| Literature DB >> 33655033 |
David L Diehl1, Harshit S Khara1, Nasir Akhtar1, Rebecca J Critchley-Thorne2.
Abstract
Background and study aims The TissueCypher Barrett's Esophagus Assay is a novel tissue biomarker test, and has been validated to predict progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of TissueCypher on clinical decision-making in the management of BE. Patients and methods TissueCypher was ordered for 60 patients with non-dysplastic (ND, n = 18) BE, indefinite for dysplasia (IND, n = 25), and low-grade dysplasia (LGD, n = 17). TissueCypher reports a risk class (low, intermediate or high) for progression to HGD or EAC within 5 years. The impact of the test results on BE management decisions was assessed. Results Fifty-two of 60 patients were male, mean age 65.2 ± 11.8, and 43 of 60 had long segment BE. TissueCypher results impacted 55.0 % of management decisions. In 21.7 % of patients, the test upstaged the management approach, resulting in endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) or shorter surveillance interval. The test downstaged the management approach in 33.4 % of patients, leading to surveillance rather than EET. In the subset of patients whose management plan was changed, upstaging was associated with a high-risk TissueCypher result, and downstaging was associated with a low-risk result ( P < 0.0001). Conclusions TissueCypher was used as an adjunct to support a surveillance-only approach in 33.4 % of patients. Upstaging occurred in 21.7 % of patients, leading to therapeutic intervention or increased surveillance. These results indicate that the TissueCypher test may enable physicians to target EET for TissueCypher high-risk BE patients, while reducing unnecessary procedures in TissueCypher low-risk patients. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Entities:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33655033 PMCID: PMC7892269 DOI: 10.1055/a-1326-1533
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Fig. 1 Flowchart of included/excluded patients.
Patient characteristics.
| Age | |
| Mean ± SD | 65.2 ± 11.8 |
| Range | 35.1–85 |
| Sex, n (%) | |
Male | 52 (86.7) |
Female | 8 (13.4) |
| Segment length, n (%) | |
Short | 17 (28.4) |
Long | 43 (71.7) |
| Prague classification | |
C, Mean (range) | 4.7 (0, 16) |
M, Mean (range) | 6.3 (1, 16) |
| Expert Dx, n (%) | |
ND | 18 (30) |
IND | 25 (41.7) |
LGD | 17 (28.4) |
| TissueCypher results, n (%) | |
Low-risk | 39 (65) |
Intermediate-risk | 7 (11.7) |
High-risk | 14 (23.3) |
SD, standard deviation; Prague Classification, C: circumferential length and M: maximal length; Dx, pathologic diagnosis; ND, non-dysplastic; IND, indefinite for dysplasia; LGD, low-grade dysplasia.
TissueCypher Results in Diagnostic Classes
| All patients | ND patients | IND patients | LGD patients | |
| n = 60 | n = 18 | n = 25 | n = 17 | |
| Low-risk | 39 (65) | 15 (83.3) | 17 (68) | 7 (41.2) |
| Intermediate-risk | 7 (11.7) | 2 (11.1) | 4 (16) | 1 (5.9) |
| High-risk | 14 (23.3) | 1 (5.6) | 4 (16) | 9 (52.9) |
BE, Barrett’s esophagus; ND, non-dysplastic; IND, indefinite for dysplasia; LGD, low-grade dysplasia.
Fig. 2 Impact of TissueCypher results on management decisions. Upstaged management indicates that the test results led to increased surveillance frequency and/or a change from no treatment to recommendation of therapeutic intervention. Downstaged management indicates that the test results led to decreased surveillance frequency and/or a change from planned therapeutic intervention to recommendation of no treatment. *Treatment of newly diagnosed co-morbidity took priority over BE management.
Impact of TissueCypher on BE management decisions: Change in management 1
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Upstaged management | 13 (21.7) | 3 (16.7) | 7 (28) | 3 (17.6) |
| Downstaged management | 20 (33.4) | 6 (33.3) | 8 (32) | 6 (35.3) |
| No change | 25 (41.7) | 9 (50) | 10 (40) | 6 (35.3) |
| Other | 2 (3.4) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (11.8) |
| Changed (up/down) | 33 (55) | 9 (50) | 15 (60) | 9 (52.9) |
| Not changed (none/other) | 27 (45) | 9 (50) | 10 (40) | 8 (47.1) |
BE, Barrett’s esophagus; ND, non-dysplastic; IND, indefinite for dysplasia; LGD, low-grade dysplasia.
In all patients and in subgroups of patients with pathologic diagnoses of ND, IND and LGD (number and % of decisions impacted).
Fig. 3 Impact of TissueCypher results on management decisions in diagnostic subsets of ND, IND, and LGD. Proportions of management plan decisions upstaged, downstaged or not changed after review of TissueCypher results are shown in patients with a non-dysplastic BE; b indefinite for dysplasia, and c low-grade dysplasia. *17 patients had diagnosis of LGD, however, two patients were excluded from this sub-analysis due to treatment of higher priority co-morbidity (see Fig. 1 legend).
Fig. 4 Impact of TissueCypher results on management decisions for specific indications. The number of patients whose management plan was not changed, upstaged or downstaged is shown by indication for ordering the test, which included clinical/endoscopic concern, support of a do-not-treat (DNT) strategy in LGD, support of DNT strategy in other situations (DNT Other) and risk stratification in patients with indefinite for dysplasia (IND). Indications with less than five test orders were excluded due to inadequate sample size.