Tarek Sawas1, Sarah Killcoyne2, Prasad G Iyer1, Kenneth K Wang1, Thomas C Smyrk3, John B Kisiel1, Yi Qin1, David A Ahlquist1, Anil K Rustgi4, Rui J Costa5, Moritz Gerstung5, Rebecca C Fitzgerald6, David A Katzka1. 1. Divisions of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 2. Medical Research Council Cancer Unit, Hutchison/Medical Research Council Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Hinxton, United Kingdom. 3. Division of Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. European Molecular Biology Laboratory, European Bioinformatics Institute (EMBL-EBI), Hinxton, United Kingdom. 6. Medical Research Council Cancer Unit, Hutchison/Medical Research Council Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Electronic address: RCF29@MRC-CU.cam.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Most patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) present with de novo tumors. Although this could be due to inadequate screening strategies, the precise reason for this observation is not clear. We compared survival of patients with prevalent EAC with and without synchronous Barrett esophagus (BE) with intestinal metaplasia (IM) at the time of EAC diagnosis. METHODS: Clinical data were studied using Cox proportional hazards regression to evaluate the effect of synchronous BE-IM on EAC survival independent of age, sex, TNM stage, and tumor location. We analyzed data from a cohort of patients with EAC from the Mayo Clinic (n=411; 203 with BE and IM) and a multicenter cohort from the United Kingdom (n=1417; 638 with BE and IM). RESULTS: In the Mayo cohort, BE with IM had a reduced risk of death compared to patients without BE and IM (hazard ratio [HR] 0.44; 95% CI, 0.34-0.57; P<.001). In a multivariable analysis, BE with IM was associated with longer survival independent of patient age or sex, tumor stage or location, and BE length (adjusted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.5-0.88; P=.005). In the United Kingdom cohort, patients BE and IM had a reduced risk of death compared with those without (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.5-0.69; P<.001), with continued significance in multivariable analysis that included patient age and sex and tumor stage and tumor location (adjusted HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.93; P=.006). CONCLUSION: Two types of EAC can be characterized based on the presence or absence of BE. These findings could increase our understanding the etiology of EAC, and be used in management and prognosis of patients.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Most patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) present with de novo tumors. Although this could be due to inadequate screening strategies, the precise reason for this observation is not clear. We compared survival of patients with prevalent EAC with and without synchronous Barrett esophagus (BE) with intestinal metaplasia (IM) at the time of EAC diagnosis. METHODS: Clinical data were studied using Cox proportional hazards regression to evaluate the effect of synchronous BE-IM on EAC survival independent of age, sex, TNM stage, and tumor location. We analyzed data from a cohort of patients with EAC from the Mayo Clinic (n=411; 203 with BE and IM) and a multicenter cohort from the United Kingdom (n=1417; 638 with BE and IM). RESULTS: In the Mayo cohort, BE with IM had a reduced risk of death compared to patients without BE and IM (hazard ratio [HR] 0.44; 95% CI, 0.34-0.57; P<.001). In a multivariable analysis, BE with IM was associated with longer survival independent of patient age or sex, tumor stage or location, and BE length (adjusted HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.5-0.88; P=.005). In the United Kingdom cohort, patients BE and IM had a reduced risk of death compared with those without (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.5-0.69; P<.001), with continued significance in multivariable analysis that included patient age and sex and tumor stage and tumor location (adjusted HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64-0.93; P=.006). CONCLUSION: Two types of EAC can be characterized based on the presence or absence of BE. These findings could increase our understanding the etiology of EAC, and be used in management and prognosis of patients.
