Explore the vast range of titles available.

Treatment of dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus prevents progression to adenocarcinoma; however, the optimal diagnostic strategy for Barrett's oesophagus is unclear. The Cytosponge-trefoil factor 3 (TFF3) is a non-endoscopic test for Barrett's oesophagus. The aim of this study was to investigate whether offering this test to patients on medication for gastro-oesophageal reflux would increase the detection of Barrett's oesophagus compared with standard management. This multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial was done in 109 socio-demographically diverse general practice clinics in England. Randomisation was done both at the general practice clinic level (cluster randomisation) and at the individual patient level, and the results for each type of randomisation were analysed separately before being combined. Patients were eligible if they were aged 50 years or older, had been taking acid-suppressants for symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux for more than 6 months, and had not undergone an endoscopy procedure within the past 5 years. General practice clinics were selected by the local clinical research network and invited to participate in the trial. For cluster randomisation, clinics were randomly assigned (1:1) by the trial statistician using a computer-generated randomisation sequence; for individual patient-level randomisation, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by the general practice clinics using a centrally prepared computer-generated randomisation sequence. After randomisation, participants received either standard management of gastro-oesophageal reflux (usual care group), in which participants only received an endoscopy if required by their general practitioner, or usual care plus an offer of the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure, with a subsequent endoscopy if the procedure identified TFF3-positive cells (intervention group). The primary outcome was the diagnosis of Barrett's oesophagus at 12 months after enrolment, expressed as a rate per 1000 person-years, in all participants in the intervention group (regardless of whether they had accepted the offer of the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure) compared with all participants in the usual care group. Analyses were intention-to-treat. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN68382401, and is completed. Between March 20, 2017, and March 21, 2019, 113 general practice clinics were enrolled, but four clinics dropped out shortly after randomisation. Using an automated search of the electronic prescribing records of the remaining 109 clinics, we identified 13 657 eligible patients who were sent an introductory letter with 14 days to opt out. 13 514 of these patients were randomly assigned (per practice or at the individual patient level) to the usual care group (n=6531) or the intervention group (n=6983). Following randomisation, 149 (2%) of 6983 participants in the intervention group and 143 (2%) of 6531 participants in the usual care group, on further scrutiny, did not meet all eligibility criteria or withdrew from the study. Of the remaining 6834 participants in the intervention group, 2679 (39%) expressed an interest in undergoing the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure. Of these, 1750 (65%) met all of the eligibility criteria on telephone screening and underwent the procedure. Most of these participants (1654 [95%]; median age 69 years) swallowed the Cytosponge successfully and produced a sample. 231 (3%) of 6834 participants had a positive Cytosponge-TFF3 result and were referred for an endoscopy. Patients who declined the offer of the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure and all participants in the usual care group only had an endoscopy if deemed necessary by their general practitioner. During an average of 12 months of follow-up, 140 (2%) of 6834 participants in the intervention group and 13 (<1%) of 6388 participants in the usual care group were diagnosed with Barrett's oesophagus (absolute difference 18·3 per 1000 person-years [95% CI 14·8–21·8]; rate ratio adjusted for cluster randomisation 10·6 [95% CI 6·0–18·8], p<0·0001). Nine (<1%) of 6834 participants were diagnosed with dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus (n=4) or stage I oesophago-gastric cancer (n=5) in the intervention group, whereas no participants were diagnosed with dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus or stage I gastro-oesophageal junction cancer in the usual care group. Among 1654 participants in the intervention group who swallowed the Cytosponge device successfully, 221 (13%) underwent endoscopy after testing positive for TFF3 and 131 (8%, corresponding to 59% of those having an endoscopy) were diagnosed with Barrett's oesophagus or cancer. One patient had a detachment of the Cytosponge from the thread requiring endoscopic removal, and the most common side-effect was a sore throat in 63 (4%) of 1654 participants. In patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux, the offer of Cytosponge-TFF3 testing results in improved detection of Barrett's oesophagus. Cytosponge-TFF3 testing could also lead to the diagnosis of treatable dysplasia and early cancer. This strategy will lead to additional endoscopies with some false positive results. Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research, the UK National Health Service, Medtronic, and the Medical Research Council.

