Willis, Joseph E

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.

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.

Combining DNA methylation markers with a swallowable device for sampling the distal esophagus effectively detects Barrett’s neoplasias.

Abstract Esophageal adenocarcinoma is a deadly cancer with increasing incidence in the United States, but mechanisms underlying pathogenesis are still mostly elusive. In addressing this question, we assessed gene fusion landscapes by comprehensive RNA sequencing (RNAseq) of 55 pretreatment esophageal adenocarcinoma and 49 nonmalignant biopsy tissues from patients undergoing endoscopy for Barrett's esophagus. In this cohort, we identified 21 novel candidate esophageal adenocarcinoma–associated fusions occurring in 3.33% to 11.67% of esophageal adenocarcinomas. Two candidate fusions were selected for validation by PCR and Sanger sequencing in an independent set of pretreatment esophageal adenocarcinoma (N = 115) and nonmalignant (N = 183) biopsy tissues. In particular, we observed RPS6KB1–VMP1 gene fusion as a recurrent event occurring in approximately 10% of esophageal adenocarcinoma cases. Notably, esophageal adenocarcinoma cases harboring RPS6KB1–VMP1 fusions exhibited significantly poorer overall survival as compared with fusion-negative cases. Mechanistic investigations established that the RPS6KB1–VMP1 transcript coded for a fusion protein, which significantly enhanced the growth rate of nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus cells. Compared with the wild-type VMP1 protein, which mediates normal cellular autophagy, RPS6KB1–VMP1 fusion exhibited aberrant subcellular localization and was relatively ineffective in triggering autophagy. Overall, our findings identified RPS6KB1–VMP1 as a genetic fusion that promotes esophageal adenocarcinoma by modulating autophagy-related processes, offering new insights into the molecular pathogenesis of esophageal adenocarcinomas. Cancer Res; 76(19); 5628–33. ©2016 AACR.

Abstract Background: Barrett's esophagus is often asymptomatic and only a small portion of Barrett's esophagus patients are currently diagnosed and under surveillance. Therefore, it is important to develop risk prediction models to identify high-risk individuals with Barrett's esophagus. Familial aggregation of Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma, and the increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma for individuals with a family history, raise the necessity of including genetic factors in the prediction model. Methods to determine risk prediction models using both risk covariates and ascertained family data are not well developed. Methods: We developed a Barrett's Esophagus Translational Research Network (BETRNet) risk prediction model from 787 singly ascertained Barrett's esophagus pedigrees and 92 multiplex Barrett's esophagus pedigrees, fitting a multivariate logistic model that incorporates family history and clinical risk factors. The eight risk factors, age, sex, education level, parental status, smoking, heartburn frequency, regurgitation frequency, and use of acid suppressant, were included in the model. The prediction accuracy was evaluated on the training dataset and an independent validation dataset of 643 multiplex Barrett's esophagus pedigrees. Results: Our results indicate family information helps to predict Barrett's esophagus risk, and predicting in families improves both prediction calibration and discrimination accuracy. Conclusions: Our model can predict Barrett's esophagus risk for anyone with family members known to have, or not have, had Barrett's esophagus. It can predict risk for unrelated individuals without knowing any relatives' information. Impact: Our prediction model will shed light on effectively identifying high-risk individuals for Barrett's esophagus screening and surveillance, consequently allowing intervention at an early stage, and reducing mortality from esophageal adenocarcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(5); 727–35. ©2016 AACR.