Sarmed S Sami1, Prasad G Iyer2, Prachi Pophali2, Magnus Halland2, Massimiliano di Pietro3, Jacobo Ortiz-Fernandez-Sordo4, Jonathan R White4, Michele Johnson2, Indra Neil Guha4, Rebecca C Fitzgerald3, Krish Ragunath5. 1. Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; Division of Surgery and Interventional Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 2. Barrett's Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 3. Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust and MRC Cancer Unit, Hutchinson/MRC Research Center, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 4. National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Center in Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and the University of Nottingham, Queens Medical Center Campus, Nottingham, United Kingdom. 5. National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Center in Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and the University of Nottingham, Queens Medical Center Campus, Nottingham, United Kingdom. Electronic address: k.ragunath@nottingham.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) with conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy (C-EGD) is expensive. We assessed the performance of a clinic-based, single use transnasal capsule endoscope (EG Scan II) for the detection of BE, compared to C-EGD as the reference standard. METHODS: We performed a prospective multicenter cohort study of patients with and without BE recruited from 3 referral centers (1 in the United States and 2 in the United Kingdom). Of 200 consenting participants, 178 (89%) completed both procedures (11% failed EG Scan due to the inability to intubate the nasopharynx). The mean age of participants was 57.9 years and 67% were male. The prevalence of BE was 53%. All subjects underwent the 2 procedures on the same day, performed by blinded endoscopists. Patients completed preference and validated tolerability (10-point visual analogue scale [VAS]) questionnaires within 14 days of the procedures. RESULTS: A higher proportion of patients preferred the EG Scan (54.2%) vs the C-EGD (16.7%) (P < .001) and the EG Scan had a higher VAS score (7.2) vs the C-EGD (6.4) (P = .0004). No serious adverse events occurred. The EG Scan identified any length BE with a sensitivity value of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.96) and a specificity value of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82-0.96). The EG Scan identified long segment BE with a sensitivity value of 0.95 and short segment BE with a sensitivity values of 0.87. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study, we found the EG Scan to be safe and to detect BE with higher than 90% sensitivity and specificity. A higher proportion of patients preferred the EG Scan to C-EGD. This device might be used as a clinic-based tool to screen populations at risk for BE. ISRCTN registry identifier: 70595405; ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02066233.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) with conventional esophagogastroduodenoscopy (C-EGD) is expensive. We assessed the performance of a clinic-based, single use transnasal capsule endoscope (EG Scan II) for the detection of BE, compared to C-EGD as the reference standard. METHODS: We performed a prospective multicenter cohort study of patients with and without BE recruited from 3 referral centers (1 in the United States and 2 in the United Kingdom). Of 200 consenting participants, 178 (89%) completed both procedures (11% failed EG Scan due to the inability to intubate the nasopharynx). The mean age of participants was 57.9 years and 67% were male. The prevalence of BE was 53%. All subjects underwent the 2 procedures on the same day, performed by blinded endoscopists. Patients completed preference and validated tolerability (10-point visual analogue scale [VAS]) questionnaires within 14 days of the procedures. RESULTS: A higher proportion of patients preferred the EG Scan (54.2%) vs the C-EGD (16.7%) (P < .001) and the EG Scan had a higher VAS score (7.2) vs the C-EGD (6.4) (P = .0004). No serious adverse events occurred. The EG Scan identified any length BE with a sensitivity value of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.83-0.96) and a specificity value of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82-0.96). The EG Scan identified long segment BE with a sensitivity value of 0.95 and short segment BE with a sensitivity values of 0.87. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study, we found the EG Scan to be safe and to detect BE with higher than 90% sensitivity and specificity. A higher proportion of patients preferred the EG Scan to C-EGD. This device might be used as a clinic-based tool to screen populations at risk for BE. ISRCTN registry identifier: 70595405; ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02066233.
Authors: Blair A Jobe; John G Hunter; Eugene Y Chang; Charles Y Kim; Glenn M Eisen; Jedediah D Robinson; Brian S Diggs; Robert W O'Rourke; Anne E Rader; Paul Schipper; David A Sauer; Jeffrey H Peters; David A Lieberman; Cynthia D Morris Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Anna L Paterson; Pierre Lao-Sirieix; Maria O'Donovan; Irene Debiram-Beecham; Massimiliano di Pietro; Ahmad Miremadi; Stephen E Attwood; Fiona M Walter; Peter D Sasieni; Rebecca C Fitzgerald Journal: Histopathology Date: 2016-10-12 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: James P Moriarty; Nilay D Shah; Joel H Rubenstein; Christopher H Blevins; Michele Johnson; David A Katzka; Kenneth K Wang; Louis Michel Wongkeesong; David A Ahlquist; Prasad G Iyer Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Patrick M Bossuyt; Johannes B Reitsma; David E Bruns; Constantine A Gatsonis; Paul P Glasziou; Les M Irwig; Jeroen G Lijmer; David Moher; Drummond Rennie; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Penny F Whiting; Anne W S Rutjes; Marie E Westwood; Susan Mallett; Jonathan J Deeks; Johannes B Reitsma; Mariska M G Leeflang; Jonathan A C Sterne; Patrick M M Bossuyt Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: John J McGoran; Mark E McAlindon; Prasad G Iyer; Eric J Seibel; Rehan Haidry; Laurence B Lovat; Sarmed S Sami Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: John McGoran; Andrea Bennett; Joanne Cooper; John De Caestecker; Laurence B Lovat; Neil Guha; Krish Ragunath; Sarmed S Sami Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Sarmed S Sami; James P Moriarty; Jordan K Rosedahl; Bijan J Borah; David A Katzka; Kenneth K Wang; John B Kisiel; Krish Ragunath; Joel H Rubenstein; Prasad G Iyer Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 12.045