Shaheen, Nicholas J.

INTRODUCTION: Early neoplastic progression of Barrett's esophagus (BE) is often treated with endoscopic therapy. Although effective, some patients are refractory to therapy or recur after apparent eradication of the BE. The goal of this study was to determine whether genomic alterations within the treated BE may be associated with persistent or recurrent disease. METHODS: We performed DNA sequencing on pre-treatment esophageal samples from 45 patients who were successfully treated by endoscopic therapy and did not recur as well as pre-treatment and post-treatment samples from 40 patients who had persistent neoplasia and 21 patients who had recurrent neoplasia. The genomic alterations were compared between groups. RESULTS: The genomic landscape was similar between all groups. Patients with persistent disease were more likely to have pre-treatment alterations involving the receptor tyrosine kinase pathway ( P = 0.01), amplifications of oncogenes ( P = 0.01), and deletions of tumor suppressor genes ( P = 0.02). These associations were no longer significant after adjusting for patient age and BE length. More than half of patients with persistent (52.5%) or recurrent (57.2%) disease showed pre-treatment and post-treatment samples that shared at least 50% of their driver mutations. DISCUSSION: Pre-treatment samples were genomically similar between those who responded to endoscopic therapy and those who had persistent or recurrent disease, suggesting there is not a strong genomic component to treatment response. Although it was expected to find shared driver mutations in pre-treatment and post-treatment samples in patients with persistent disease, the finding that an equal number of patients with recurrent disease also showed this relation suggests that many recurrences represent undetected minimal residual disease.

INTRODUCTION: Preliminary data suggest that an encapsulated balloon (EsoCheck), coupled with a 2 methylated DNA biomarker panel (EsoGuard), detects Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) with high accuracy. The initial assay requires sample freezing upon collection. The purpose of this study was to assess a next-generation EsoCheck sampling device and EsoGuard assay in a much-enlarged multicenter study clinically enhanced by using a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988-compliant assay and samples maintained at room temperature. METHODS: Cases with nondysplastic BE (NDBE), dysplastic BE (indefinite for dysplasia, low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia), EAC, junctional adenocarcinoma, plus endoscopy controls without esophageal intestinal metaplasia, were prospectively enrolled. Medical assistants at 6 institutions delivered the encapsulated balloon per orally with inflation in the stomach. The inflated balloon sampled the distal 5 cm of the esophagus and then was deflated and retracted into the capsule, preventing sample contamination. EsoGuard bisulfite sequencing assayed levels of methylated vimentin and methylated cyclin A1. RESULTS: A total of 243 evaluable patients—88 cases (median age 68 years, 78% men, 92% White) and 155 controls (median age 57 years, 41% men, 88% White)—underwent adequate EsoCheck sampling. The mean procedural time was approximately 3 minutes. Cases included 31 with NDBE, 16 with indefinite for dysplasia/low-grade dysplasia, 23 with high-grade dysplasia, and 18 with EAC/junctional adenocarcinoma. Thirty-seven NDBE and dysplastic BE cases (53%) were short-segment BE (<3 cm). Overall sensitivity was 85% (95% confidence interval 0.78–0.93) and specificity was 85% (95% confidence interval 0.79–0.90). Sensitivity for NDBE was 84%. EsoCheck/EsoGuard detected 100% of cancers (n = 18). DISCUSSION: EsoCheck/EsoGuard demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity in detecting BE and BE-related neoplasia.

INTRODUCTION: A substantial proportion of patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) do not report gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms. This study aimed to compare the risk factor profiles and cancer stage at presentation of patients with EAC with and without prior GERD. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, patients with EAC were divided into 2 cohorts: (i) EAC with prior GERD: patients who reported typical GERD symptoms (heartburn or regurgitation) ≥1 year before cancer diagnosis and (ii) EAC without prior GERD: patients who did not report prior GERD symptoms or reported symptoms within 1 year of their cancer diagnosis. Baseline demographics, risk factors, and cancer stage at presentation were compared between the 2 cohorts. In addition, the distribution of patients based on numbers of BE/EAC–associated risk factors (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 or more) was examined in the symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts. RESULTS: Over 13 years, 388 patients with EAC with prior GERD and 245 patients with EAC without prior GERD were recruited. Both groups had similar baseline demographics and risk factors, but patients with EAC with prior GERD were more likely to have a history of BE. Asymptomatic patients had more advanced disease. Patients with 3 or more BE/EAC–related risk factors formed the largest proportion of patients in both the symptomatic and asymptomatic cohorts. DISCUSSION: Patients with EAC with and without prior GERD symptoms are phenotypically similar, suggesting that BE screening efforts to prevent or detect early EAC should not be restricted to just those with GERD.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted endoscopy practices, creating unprecedented decreases in cancer screening and surveillance services. We aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on the proportion of patients diagnosed with Barrett's esophagus (BE) and BE-related dysplasia and adherence to established quality indicators. METHODS: Data from all esophagogastroduodenoscopies in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium, a national repository of matched endoscopy and pathology data, were analyzed from January 2018 to December 2022. Four cohorts were created based on procedure date and COVID-19 data: pre-pandemic (January 2018 to February 2020), pandemic-phase I (March 2020 to July 2020), pandemic-phase II (August 2020 to May 2021), and pandemic-phase III (June 2021 to December 2022). Observed and expected number of BE and BE-related dysplasia cases per month and adherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol and recommended surveillance intervals for nondysplastic BE (NDBE) were evaluated. RESULTS: Among 2,446,857 esophagogastroduodenoscopies performed during the study period, 104,124 (4.3%) had pathology-confirmed BE. The histologic distribution was 87.4% NDBE, 1.8% low-grade dysplasia, 2.4% indefinite for dysplasia, and 1.4% high-grade dysplasia. The number of monthly BE (−47.9% pandemic-phase I, −21.5% pandemic-phase II, and −19.0% pandemic-phase III) and BE-related dysplasia (high-grade dysplasia: 41.2%, −27.7%, and −19.0%; low-grade dysplasia: 49.1%, −35.3%, and −26.5%; any dysplasia: 46.7%, −32.3%, and −27.9%) diagnoses were significantly reduced during the pandemic phases compared with pre-pandemic data. Adherence rates to the Seattle protocol and recommended surveillance intervals for NDBE did not decline during the pandemic. DISCUSSION: There was a significant decline in the number of BE and BE-related dysplasia diagnoses during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an approximately 50% reduction in the number of cases of dysplasia diagnosed in the early pandemic. The absence of a compensatory increase in diagnoses in the pandemic-phase II and III periods may result in deleterious downstream effects on esophageal adenocarcinoma morbidity and mortality.