Authors: P van Hagen; M C C M Hulshof; J J B van Lanschot; E W Steyerberg; M I van Berge Henegouwen; B P L Wijnhoven; D J Richel; G A P Nieuwenhuijzen; G A P Hospers; J J Bonenkamp; M A Cuesta; R J B Blaisse; O R C Busch; F J W ten Kate; G-J Creemers; C J A Punt; J T M Plukker; H M W Verheul; E J Spillenaar Bilgen; H van Dekken; M J C van der Sangen; T Rozema; K Biermann; J C Beukema; A H M Piet; C M van Rij; J G Reinders; H W Tilanus; A van der Gaast Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-05-31 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joel H Rubenstein; Hal Morgenstern; Daniel McConell; James M Scheiman; Philip Schoenfeld; Henry Appelman; Laurence F McMahon; John Y Kao; Val Metko; Min Zhang; John M Inadomi Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Jose M Garcia; Andres E Splenser; Jennifer Kramer; Abeer Alsarraj; Stephanie Fitzgerald; David Ramsey; Hashem B El-Serag Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2013-08-15 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Tusar K Desai; Kumar Krishnan; Niharika Samala; Jashanpreet Singh; John Cluley; Subaiah Perla; Colin W Howden Journal: Gut Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Helen G Coleman; Shivaram K Bhat; Liam J Murray; Damian T McManus; Orla M O'Neill; Anna T Gavin; Brian T Johnston Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-03-04 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Joel H Rubenstein; Hal Morgenstern; Henry Appelman; James Scheiman; Philip Schoenfeld; Laurence F McMahon; Valbona Metko; Ellen Near; Joan Kellenberg; Tal Kalish; John M Inadomi Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-01-15 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Katia Nones; Nicola Waddell; Nicci Wayte; Ann-Marie Patch; Peter Bailey; Felicity Newell; Oliver Holmes; J Lynn Fink; Michael C J Quinn; Yue Hang Tang; Guy Lampe; Kelly Quek; Kelly A Loffler; Suzanne Manning; Senel Idrisoglu; David Miller; Qinying Xu; Nick Waddell; Peter J Wilson; Timothy J C Bruxner; Angelika N Christ; Ivon Harliwong; Craig Nourse; Ehsan Nourbakhsh; Matthew Anderson; Stephen Kazakoff; Conrad Leonard; Scott Wood; Peter T Simpson; Lynne E Reid; Lutz Krause; Damian J Hussey; David I Watson; Reginald V Lord; Derek Nancarrow; Wayne A Phillips; David Gotley; B Mark Smithers; David C Whiteman; Nicholas K Hayward; Peter J Campbell; John V Pearson; Sean M Grimmond; Andrew P Barbour Journal: Nat Commun Date: 2014-10-29 Impact factor: 14.919
Authors: Rebecca C Fitzgerald; Massimiliano di Pietro; Krish Ragunath; Yeng Ang; Jin-Yong Kang; Peter Watson; Nigel Trudgill; Praful Patel; Philip V Kaye; Scott Sanders; Maria O'Donovan; Elizabeth Bird-Lieberman; Pradeep Bhandari; Janusz A Jankowski; Stephen Attwood; Simon L Parsons; Duncan Loft; Jesper Lagergren; Paul Moayyedi; Georgios Lyratzopoulos; John de Caestecker Journal: Gut Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: SriGanesh Jammula; Annalise C Katz-Summercorn; Xiaodun Li; Constanza Linossi; Elizabeth Smyth; Sarah Killcoyne; Daniele Biasci; Vinod V Subash; Sujath Abbas; Adrienn Blasko; Ginny Devonshire; Amber Grantham; Filip Wronowski; Maria O'Donovan; Nicola Grehan; Matthew D Eldridge; Simon Tavaré; Rebecca C Fitzgerald Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Bettina Kunze; Frederik Wein; Hsin-Yu Fang; Akanksha Anand; Theresa Baumeister; Julia Strangmann; Sophie Gerland; Jonas Ingermann; Natasha Stephens Münch; Maria Wiethaler; Vincenz Sahm; Ana Hidalgo-Sastre; Sebastian Lange; Charles J Lightdale; Aqiba Bokhari; Gary W Falk; Richard A Friedman; Gregory G Ginsberg; Prasad G Iyer; Zhezhen Jin; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Carrie J Shawber; TheAnh Nguyen; William J Raab; Piero Dalerba; Anil K Rustgi; Antonia R Sepulveda; Kenneth K Wang; Roland M Schmid; Timothy C Wang; Julian A Abrams; Michael Quante Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 22.682