Search

Summary: Background: Effective surveillance strategies are required for patients diagnosed with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) or adenocarcinoma (OAC) for whom chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is used as a potentially-curative, organ-sparing, alternative to surgery. In this study, we evaluated the safety, acceptability and tolerability of a non-endoscopic immunocytological device (the Cytosponge™) to assess treatment response following CRT. Methods: This multicentre, single-arm feasibility trial took place in 10 tertiary cancer centres in the UK. Patients aged at least 16 years diagnosed with OSCC or OAC, and who were within 4-16 weeks of completing definitive or neo-adjuvant CRT, were included. Participants were required to have a Mellow-Pinkas dysphagia score of 0-2 and be able to swallow tablets. All patients underwent a single Cytosponge™ assessment in addition to standard of care (which included post-treatment endoscopic evaluation with biopsy for patients undergoing definitive CRT; surgery for those who received neo-adjuvant CRT). The primary outcome was the proportion of consented, evaluable patients who successfully underwent Cytosponge™ assessment. Secondary and tertiary outcomes included safety, study consent rate, acceptance rate, the suitability of obtained samples for biomarker analysis, and the comparative efficacy of Cytosponge™ to standard histology (endoscopy and biopsy or post-resection specimen) in assessing for residual disease. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03529669. Findings: Between 18th April 2018 and 16th January 2020, 41 (42.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 32.7-53.2) of 96 potentially eligible patients consented to participate. Thirty-nine (95.1%, 95% CI 83.5-99.4) successfully carried out the Cytosponge™ procedure. Of these, 37 (95%) would be prepared to repeat the procedure. There were only two grade 1 adverse events attributed to use of the Cytosponge™. Thirty-five (90%) of the completed Cytosponge™ samples were suitable for biomarker analysis; 29 (83%) of these were concordant with endoscopic biopsies, three (9%) had findings suggestive of residual cancer on Cytosponge™ not found on endoscopic biopsies, and three (9%) had residual cancer on endoscopic biopsies not detected by Cytosponge™. Interpretation: Use of the CytospongeTM is safe, tolerable, and acceptable for the assessment of treatment response following CRT in OAC and OSCC. Further evaluation of Cytosponge™ in this setting is warranted. Funding: Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council.

Background and study aims The standard radiofrequency ablation (RFA) protocol for Barrett’s esophagus (BE) encompasses an intermediary cleaning phase between two ablation sessions. A simplified protocol omitting the cleaning phase is less labor-intensive but equally effective in studies based on single ablation procedures. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy and safety of the standard and simplified RFA protocols for the whole treatment pathway for BE, including both circumferential and focal devices. Patients and methods We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on patients receiving RFA between January 2007 and August 2017 at two institutions. Outcomes assessed were: 1) complete remission of dysplasia (CR-D) and intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM) at 18 months; and 2) rate of esophageal strictures. Results One hundred forty-five patients were included of whom 73 patients received the standard and 72 patients received the simplified protocol. CR-D was achieved in 94.5 % and 95.8 % of patients receiving the standard and simplified protocol, respectively (P = 0.71). CR-IM was achieved in 84.9 % and 77.8 % of patients treated with the standard and simplified protocol, respectively (P = 0.27). Strictures were significantly more common among patients who received the simplified protocol (12.5 %) compared to the standard protocol (1.4 %; P = 0.008). The median number of esophageal dilations was one. Conclusion The simplified RFA protocol is as effective as the standard protocol in eradicating BE but carries a higher risk of strictures. This needs to be taken into account, particularly in patients with higher pretreatment risk of strictures, such as those with esophageal narrowing from previous endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR).

Summary: Background: Screening for Barrett's oesophagus relies on endoscopy, which is invasive and few who undergo the procedure are found to have the condition. We aimed to use machine learning techniques to develop and externally validate a simple risk prediction panel to screen individuals for Barrett's oesophagus. Methods: In this prospective study, machine learning risk prediction in Barrett's oesophagus (MARK-BE), we used data from two case-control studies, BEST2 and BOOST, to compile training and validation datasets. From the BEST2 study, we analysed questionnaires from 1299 patients, of whom 880 (67·7%) had Barrett's oesophagus, including 40 with invasive oesophageal adenocarcinoma, and 419 (32·3%) were controls. We randomly split (6:4) the cohort using a computer algorithm into a training dataset of 776 patients and a testing dataset of 523 patients. We compiled an external validation cohort from the BOOST study, which included 398 patients, comprising 198 patients with Barrett's oesophagus (23 with oesophageal adenocarcinoma) and 200 controls. We identified independently important diagnostic features of Barrett's oesophagus using the machine learning techniques information gain and correlation-based feature selection. We assessed multiple classification tools to create a multivariable risk prediction model. Internal validation of the model using the BEST2 testing dataset was followed by external validation using the BOOST external validation dataset. From these data we created a prediction panel to identify at-risk individuals. Findings: The BEST2 study included 40 diagnostic features. Of these, 19 added information gain but after correlation-based feature selection only eight showed independent diagnostic value including age, sex, cigarette smoking, waist circumference, frequency of stomach pain, duration of heartburn and acidic taste, and taking antireflux medication, of which all were associated with increased risk of Barrett's oesophagus, except frequency of stomach pain, with was inversely associated in a case-control population. Logistic regression offered the highest prediction quality with an area under the receiver-operator curve (AUC) of 0·87 (95% CI 0·84–0·90; sensitivity set at 90%; specificity of 68%). In the testing dataset, AUC was 0·86 (0·83–0·89; sensitivity set at 90%; specificity of 65%). In the external validation dataset, the AUC was 0·81 (0·74–0·84; sensitivity set at 90%; specificity of 58%). Interpretation: Our diagnostic model offers valid predictions of diagnosis of Barrett's oesophagus in patients with symptomatic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, assisting in identifying who should go forward to invasive confirmatory testing. Our predictive panel suggests that overweight men who have been taking antireflux medication for a long time might merit particular consideration for further testing. Our risk prediction panel is quick and simple to administer but will need further calibration and validation in a prospective study in primary care. Funding: Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust and Guts UK.