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.

BackgroundFor endoscopic resection of early GI neoplasia, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) achieves higher rates of complete resection (R0) than endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). However, ESD is technically more difficult and evidence from randomised trial is missing.ObjectiveWe compared the efficacy and safety of ESD and EMR in patients with neoplastic Barrett's oesophagus (BO).DesignBO patients with a focal lesion of high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN) or early adenocarcinoma (EAC) ≤3 cm were randomised to either ESD or EMR. Primary outcome was R0 resection; secondary outcomes were complete remission from neoplasia, recurrences and adverse events (AEs).ResultsThere were no significant differences in patient and lesion characteristics between the groups randomised to ESD (n=20) or EMR (n=20). Histology of the resected specimen showed HGIN or EAC in all but six cases. Although R0 resection defined as margins free of HGIN/EAC was achieved more frequently with ESD (10/17 vs 2/17, p=0.01), there was no difference in complete remission from neoplasia at 3 months (ESD 15/16 vs EMR 16/17, p=1.0). During a mean follow-up period of 23.1±6.4 months, recurrent EAC was observed in one case in the ESD group. Elective surgery was performed in four and three cases after ESD and EMR, respectively (p=1.0). Two severe AEs were recorded for ESD and none for EMR (p=0.49).ConclusionsIn terms of need for surgery, neoplasia remission and recurrence, ESD and EMR are both highly effective for endoscopic resection of early BO neoplasia. ESD achieves a higher R0 resection rate, but for most BO patients this bears little clinical relevance. ESD is, however, more time consuming and may cause severe AE.Trial registration numberNCT1871636

In this sham-controlled, randomized trial involving patients with dysplastic Barrett's esophagus, patients who were treated with radiofrequency ablation were more likely to have complete eradication of dysplasia and intestinal metaplasia and less likely to progress to more severe dysplasia or cancer. Adverse events included chest pain and esophageal stricture. Patients with dysplastic Barrett's esophagus who were treated with radiofrequency ablation were more likely to have complete eradication of dysplasia and intestinal metaplasia and less likely to progress to more severe dysplasia or cancer. Barrett's esophagus is defined as metaplasia of the esophageal epithelium, with normal squamous epithelium replaced by columnar epithelium containing goblet cells, also known as intestinal metaplasia (Figure 1A). 1 This change is associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease. 2 Approximately 10% of patients with chronic reflux have Barrett's esophagus, 3 , 4 and the prevalence of the condition in a recent population study was 1.6%. 5 The condition is associated with an increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma. 6 , 7 The incidence of this once rare cancer has increased by more than 500% since the 1970s. 8 The cancer remains highly lethal, with a 5-year survival rate of less . . .

Background White light endoscopy with random biopsies is the standard for detection of intestinal metaplasia (IM) and neoplasia in patients with Barrett's oesophagus (BO). Narrow band imaging (NBI) highlights surface patterns that correlate with IM and neoplasia in BO. Objective To compare high-definition white light (HD-WLE) and NBI for detection of IM and neoplasia in BO. Design International, randomised, crossover trial comparing HD-WLE and NBI. Patients referred for BO screening/surveillance at three tertiary referral centres were prospectively enrolled and randomised to HD-WLE or NBI followed by other procedures in 3–8 weeks. During HD-WLE, four quadrant biopsies every 2 cm, together with targeted biopsies of visible lesions (Seattle protocol), were obtained. During NBI examination, mucosal and vascular patterns were noted and targeted biopsies were obtained. All biopsies were read by a single expert gastrointestinal pathologist in a blinded fashion. Results 123 patients with BO (mean age 61; 93% male; 97% Caucasian) with mean circumferential and maximal extents of 1.8 and 3.6 cm, respectively, were enrolled. Both HD-WLE and NBI detected 104/113 (92%) patients with IM, but NBI required fewer biopsies per patient (3.6 vs 7.6, p<0.0001). NBI detected a higher proportion of areas with dysplasia (30% vs 21%, p=0.01). During examination with NBI, all areas of high-grade dysplasia and cancer had an irregular mucosal or vascular pattern. Conclusions NBI targeted biopsies can have the same IM detection rate as an HD-WLE examination with the Seattle protocol while requiring fewer biopsies. In addition, NBI targeted biopsies can detect more areas with dysplasia. Regular appearing NBI surface patterns did not harbour high-grade dysplasia/cancer, suggesting that biopsies could be avoided in these areas.

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.

