Theresa H Nguyen1, Aaron P Thrift2, Gyanprakash A Ketwaroo3, Xianglin L Du4, Luis Leon Novelo5, Rollin George3, Daniel G Rosen6, Hashem B El-Serag1. 1. Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA; Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Michael E DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 2. Section of Epidemiology and Population Sciences, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA; Dan L. Duncan Comprehensive Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. 3. Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology, The University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, Texas, USA. 5. Department of Biostatistics and Data Science, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health, Houston, Texas, USA. 6. Department of Pathology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA; Department of Pathology, Michael E DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in those with Barrett's esophagus (BE) is 11-fold greater than the general population. It remains unclear which BE patients are at highest risk of progression to EAC. We aimed to validate a predictive model risk-stratifying BE patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at the Houston Veteran Affairs Medical Center of consecutive patients with a new diagnosis of BE from November 1990 to January 2019. Study follow-up was through February 2020. Patients were excluded if they had no follow-up EGD with esophageal biopsy sampling after the initial BE-diagnosing EGD or evidence of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or EAC on initial EGD. We performed an external validation study of a risk model containing sex, smoking, BE length, and low-grade dysplasia (LGD) status and assessed discriminatory ability using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). RESULTS: Among 608 BE patients, 24 progressed to HGD/EAC. The points-based model discriminated well with an AUROC of .72 (95% confidence interval [CI], .63-.82). When categorized into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups according to published cutoffs, the AUROC was poor at .57. Restructured into low-risk versus high-risk groups, the AUROC was .72 (95% CI, .64-.80). Excluding baseline LGD did not reduce discriminatory ability (AUROC, .73; 95% CI, .64-.82). CONCLUSIONS: This external validation provides further evidence that the model including sex, LGD status, smoking status, and BE length may help to risk stratify BE patients. A simplified version excluding LGD status and/or reducing the number of risk groups has increased utility in clinical practice without loss of discriminatory ability.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in those with Barrett's esophagus (BE) is 11-fold greater than the general population. It remains unclear which BE patients are at highest risk of progression to EAC. We aimed to validate a predictive model risk-stratifying BE patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at the Houston Veteran Affairs Medical Center of consecutive patients with a new diagnosis of BE from November 1990 to January 2019. Study follow-up was through February 2020. Patients were excluded if they had no follow-up EGD with esophageal biopsy sampling after the initial BE-diagnosing EGD or evidence of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or EAC on initial EGD. We performed an external validation study of a risk model containing sex, smoking, BE length, and low-grade dysplasia (LGD) status and assessed discriminatory ability using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). RESULTS: Among 608 BE patients, 24 progressed to HGD/EAC. The points-based model discriminated well with an AUROC of .72 (95% confidence interval [CI], .63-.82). When categorized into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups according to published cutoffs, the AUROC was poor at .57. Restructured into low-risk versus high-risk groups, the AUROC was .72 (95% CI, .64-.80). Excluding baseline LGD did not reduce discriminatory ability (AUROC, .73; 95% CI, .64-.82). CONCLUSIONS: This external validation provides further evidence that the model including sex, LGD status, smoking status, and BE length may help to risk stratify BE patients. A simplified version excluding LGD status and/or reducing the number of risk groups has increased utility in clinical practice without loss of discriminatory ability.
Authors: Hashem B El-Serag; Aanand D Naik; Zhigang Duan; Mohammad Shakhatreh; Ashley Helm; Amita Pathak; Marilyn Hinojosa-Lindsey; Jason Hou; Theresa Nguyen; John Chen; Jennifer R Kramer Journal: Gut Date: 2015-08-26 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Seth D Crockett; Isaac M Lipkus; Stephanie D Bright; Richard E Sampliner; Kenneth K Wang; Vikram Boolchand; Lori S Lutzke; Nicholas J Shaheen Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-11-17 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Andrew T Kunzmann; Aaron P Thrift; Brian T Johnston; Damian T McManus; Anna T Gavin; Richard C Turkington; Helen G Coleman Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Frederik Hvid-Jensen; Lars Pedersen; Asbjørn Mohr Drewes; Henrik Toft Sørensen; Peter Funch-Jensen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lorenza Alvarez Herrero; Wouter L Curvers; Frederike G I van Vilsteren; Herbert Wolfsen; Krish Ragunath; Louis-Michel Wong Kee Song; Rosalie C Mallant-Hent; Arnoud van Oijen; Pieter Scholten; Erik J Schoon; Ed B E Schenk; Bas L A M Weusten; Jacques G H M Bergman Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Zhang Haiyu; Pei Xiaofeng; Mo Xiangqiong; Qiu Junlan; Zheng Xiaobin; Wang Shuncong; Sun Huanhuan; Ma Haiqing Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2019-12-12 Impact factor: 3.411
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