Endoscopic surveillance is the clinical standard for Barrett's oesophagus, but its effectiveness is inconsistent. We have developed a test comprising a pan-oesophageal cell collection device coupled with biomarkers to stratify patients into three risk groups. We aimed to prospectively evaluate the prespecified risk stratification tool to establish whether it can identify those at highest risk of dysplasia or cancer to prioritise the timing of endoscopy; and safely be used to follow up the low-risk group, thus sparing patients from unnecessary endoscopies. Participants were recruited as part of two multicentre, prospective, pragmatic implementation studies from 13 hospitals in the UK. Patients with non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus had a capsule-sponge test which was assessed in an ISO-accredited laboratory. Patients were included if they were aged at least 18 years with a non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus diagnosis at their last endoscopy who were undergoing surveillance according to the published UK guidelines. Patients were assigned as low (clinical and capsule-sponge biomarkers negative), moderate (negative for capsule-sponge biomarkers, positive clinical biomarkers—age, sex, and segment length), or high risk (p53 abnormality or glandular atypia regardless of clinical biomarkers, or both). The primary outcome was a diagnosis of high-grade dysplasia or cancer necessitating treatment, according to the risk group assignment. 910 patients recruited between August, 2020, and December, 2024 participated, of whom 138 (15%) were classified as high risk, 283 (31%) moderate risk and 489 (54%) low risk. The positive predictive value for any dysplasia or worse in the high-risk group was 37·7% (95% CI 29·7–46·4). Patients with both atypia and aberrant p53 had the highest risk of high-grade dysplasia or cancer (relative risk 135·8 [95% CI 32·7–564·0] relative to the low-risk group). The prevalence of high-grade dysplasia or cancer in the low-risk group was 0·4% (95% CI 0·1–1·6); the negative predictive value for any dysplasia or cancer was 97·8% (95% CI 95·9–98·8). Applying a machine learning algorithm as part of a digital-pathology workflow reduces the proportion needing p53 pathology review to 32% without missing any positive cases. The risk-panel substantially enriches for dysplasia and capsule-sponge-based surveillance could be used in low-risk Barrett's oesophagus in lieu of endoscopy. Innovate UK, Cancer Research UK, National Health Service England Cancer Alliance.

Background Early detection of oesophageal cancer improves outcomes; however, the optimal strategy for identifying patients at increased risk from the pre-cancerous lesion Barrett’s oesophagus (BE) is not clear. The Cytosponge, a novel non-endoscopic sponge device, combined with the biomarker Trefoil Factor 3 (TFF3) has been tested in four clinical studies. It was found to be safe, accurate and acceptable to patients. The aim of the BEST3 trial is to evaluate if the offer of a Cytosponge-TFF3 test in primary care for patients on long term acid suppressants leads to an increase in the number of patients diagnosed with BE. Methods The BEST3 trial is a pragmatic multi-site cluster-randomised controlled trial set in primary care in England. Approximately 120 practices will be randomised 1:1 to either the intervention arm, invitation to a Cytosponge-TFF3 test, or the control arm usual care. Inclusion criteria are men and women aged 50 or over with records of at least 6 months of prescriptions for acid-suppressants in the last year. Patients in the intervention arm will receive an invitation to have a Cytosponge-TFF3 test in their general practice. Patients with a positive TFF3 test will receive an invitation for an upper gastro-intestinal endoscopy at their local hospital-based endoscopy clinic to test for BE. The primary objective is to compare histologically confirmed BE diagnosis between the intervention and control arms to determine whether the offer of the Cytosponge-TFF3 test in primary care results in an increase in BE diagnosis within 12 months of study entry. Discussion The BEST3 trial is a well-powered pragmatic trial testing the use of the Cytosponge-TFF3 test in the same population that we envisage it being used in clinical practice. The data generated from this trial will enable NICE and other clinical bodies to decide whether this test is suitable for routine clinical use. Trial registration This trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN Registry on 19/01/2017, trial number ISRCTN68382401 .