ObjectiveDue to an annual progression rate of Barrett’s oesophagus (BO) with low-grade dysplasia (LGD) between 9% and 13% per year endoscopic ablation therapy is preferred to surveillance. Since this recommendation is based on only one randomised trial, we aimed at checking these results by another multicentre randomised trial with a similar design.DesignA prospective randomised study was performed in 14 centres comparing radiofrequency ablation (RFA) (maximum of 4 sessions) to annual endoscopic surveillance, including patients with a confirmed diagnosis of BO with LGD. Primary outcome was the prevalence of LGD at 3 years. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of LGD at 1 year, the complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) at 3 years, the rate of neoplastic progression at 3 years and the treatment-related morbidity.Results125 patients were initially included, of whom 82 with confirmed LGD (76 men, mean age 62.3 years) were finally randomised, 40 patients in the RFA and 42 in the surveillance group. At 3 years, CE-IM rates were 35% vs 0% in the RFA and surveillance groups, respectively (p<0.001). At the same time, the prevalence LGD was 34.3% (95% CI 18.6 to 50.0) in the RFA group vs 58.1% (95% CI 40.7 to 75.4) in the surveillance group (OR=0.38 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.02), p=0.05). Neoplastic progression was found in 12.5% (RFA) vs 26.2% (surveillance; p=0.15). The complication rate was maximal after the first RFA treatment (16.9%).ConclusionRFA modestly reduced the prevalence of LGD as well as progression risk at 3 years. The risk-benefit balance of endoscopic ablation therapy should therefore be carefully weighted against surveillance in patients with BO with confirmed LGD.Trial registration number NCT01360541.

ObjectiveAfter focal endoscopic resection (ER) of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or early cancer (EC) in Barrett's oesophagus (BO), eradication of all remaining BO reduces the recurrence risk. The aim of this study was to compare the safety of stepwise radical ER (SRER) versus focal ER followed by radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for complete eradication of BO containing HGD/EC.MethodsA multicentre randomised clinical trial was carried out in three tertiary centres. Patients with BO ≤5 cm containing HGD/EC were randomised to SRER or ER/RFA. Patients in the SRER group underwent piecemeal ER of 50% of BO followed by serial ER. Patients in the ER/RFA group underwent focal ER for visible lesions followed by serial RFA. Follow-up endoscopy with biopsies (four-quadrant/2 cm BO) was performed at 6 and 12 months and then annually. The main outcome measures were: stenosis rate; complications; complete histological response for neoplasia (CR-neoplasia); and complete histological response for intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM).ResultsCR-neoplasia was achieved in 25/25 (100%) SRER and in 21/22 (96%) ER/RFA patients. CR-IM was achieved in 23 (92%) SRER and 21 (96%) ER/RFA patients. The stenosis rate was significantly higher in SRER (88%) versus ER/RFA (14%; p<0.001), resulting in more therapeutic sessions in SRER (6 vs 3; p<0.001) due to dilations. After median 24 months follow-up, one SRER patient had recurrence of EC, requiring ER.ConclusionsIn patients with BO ≤5 cm containing HGD/EC, SRER and ER/RFA achieved comparably high rates of CR-IM and CR-neoplasia. However, SRER was associated with a higher number of complications and therapeutic sessions. For these patients, a combined endoscopic approach of focal ER followed by RFA may thus be preferred over SRER.Clinical trial numberNTR1337.

BackgroundProgression of Barrett esophagus (BE) to esophageal adenocarcinoma occurs among a minority of BE patients. To date, BE behavior cannot be predicted on the basis of histologic features.AimsWe compared BE samples that did not develop dysplasia or carcinoma upon follow-up of ≥ 7 years (BE nonprogressed [BEN]) with BE samples that developed carcinoma upon follow-up of 3 to 4 years (BE progressed [BEP]).MethodsThe NanoString nCounter miRNA assay was used to profile 24 biopsy samples of BE, including 13 BENs and 11 BEPs. Fifteen samples were randomly selected for miRNA prediction model training; nine were randomly selected for miRNA validation.ResultsUnpaired t tests with Welch’s correction were performed on 800 measured miRNAs to identify the most differentially expressed miRNAs for cases of BEN and BEP. The top 12 miRNAs (P < .003) were selected for principal component analyses: miR-1278, miR-1301, miR-1304-5p, miR-517b-3p, miR-584-5p, miR-599, miR-103a-3p, miR-1197, miR-1256, miR-509–3-5p, miR-544b, miR-802. The 12-miRNA signature was first self-validated on the training dataset, resulting in 7 out of the 7 BEP samples being classified as BEP (100% sensitivity) and 7 out of the 8 BEN samples being classified as BEN (87.5% specificity). Upon validation, 4 out of the 4 BEP samples were classified as BEP (100% sensitivity) and 4 out of the 5 BEN samples were classified as BEN (80% specificity). Twenty-four samples were evaluated, and 22 cases were correctly classified. Overall accuracy was 91.67%.ConclusionUsing miRNA profiling, we have identified a 12-miRNA signature able to reliably differentiate cases of BEN from BEP.

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.

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.