Background Methods: The question prompt list content was derived through a modified Delphi process consisting of 3 rounds. In round 1, experts provided 5 answers to the prompts “What general questions should patients ask when given a new diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus” and “What questions do I not hear patients asking, but given my expertise, I believe they should be asking?” Questions were reviewed and categorized into themes. In round 2, experts rated questions on a 5-point Likert scale. In round 3, experts rerated questions modified or reduced after the previous rounds. Only questions rated as “essential” or “important” were included in Barrett’s esophagus question prompt list (BE-QPL). To improve usability, questions were reduced to minimize redundancy and simplified to use language at an eighth-grade level (Fig. 1). Results: Twenty-one esophageal medical and surgical experts participated in both rounds (91% males; median age 52 years). The expert panel comprised of 33% esophagologists, 24% foregut surgeons, and 24% advanced endoscopists, with a median of 15 years in clinical practice. Most (81%), worked in an academic tertiary referral hospital. In this 3-round Delphi technique, 220 questions were proposed in round 1, 122 (55.5%) were accepted into the BE-QPL and reduced down to 76 questions (round 2), and 67 questions (round 3). These 67 questions reached a Flesch Reading Ease of 68.8, interpreted as easily understood by 13 to 15 years olds. Conclusions: With multidisciplinary input, we have developed a physician-derived BE-QPL to optimize patient-physician communication. Future directions will seek patient feedback to distill the questions further to a smaller number and then assess their usability.

Summary Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) develops in a step-wise manner, from low-grade dysplasia (LGD) to high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and ultimately to invasive EAC. However, there remains diagnostic uncertainty about LGD and its risk of progression to HGD/EAC. The aim is to investigate the role of Ki-67, immune-histochemical marker of proliferation, surface expression in patients with confirmed LGD, and risk stratify progression to HGD/EAC. A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with confirmed LGD and indefinite for dysplasia (IND), with a mean follow-up of ≥1 year, were included. Pathology specimens were stained for Ki-67 and analyzed for evidence of surface expression. Our results reveal that 29% of patients with confirmed LGD who stained positive with Ki-67 progressed to HGD/EAC as opposed to none (0%) of the patients who stained negative, a statistically significant result (P = 0.003). Similarly, specimens from patients with IND were stained and analyzed revealing a nonsignificant trend toward a higher rate of progression for Ki-67 positive cases versus Ki-67 negative, 30% versus 21%, respectively. Ki-67 expression by itself can identify patients with LGD at a high risk of progression.

Abstract Purpose: Current endoscopy-based screening and surveillance programs have not been proven effective at decreasing esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) mortality, creating an unmet need for effective molecular tests for early detection of this highly lethal cancer. We conducted a genome-wide methylation screen to identify novel methylation markers that distinguish EAC and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) from normal squamous epithelium (SQ) or nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE). Experimental Design: DNA methylation profiling of samples from SQ, NDBE, HGD, and EAC was performed using HM450 methylation arrays (Illumina) and reduced-representation bisulfate sequencing. Ultrasensitive methylation-specific droplet digital PCR and next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based bisulfite-sequencing assays were developed to detect the methylation level of candidate CpGs in independent esophageal biopsy and endoscopic brushing samples. Results: Five candidate methylation markers were significantly hypermethylated in HGD/EAC samples compared with SQ or NDBE (P &lt; 0.01) in both esophageal biopsy and endoscopic brushing samples. In an independent set of brushing samples used to construct biomarker panels, a four-marker panel (model 1) demonstrated sensitivity of 85.0% and 90.8% for HGD and EACs respectively, with 84.2% and 97.9% specificity for NDBE and SQ respectively. In a validation set of brushing samples, the panel achieved sensitivity of 80% and 82.5% for HGD and EAC respectively, at specificity of 67.6% and 96.3% for NDBE and SQ samples. Conclusions: A novel DNA methylation marker panel differentiates HGD/EAC from SQ/NDBE. DNA-methylation–based molecular assays hold promise for the detection of HGD/EAC using esophageal brushing samples.