Nicholas J Shaheen1, Srinadh Komanduri2, V Raman Muthusamy3, Sachin Wani4, Maria O'Donovan5, Rajinder Kaushal6, John M Haydek7. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, CB#7080, 130 Mason Farm Rd, Suite 4150, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7080, USA. nicholas_shaheen@med.unc.edu. 2. Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA. 5. Department of Histopathology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK. 6. University of California, Los Angeles, Santa Clarita, CA, USA. 7. Gastrointestinal Associates, Knoxville, TN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) is common, costly, and underperformed in at-risk people. A non-endoscopic cell collection device can be used to collect esophageal cells, enabling BE screening. AIMS: This study assessed the acceptability and adequacy of a commercial non-endoscopic cell collection device in a US population. METHODS: Six sites enrolled patients with confirmed BE or heartburn/regurgitation for ≥ 6 months. Patients underwent administration of the device, consisting of a sponge encapsulated in a capsule. The capsule dwelled in the stomach for 7.5 min and was retracted via an attached suture. An adequate sample was ≥ 1 columnar cell by H&E staining. Sample quality was rated using a 0-5 scale, with 0 = no columnar cells and 5 = plentiful groups. Trefoil Factor 3 (TFF3) staining was performed. Accuracy was assessed using esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)/biopsy as the gold standard. RESULTS: Of 191 patients, 99.5% successfully swallowed the device. Overall sample adequacy was 91% (171/188), with 84% (158/188) high quality. The detachment rate was 2/190 (1%). Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the assay with TFF3 staining were 76%, 77%, and 76%. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for ≥ 3 cm BE were 86%, 77%, and 82%. Asked if willing to repeat the procedure, 93% would, and 65% indicated a preference for the device over EGD. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a high rate of sample adequacy and promising acceptability of this non-endoscopic sampling device in a US population. Diagnostic characteristics suggest that non-endoscopic assessment of BE deserves further development as an alternative to endoscopy.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) is common, costly, and underperformed in at-risk people. A non-endoscopic cell collection device can be used to collect esophageal cells, enabling BE screening. AIMS: This study assessed the acceptability and adequacy of a commercial non-endoscopic cell collection device in a US population. METHODS: Six sites enrolled patients with confirmed BE or heartburn/regurgitation for ≥ 6 months. Patients underwent administration of the device, consisting of a sponge encapsulated in a capsule. The capsule dwelled in the stomach for 7.5 min and was retracted via an attached suture. An adequate sample was ≥ 1 columnar cell by H&E staining. Sample quality was rated using a 0-5 scale, with 0 = no columnar cells and 5 = plentiful groups. Trefoil Factor 3 (TFF3) staining was performed. Accuracy was assessed using esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)/biopsy as the gold standard. RESULTS: Of 191 patients, 99.5% successfully swallowed the device. Overall sample adequacy was 91% (171/188), with 84% (158/188) high quality. The detachment rate was 2/190 (1%). Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the assay with TFF3 staining were 76%, 77%, and 76%. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for ≥ 3 cm BE were 86%, 77%, and 82%. Asked if willing to repeat the procedure, 93% would, and 65% indicated a preference for the device over EGD. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a high rate of sample adequacy and promising acceptability of this non-endoscopic sampling device in a US population. Diagnostic characteristics suggest that non-endoscopic assessment of BE deserves further development as an alternative to endoscopy.
Authors: Nicholas J Shaheen; Prateek Sharma; Bergein F Overholt; Herbert C Wolfsen; Richard E Sampliner; Kenneth K Wang; Joseph A Galanko; Mary P Bronner; John R Goldblum; Ana E Bennett; Blair A Jobe; Glenn M Eisen; M Brian Fennerty; John G Hunter; David E Fleischer; Virender K Sharma; Robert H Hawes; Brenda J Hoffman; Richard I Rothstein; Stuart R Gordon; Hiroshi Mashimo; Kenneth J Chang; V Raman Muthusamy; Steven A Edmundowicz; Stuart J Spechler; Ali A Siddiqui; Rhonda F Souza; Anthony Infantolino; Gary W Falk; Michael B Kimmey; Ryan D Madanick; Amitabh Chak; Charles J Lightdale Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-05-28 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Mouen A Khashab; Marcelo F Vela; Nirav Thosani; Deepak Agrawal; James L Buxbaum; Syed M Abbas Fehmi; Douglas S Fishman; Suryakanth R Gurudu; Laith H Jamil; Terry L Jue; Bijun Sai Kannadath; Joanna K Law; Jeffrey K Lee; Mariam Naveed; Bashar J Qumseya; Mandeep S Sawhney; Julie Yang; Sachin Wani Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Caryn S Ross-Innes; Irene Debiram-Beecham; Maria O'Donovan; Elaine Walker; Sibu Varghese; Pierre Lao-Sirieix; Laurence Lovat; Michael Griffin; Krish Ragunath; Rehan Haidry; Sarmed S Sami; Philip Kaye; Marco Novelli; Babett Disep; Richard Ostler; Benoit Aigret; Bernard V North; Pradeep Bhandari; Adam Haycock; Danielle Morris; Stephen Attwood; Anjan Dhar; Colin Rees; Matthew D D Rutter; Peter D Sasieni; Rebecca C Fitzgerald Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2015-01-29 Impact factor: 11.069
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