BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We previously identified a 5 methylated DNA marker (MDM) panel for the detection of nonendoscopic Barrett's esophagus (BE). In this study, we aimed to recalibrate the performance of the 5 MDM panel using a simplified assay in a training cohort, validate the panel in an independent test cohort, and explore the accuracy of an MDM panel with only 3 markers. METHODS: Participants were recruited from 3 medical centers. The sponge on a string device (EsophaCap; CapNostics, Concord, NC, USA) was swallowed and withdrawn, followed by endoscopy, in BE cases and control subjects. A 5 MDM panel was blindly assayed using a simplified assay. Random forest modeling analysis was performed, in silico cross-validated in the training set, and then locked down, before test set analysis. RESULTS: The training set had 199 patients: 110 BE cases and 89 control subjects, and the test set had 89 patients: 60 BE cases and 29 control subjects. Sensitivity of the 5 MDM panel for BE diagnosis was 93% at 90% specificity in the training set and 93% at 93% specificity in the test set. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were .96 and .97 in the training and test sets, respectively. Model accuracy was not influenced by age, sex, or smoking history. Multiple 3 MDM panels achieved similar accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: A 5 MDM panel for BE is highly accurate in training and test sets in a blinded multisite case-control analysis using a simplified assay. This panel may be reduced to only 3 MDMs in the future. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02560623.).
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We previously identified a 5 methylated DNA marker (MDM) panel for the detection of nonendoscopic Barrett's esophagus (BE). In this study, we aimed to recalibrate the performance of the 5 MDM panel using a simplified assay in a training cohort, validate the panel in an independent test cohort, and explore the accuracy of an MDM panel with only 3 markers. METHODS: Participants were recruited from 3 medical centers. The sponge on a string device (EsophaCap; CapNostics, Concord, NC, USA) was swallowed and withdrawn, followed by endoscopy, in BE cases and control subjects. A 5 MDM panel was blindly assayed using a simplified assay. Random forest modeling analysis was performed, in silico cross-validated in the training set, and then locked down, before test set analysis. RESULTS: The training set had 199 patients: 110 BE cases and 89 control subjects, and the test set had 89 patients: 60 BE cases and 29 control subjects. Sensitivity of the 5 MDM panel for BE diagnosis was 93% at 90% specificity in the training set and 93% at 93% specificity in the test set. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were .96 and .97 in the training and test sets, respectively. Model accuracy was not influenced by age, sex, or smoking history. Multiple 3 MDM panels achieved similar accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: A 5 MDM panel for BE is highly accurate in training and test sets in a blinded multisite case-control analysis using a simplified assay. This panel may be reduced to only 3 MDMs in the future. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02560623.).
Authors: Prasad G Iyer; William R Taylor; Michele L Johnson; Ramona L Lansing; Kristyn A Maixner; Tracy C Yab; Julie A Simonson; Mary E Devens; Seth W Slettedahl; Douglas W Mahoney; Calise K Berger; Patrick H Foote; Thomas C Smyrk; Kenneth K Wang; Herbert C Wolfsen; David A Ahlquist Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2018-06-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Kee Wook Jung; Nicholas J Talley; Yvonne Romero; David A Katzka; Cathy D Schleck; Alan R Zinsmeister; Kelly T Dunagan; Lori S Lutzke; Tsung-Teh Wu; Kenneth K Wang; Mary Frederickson; Debra M Geno; G Richard Locke; Ganapathy A Prasad Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Hongzhi Zou; Hatim Allawi; Xiaoming Cao; Mike Domanico; Jonathan Harrington; William R Taylor; Tracy Yab; David A Ahlquist; Graham Lidgard Journal: Clin Chem Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 8.327
Authors: Yonne Peters; Ruud W M Schrauwen; Adriaan C Tan; Sanne K Bogers; Bart de Jong; Peter D Siersema Journal: Gut Date: 2020-02-25 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: John B Kisiel; Megan M Garrity-Park; William R Taylor; Thomas C Smyrk; David A Ahlquist Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Ganapathy A Prasad; Tsung Teh Wu; Dennis A Wigle; Navtej S Buttar; Louis-Michel Wongkeesong; Kelly T Dunagan; Lori S Lutzke; Lynn S Borkenhagen; Kenneth K Wang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2009-06-12 Impact factor: 22.682
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: Zhongren Zhou; Irina Kalatskaya; Donna Russell; Norman Marcon; Maria Cirocco; Paul M Krzyzanowski; Cathy Streutker; Hua Liang; Virginia R Litle; Tony E Godfrey; Lincoln Stein Journal: Clin Exp Gastroenterol Date: 2019-05-15