Deep learning methods have been shown to achieve excellent performance on diagnostic tasks, but how to optimally combine them with expert knowledge and existing clinical decision pathways is still an open challenge. This question is particularly important for the early detection of cancer, where high-volume workflows may benefit from (semi-)automated analysis. Here we present a deep learning framework to analyze samples of the Cytosponge-TFF3 test, a minimally invasive alternative to endoscopy, for detecting Barrett’s esophagus, which is the main precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma. We trained and independently validated the framework on data from two clinical trials, analyzing a combined total of 4,662 pathology slides from 2,331 patients. Our approach exploits decision patterns of gastrointestinal pathologists to define eight triage classes of varying priority for manual expert review. By substituting manual review with automated review in low-priority classes, we can reduce pathologist workload by 57% while matching the diagnostic performance of experienced pathologists. A clinician-in-the-loop deep learning system streamlines the workflow of pathologists for detection of Barrett’s esophagus and retains the diagnostic accuracy of full manual review.

The objective of this study was to compare participation rates and clinical effectiveness of sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (sEGD) and unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) for esophageal assessment and Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening in a population-based cohort. This was a prospective, randomized, controlled trial in a community population. Subjects ≥50 years of age who previously completed validated gastrointestinal symptom questionnaires were randomized (stratified by age, sex, and reflux symptoms) to one of three screening techniques (either sEGD or uTNE in a mobile research van (muTNE) or uTNE in a hospital outpatient endoscopy suite (huTNE)) and invited to participate. Of the 459 subjects, 209 (46%) agreed to participate (muTNE n=76, huTNE n=72, and sEGD n=61). Participation rates were numerically higher in the unsedated arms of muTNE (47.5%) and huTNE (45.7%) compared with the sEGD arm (40.7%), but were not statistically different (P=0.27). Complete evaluation of the esophagus was similar using muTNE (99%), huTNE (96%), and sEGD (100%) techniques (P=0.08). Mean recovery times (min) were longer for sEGD (67.3) compared with muTNE (15.5) and huTNE (18.5) (P<0.001). Approximately 80% of uTNE subjects were willing to undergo the procedure again in future. Respectively, 29% and 7.8% of participating subjects had esophagitis and BE. Mobile van and clinic uTNE screening had comparable clinical effectiveness with similar participation rates and safety profile to sEGD. Evaluation time with uTNE was significantly shorter. Prevalence of BE and esophagitis in community subjects ≥50 years of age was substantial. Mobile and outpatient unsedated techniques may provide an effective alternative strategy to sEGD for esophageal assessment and BE screening.

INTRODUCTION:Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Physicians infrequently adhere to guidelines for managing BE, leading to either reduced detection of dysplasia or inappropriate re-evaluation.METHODS:We conducted a three-arm randomized controlled trial with 2 intervention arms to determine the impact of a tissue systems pathology (TSP-9) test on the adherence to evidence-based guidelines for simulated patients with BE. Intervention 1 received TSP-9 results, and intervention 2 had the option to order TSP-9 results. We collected data from 259 practicing gastroenterologists and gastrointestinal surgeons who evaluated and made management decisions for 3 types of simulated patients with BE: nondysplastic BE, indefinite for dysplasia, and low-grade dysplasia.RESULTS:Intervention 1 was significantly more likely to correctly assess risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia/esophageal adenocarcinoma and offer treatment in accordance with US society guidelines compared with the control group (+6.9%, 95% confidence interval +1.4% to +12.3%). There was no significant difference in ordering guideline-recommended endoscopic eradication therapy. However, for cases requiring annual endoscopic surveillance, we found significant improvement in adherence for intervention 1, with a difference-in-difference of +18.5% (P = 0.019). Intervention 2 ordered the TSP-9 test in 21.9% of their cases. Those who ordered the test performed similarly to intervention 1; those who did not, performed similarly to the control group.DISCUSSION:The TSP-9 test optimized adherence to clinical guidelines for surveillance and treatment of both patients with BE at high and low risk of disease progression. Use of the TSP-9 test can enable physicians to make risk-aligned management decisions, leading to improved patient health outcomes.

