Chettouh1, Achilleas Achilleos1, Nuria Galeano-Dalmau1, Irene Debiram-Beecham1, Shona MacRae1, Petros Fessas1, Elaine Walker1, Sibu Varghese1, Theodore Evan1, Pierre S Lao-Sirieix1, Maria O'Donovan2, Shalini Malhotra2, Marco Novelli3, Babett Disep4, Phillip V Kaye5, Laurence B Lovat3, Rehan Haidry3, Michael Griffin4, Krish Ragunath5, Pradeep Bhandari6, Adam Haycock7, Danielle Morris8, Stephen Attwood9, Anjan Dhar10, Colin Rees11, Matt D Rutter12, Richard Ostler13, Benoit Aigret13, Peter D Sasieni13, Rebecca C Fitzgerald14.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Barrett's oesophagus predisposes to adenocarcinoma. However, most patients with Barrett's oesophagus will not progress and endoscopic surveillance is invasive, expensive, and fraught by issues of sampling bias and the subjective assessment of dysplasia. We investigated whether a non-endoscopic device, the Cytosponge, could be coupled with clinical and molecular biomarkers to identify a group of patients with low risk of progression suitable for non-endoscopic follow-up.
METHODS: In this multicentre cohort study (BEST2), patients with Barrett's oesophagus underwent the Cytosponge test before their surveillance endoscopy. We collected clinical and demographic data and tested Cytosponge samples for a molecular biomarker panel including three protein biomarkers (P53, c-Myc, and Aurora kinase A), two methylation markers (MYOD1 and RUNX3), glandular atypia, and TP53 mutation status. We used a multivariable logistic regression model to compute the conditional probability of dysplasia status. We selected a simple model with high classification accuracy and applied it to an independent validation cohort. The BEST2 study is registered with ISRCTN, number 12730505.
FINDINGS: The discovery cohort consisted of 468 patients with Barrett's oesophagus and intestinal metaplasia. Of these, 376 had no dysplasia and 22 had high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal adenocarcinoma. In the discovery cohort, a model with high classification accuracy consisted of glandular atypia, P53 abnormality, and Aurora kinase A positivity, and the interaction of age, waist-to-hip ratio, and length of the Barrett's oesophagus segment. 162 (35%) of 468 of patients fell into the low-risk category and the probability of being a true non-dysplastic patient was 100% (99% CI 96-100) and the probability of having high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal adenocarcinoma was 0% (0-4). 238 (51%) of participants were classified as of moderate risk; the probability of having high-grade dysplasia was 14% (9-21). 58 (12%) of participants were classified as high-risk; the probability of having non-dysplastic endoscopic biopsies was 13% (5-27), whereas the probability of having high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal adenocarcinoma was 87% (73-95). In the validation cohort (65 patients), 51 were non-dysplastic and 14 had high-grade dysplasia. In this cohort, 25 (38%) of 65 patients were classified as being low-risk, and the probability of being non-dysplastic was 96·0% (99% CI 73·80-99·99). The moderate-risk group comprised 27 non-dysplastic and eight high-grade dysplasia cases, whereas the high-risk group (8% of the cohort) had no non-dysplastic cases and five patients with high-grade dysplasia.
INTERPRETATION: A combination of biomarker assays from a single Cytosponge sample can be used to determine a group of patients at low risk of progression, for whom endoscopy could be avoided. This strategy could help to avoid overdiagnosis and overtreatment in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28404010     DOI: 10.1016/S2468-1253(16)30118-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol


  40 in total

1.  Endoscopic Management of Barrett Esophagus.

Authors:  Nicholas J Shaheen
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2018-07

2.  Barrett's Esophagus after Bimodality Therapy in Patients with Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Fatemeh G Amlashi; Xuemei Wang; Raquel E Davila; Dipen M Maru; Manoop S Bhutani; Jeffrey H Lee; Brian R Weston; Dilsa Mizrak Kaya; Maria Vassilakopoulou; Kazuto Harada; Mariela A Blum Murphy; David C Rice; Wayne L Hofstetter; Marta Davila; Quynh-Nhu Nguyen; Jaffer A Ajani
Journal:  Oncology       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 2.935

3.  Development and validation of a risk prediction model to diagnose Barrett's oesophagus (MARK-BE): a case-control machine learning approach.

Authors:  Avi Rosenfeld; David G Graham; Sarah Jevons; Jose Ariza; Daryl Hagan; Ash Wilson; Samuel J Lovat; Sarmed S Sami; Omer F Ahmad; Marco Novelli; Manuel Rodriguez Justo; Alison Winstanley; Eliyahu M Heifetz; Mordehy Ben-Zecharia; Uria Noiman; Rebecca C Fitzgerald; Peter Sasieni; Laurence B Lovat
Journal:  Lancet Digit Health       Date:  2019-12-05

Review 4.  Future cancer research priorities in the USA: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

Authors:  Elizabeth M Jaffee; Chi Van Dang; David B Agus; Brian M Alexander; Kenneth C Anderson; Alan Ashworth; Anna D Barker; Roshan Bastani; Sangeeta Bhatia; Jeffrey A Bluestone; Otis Brawley; Atul J Butte; Daniel G Coit; Nancy E Davidson; Mark Davis; Ronald A DePinho; Robert B Diasio; Giulio Draetta; A Lindsay Frazier; Andrew Futreal; Sam S Gambhir; Patricia A Ganz; Levi Garraway; Stanton Gerson; Sumit Gupta; James Heath; Ruth I Hoffman; Cliff Hudis; Chanita Hughes-Halbert; Ramy Ibrahim; Hossein Jadvar; Brian Kavanagh; Rick Kittles; Quynh-Thu Le; Scott M Lippman; David Mankoff; Elaine R Mardis; Deborah K Mayer; Kelly McMasters; Neal J Meropol; Beverly Mitchell; Peter Naredi; Dean Ornish; Timothy M Pawlik; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Martin G Pomper; Derek Raghavan; Christine Ritchie; Sally W Schwarz; Richard Sullivan; Richard Wahl; Jedd D Wolchok; Sandra L Wong; Alfred Yung
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2017-10-31       Impact factor: 41.316

Review 5.  Screening and Prevention of Barrett's Esophagus.

Authors:  Oliver Pech
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2019-07-25

Review 6.  Global burden and epidemiology of Barrett oesophagus and oesophageal cancer.

Authors:  Aaron P Thrift
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2021-02-18       Impact factor: 46.802

Review 7.  Role of TFF3 as an adjunct in the diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus using a minimally invasive esophageal sampling device-The CytospongeTM.

Authors:  Anna L Paterson; Marcel Gehrung; Rebecca C Fitzgerald; Maria O'Donovan
Journal:  Diagn Cytopathol       Date:  2019-12-09       Impact factor: 1.582

Review 8.  Past, present and future of Barrett's oesophagus.

Authors:  W K Tan; M di Pietro; R C Fitzgerald
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2017-02-16       Impact factor: 4.424

9.  Acceptability, Accuracy, and Safety of Disposable Transnasal Capsule Endoscopy for Barrett's Esophagus Screening.

Authors:  Sarmed S Sami; Prasad G Iyer; Prachi Pophali; Magnus Halland; Massimiliano di Pietro; Jacobo Ortiz-Fernandez-Sordo; Jonathan R White; Michele Johnson; Indra Neil Guha; Rebecca C Fitzgerald; Krish Ragunath
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 11.382

Review 10.  Current management of Barrett esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  Tavankit Singh; Vedha Sanghi; Prashanthi N Thota
Journal:  Cleve Clin J Med       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 2.321

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.