Wladyslaw Januszewicz1, Wei Keith Tan2, Katie Lehovsky3, Irene Debiram-Beecham4, Tara Nuckcheddy4, Susan Moist5, Sudarshan Kadri6, Massimiliano di Pietro4, Alex Boussioutas7, Nicholas J Shaheen5, David A Katzka8, Evan S Dellon5, Rebecca C Fitzgerald9. 1. MRC Cancer Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Clinical Oncology, Medical Centre for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland. 2. MRC Cancer Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Department of Gastroenterology, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge University NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 3. School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 4. MRC Cancer Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom. 5. Center for Esophageal Diseases and Swallowing, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 6. Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom. 7. Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Victoria; Australia Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 8. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 9. MRC Cancer Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Electronic address: rcf29@mrc-cu.cam.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Diagnosis and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) have become emerging public health issues. Cytosponge is a novel, minimally invasive esophageal cell collection device. We aimed to assess the data on safety and acceptability of this device. METHODS: We performed a patient-level review of 5 prospective trials assessing Cytosponge performance in patients with reflux disease, BE and EoE in primary and secondary care. Acceptability of Cytosponge and subsequent endoscopy were recorded with visual analogue scale (VAS), wherein 0 and 10 denoted lowest and highest acceptability. Median VAS scores were compared using a Mann-Whitney test. The number of attempts, failures in swallowing the device and occurrence of adverse events were analyzed. Risk factors for failure in swallowing were analyzed using a multivariate regression model. RESULTS: In total, 2672 Cytosponge procedures were performed, in 2418 individuals from 2008 through 2017. There were 2 adverse events related to the device: a minor pharyngeal bleed and a case of detachment (<1:2000). The median acceptability score for the Cytosponge was 6.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 5.0-8.0), which was higher than the score for endoscopy without sedation (median 5.0; IQR, 3.0-7.0; P < .001) and lower than the score for endoscopy with sedation (median 8.0; IQR, 5.0-9.0; P < .001). Nearly all patients (91.1%) successfully swallowed the Cytosponge, most on the first attempt (90.1%). Failure to swallow the device was more likely to occur in secondary care (odds ratio, 5.13; 95% CI, 1.48-17.79; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The Cytosponge test is a safe procedure with good acceptability ratings in a variety of health care settings.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Diagnosis and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) have become emerging public health issues. Cytosponge is a novel, minimally invasive esophageal cell collection device. We aimed to assess the data on safety and acceptability of this device. METHODS: We performed a patient-level review of 5 prospective trials assessing Cytosponge performance in patients with reflux disease, BE and EoE in primary and secondary care. Acceptability of Cytosponge and subsequent endoscopy were recorded with visual analogue scale (VAS), wherein 0 and 10 denoted lowest and highest acceptability. Median VAS scores were compared using a Mann-Whitney test. The number of attempts, failures in swallowing the device and occurrence of adverse events were analyzed. Risk factors for failure in swallowing were analyzed using a multivariate regression model. RESULTS: In total, 2672 Cytosponge procedures were performed, in 2418 individuals from 2008 through 2017. There were 2 adverse events related to the device: a minor pharyngeal bleed and a case of detachment (<1:2000). The median acceptability score for the Cytosponge was 6.0 (interquartile range [IQR], 5.0-8.0), which was higher than the score for endoscopy without sedation (median 5.0; IQR, 3.0-7.0; P < .001) and lower than the score for endoscopy with sedation (median 8.0; IQR, 5.0-9.0; P < .001). Nearly all patients (91.1%) successfully swallowed the Cytosponge, most on the first attempt (90.1%). Failure to swallow the device was more likely to occur in secondary care (odds ratio, 5.13; 95% CI, 1.48-17.79; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: The Cytosponge test is a safe procedure with good acceptability ratings in a variety of health care settings.
Authors: Jukka Ronkainen; Pertti Aro; Tom Storskrubb; Sven-Erik Johansson; Tore Lind; Elisabeth Bolling-Sternevald; Michael Vieth; Manfred Stolte; Nicholas J Talley; Lars Agréus Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Helen G Coleman; Shivaram Bhat; Liam J Murray; Damian McManus; Anna T Gavin; Brian T Johnston Journal: Eur J Epidemiol Date: 2011-06-14 Impact factor: 8.082
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: Michael Birk; Peter Bauerfeind; Pierre H Deprez; Michael Häfner; Dirk Hartmann; Cesare Hassan; Tomas Hucl; Gilles Lesur; Lars Aabakken; Alexander Meining Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Robert C Kapel; Jocelyne K Miller; Carlos Torres; Saime Aksoy; Richard Lash; David A Katzka Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-02-14 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Sudarshan R Kadri; Pierre Lao-Sirieix; Maria O'Donovan; Irene Debiram; Madhumita Das; Jane M Blazeby; Jon Emery; Alex Boussioutas; Helen Morris; Fiona M Walter; Paul Pharoah; Richard H Hardwick; Rebecca C Fitzgerald Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-09-10