Background The Cytosponge is a cell-collection device, which, coupled with a test for trefoil factor 3 (TFF3), can be used to diagnose Barrett’s oesophagus, a precursor condition to oesophageal adenocarcinoma. BEST3, a large pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial, investigated whether offering the Cytosponge-TFF3 test would increase detection of Barrett’s. Overall, participants reported mostly positive experiences. This study reports the factors associated with the least positive experience. Methods Patient experience was assessed using the Inventory to Assess Patient Satisfaction (IAPS), a 22-item questionnaire, completed 7–14 days after the Cytosponge test. Study cohort All BEST3 participants who answered ≥ 15 items of the IAPS (N = 1458). Statistical analysis A mean IAPS score between 1 and 5 (5 indicates most negative experience) was calculated for each individual. ‘Least positive’ experience was defined according to the 90th percentile. 167 (11.4%) individuals with a mean IAPS score of ≥ 2.32 were included in the ‘least positive’ category and compared with the rest of the cohort. Eleven patient characteristics and one procedure-specific factor were assessed as potential predictors of the least positive experience. Multivariable logistic regression analysis using backwards selection was conducted to identify factors independently associated with the least positive experience and with failed swallow at first attempt, one of the strongest predictors of least positive experience. Results The majority of responders had a positive experience, with an overall median IAPS score of 1.7 (IQR 1.5–2.1). High (OR = 3.01, 95% CI 2.03–4.46, p  < 0.001) or very high (OR = 4.56, 95% CI 2.71–7.66, p  < 0.001) anxiety (relative to low/normal anxiety) and a failed swallow at the first attempt (OR = 3.37, 95% CI 2.14–5.30, p  < 0.001) were highly significant predictors of the least positive patient experience in multivariable analyses. Additionally, sex ( p  = 0.036), height ( p  = 0.032), alcohol intake ( p  = 0.011) and education level ( p  = 0.036) were identified as statistically significant predictors. Conclusion We have identified factors which predict patient experience. Identifying anxiety ahead of the procedure and discussing particular concerns with patients or giving them tips to help with swallowing the capsule might help improve their experience. Trial registration ISRCTN68382401.

BackgroundMultiband mucosectomy (MBM) is the preferred technique for piecemeal resection of early neoplastic lesions in Barrett’s esophagus (BE). The currently most widely used device for MBM is the Duette device. Recently, the Captivator EMR device has come available which might have practical advantages over the Duette device.MethodsPhase I was a randomized pre-esophagectomy trial with a non-inferiority design aiming to compare EMR specimens obtained with the Captivator and the Duette device. Primary outcome: max diameter of the EMR specimens, secondary outcomes: min diameter, max thickness of the EMR specimens and resected submucosal stroma. Phase II were clinical pilot cases aiming to evaluate the feasibility of EMR using the Captivator device. Primary outcome was the successful EMR rate and secondary outcomes included procedure time and adverse events.ResultsPhase I: 24 EMR specimens (12 pairs) were obtained from six patients. The median max diameter of EMR specimens obtained with the Captivator device was 16 mm [IQR 12–21] versus 18 mm [IQR 13–23] for the Duette device. Non-inferiority of the max diameter of the Captivator specimens could not be demonstrated (median difference 1 mm, 95% CI − 3.26 to + 5.26). However, when using paired analysis, no significant difference was found (p 0.573). In addition, no statistically significant differences were found in the min diameter, max thickness of EMR specimens, and max thickness of resected submucosal stroma. Phase II: 5 BE patients with early neoplastic lesions were included. Successful EMR was achieved in 100%. Median procedure time was 33 min (IQR 25–39). One patient developed transient dysphagia, without signs of stenosis on endoscopy.ConclusionsEMR of early Barrett’s neoplasia using the Captivator device is comparable to Duette EMR when looking at size of resected specimens. In the first patients, EMR using the Captivator was feasible, resulting in successful resection without acute adverse events.

ObjectivesThe BEST3 trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of the Cytosponge-trefoil factor 3, a cell collection device coupled with the biomarker trefoil factor 3, as a tool for detecting Barrett’s oesophagus, a precursor of oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), in primary care. In this nested study, our aim was to understand patient experiences.DesignMixed-methods using questionnaires (including Inventory to Assess Patient Satisfaction, Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-6 and two-item perceived risk) and interviews.Outcome measuresParticipant satisfaction, anxiety and perceived risk of developing OAC.SettingGeneral practices in England.ParticipantsPatients with acid reflux enrolled in the intervention arm of the BEST3 trial and attending the Cytosponge appointment (N=1750).Results1488 patients successfully swallowing the Cytosponge completed the follow-up questionnaires, while 30 were interviewed, including some with an unsuccessful swallow.Overall, participants were satisfied with the Cytosponge test. Several items showed positive ratings, in particular convenience and accessibility, staff’s interpersonal skills and perceived technical competence. The most discomfort was reported during the Cytosponge removal, with more than 60% of participants experiencing gagging. Nevertheless, about 80% were willing to have the procedure again or to recommend it to friends; this was true even for participants experiencing discomfort, as confirmed in the interviews.Median anxiety scores were below the predefined level of clinically significant anxiety and slightly decreased between baseline and follow-up (p < 0.001). Interviews revealed concerns around the ability to swallow, participating in a clinical trial, and waiting for test results.The perceived risk of OAC increased following the Cytosponge appointment (p<0.001). Moreover, interviews suggested that some participants had trouble conceptualising risk and did not understand the relationships between test results, gastro-oesophageal reflux and risk of Barrett’s oesophagus and OAC.ConclusionsWhen delivered during a trial in primary care, the Cytosponge is well accepted and causes little anxiety.Trial registration numberISRCTN68382401.

ObjectiveTo investigate the acceptability of the Cytosponge, a novel sampling device to detect Barrett's oesophagus (BE), a precursor to oesophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), among people with risk factors for this condition.DesignA qualitative study using semistructured interviews and focus group discussions. Data were explored by three researchers using thematic analysis.SettingCommunity setting in London, UK.ParticipantsA recruitment company identified 33 adults (17 men, 16 women) aged 50–69 years with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a risk factor for BE. The majority of participants were white British (73%). The focus groups were stratified by gender and education. 10 individuals were interviewed and 23 participated in four focus groups.Results3 key themes emerged from the data: the anticipated physical experience, preferences for the content of information materials and comparisons with the current gold-standard test. Overall acceptability was high, but there was initial concern about the physical experience of taking the test, including swallowing and extracting the Cytosponge. These worries were reduced after handling the device and a video demonstration of the procedure. Knowledge of the relationship between GERD, BE and EAC was poor, and some suggested they would prefer not to know about the link when being offered the Cytosponge. Participants perceived the Cytosponge to be more comfortable, practical and economical than endoscopy.ConclusionsThese qualitative data suggest the Cytosponge was acceptable to the majority of participants with risk factors for BE, and could be used as a first-line test to investigate GERD symptoms. Concerns about the physical experience of the test were alleviated through multimedia resources. The development of patient information materials is an important next step to ensuring patients are adequately informed and reassured about the procedure. Patient stakeholders should be involved in this process to ensure their concerns and preferences are considered.Trial registration numberISRCTN68382401; pre-results.