Leggett, Cadman L.

Abstract Aberrant DNA methylation and copy-number alterations (CNA) drive Barrett’s esophagus progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma; however, their combined utility for early detection is unclear. We aimed to identify and validate methylated DNA markers (MDM) and CNAs to distinguish esophageal adenocarcinoma/high-grade dysplasia (HGD) from nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (NDBE). In this multiphase, multicenter study, we discovered and validated MDMs and quantified CNAs utilizing whole-genome methylation sequencing of esophageal brushings. DNA biomarkers identified from discovery were further validated in independent patients with paired esophageal brushing and swallowed capsule sponge samples. MDMs were filtered against a reduced representation bisulfite sequencing dataset obtained from independent tissue samples to advance only concordant candidates. CNA burden was quantified using ichorCNA-derived aneuploidy scores (AS). Two hundred MDMs discovered in HGD (N = 18) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (N = 18) versus NDBE brushing samples (N = 18) were tested in independent samples (N = 146). A 52-MDM panel achieved a cross-validated AUC of 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82–0.95]; the addition of AS improved discrimination of HGD/esophageal adenocarcinoma from NDBE to 0.91 (95% CI, 0.86–0.97) AUC. At 80% specificity, the combined model detected 93% of esophageal adenocarcinoma and 88% of HGD cases. In paired capsule sponge samples, a 58-MDM panel achieved a cross-validated AUC of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66–0.88); a combined 58-MDM and AS model achieved AUC 0.80 (95% CI, 0.7–0.9). MDMs and AS discerned HGD/esophageal adenocarcinoma from normal esophagus/NDBE in endoscopic brushing and capsule sponge samples. This approach may improve Barrett’s esophagus surveillance. Prevention Relevance: This study demonstrates that combining epigenetic and genomic biomarkers across minimally invasive sampling methods can accurately distinguish HGD/esophageal adenocarcinoma from nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus, offering promising, less invasive strategies to improve BE surveillance and enable endoscopic therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma prevention and treatment.

ABSTRACTBackgroundAchalasia is associated with an increased risk of esophageal cancer; though reported incidence rates vary widely (0.4% to 9.2%) due to differences in demographics, follow‐up duration, and diagnostic methods. This study evaluates the risk of esophageal cancer and Barrett's esophagus (BE) in achalasia using a large national database and a propensity‐matched control cohort.MethodsAchalasia patients were identified utilizing the TriNetX database based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for diagnostic procedures and lower esophageal sphincter (LES) directed therapies, including Heller myotomy, peroral endoscopic myotomy, and pneumatic dilation. A matched control group of celiac disease patients was used. A 1‐year lead time was applied to exclude secondary malignant achalasia. Outcomes included the incidence of esophageal cancer and BE, with subgroup analysis in patients following therapy.ResultsAmong 7863 achalasia patients (mean age 58.0, 51.9% female), the esophageal cancer risk was significantly higher than control (risk ratio 2.87, 95% CI: 1.56–5.27, p < 0.001). The absolute risk was low, with 40 cases (0.51%) over a mean follow‐up of 3.18 years. BE risk was also higher in achalasia (risk ratio 1.54, 95% CI: 1.24–1.90, p < 0.001), with 220 cases (2.80%). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant difference in BE risk between POEM and Heller myotomy (risk ratio 1.0, 95% CI: 0.42–2.40, p > 0.99).DiscussionThe elevated cancer risk in achalasia over a short follow‐up period warrants reconsideration of current endoscopic surveillance guidelines, despite the low absolute risk of esophageal cancer and BE.

ABSTRACT Background Functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) utility is established in treatment‐naïve achalasia but less clear following lower esophageal sphincter (LES) directed therapy. Methods Achalasia patients with LES directed therapy across three tertiary care centers between 2017 and 2024 with post‐treatment FLIP and timed barium esophagram (TBE) were retrospectively identified. Reduced esophagogastric junction (EGJ) opening was defined by distensibility index (DI) < 2 mm 2 /mmHg and diameter < 12 mm. Abnormal emptying on TBE was defined as column height ≥ 5 cm at 5 min and/or retained tablet. Eckardt scores ≤ 3 defined clinical response. Key Results The study included 222 patients (46% peroral endoscopic myotomy, 46% laparoscopic Heller myotomy, 8% pneumatic dilation) with a median of 1.4 years to post‐treatment TBE/FLIP. Abnormal emptying on TBE was associated with a narrower median EGJ diameter (13.2 vs. 14.8 mm, p = 0.008), a greater frequency of EGJ diameter < 12 mm (36% vs. 21%, p = 0.012), and a smaller change in EGJ diameter (+4.6 vs. +8.6 mm, p = 0.002). Abnormal emptying on TBE occurred more frequently in patients with EGJ DI < 2 mm 2 /mmHg (8.5% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.052), but was not associated with median EGJ DI (4.5 vs. 5.1 mm 2 /mmHg, p = 0.29) nor median change in EGJ DI (+2.9 vs. +3.9 mm 2 /mmHg, p = 0.25). Patients with reduced EGJ DI or EGJ diameter more often had abnormal TBE (37% vs. 22%, p = 0.012). Only the change in DI (+3.8 vs. +1.5 mm 2 /mmHg, p = 0.012) and diameter (+8.2 vs. +1.6 mm, p = 0.002) on FLIP was associated with a clinical response based on Eckardt ≤ 3. Conclusions and Inferences FLIP following achalasia therapy generally correlates with TBE, although discrepant findings are not uncommon. In particular, FLIP EGJ‐diameter has a strong association with esophageal emptying on TBE. Both TBE and FLIP have limited association with clinical response based on Eckardt, with change in DI and diameter on FLIP most strongly associated. Consequently, FLIP as part of multimodal assessment appears useful in the longitudinal follow‐up of treated achalasia.

AbstractEndoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is recommended for the management of dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (BE) and intramucosal adenocarcinoma. Both radiofrequency (RFA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA) can induce complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM). We aimed to compare long-term durability following CRIM in patients treated with RFA vs. CBA.We conducted a retrospective cohort study to analyze patient outcomes following EET with RFA or CBA at two referral centers. We measured and compared the recurrence rate of BE, with or without dysplasia, after CRIM, using Cox proportional hazard models and propensity score-matched analyses. Our secondary aim was to identify predictors of recurrence.681 patients who achieved CRIM were included (RFA 610; CBA 71), with median follow-up of 4.1 years and 4.4 years following RFA and CBA, respectively. A multivariable model revealed a higher risk of any recurrence with RFA (hazard ratio [HR] 2.19, 95%CI 1.18–4.06; P = 0.01), but not dysplastic recurrence (HR 0.88, 95%CI 0.39–1.97; P = 0.75). However, a comparable risk of “any recurrence” was observed after excluding intestinal metaplasia of the gastroesophageal junction (HR 1.18, 95%CI 0.61–2.30; P = 0.62). Propensity score-matched analysis (54 cases in each group) showed that the two groups had comparable recurrence risk. Baseline maximum BE length was associated with a higher risk of any recurrence (HR 1.07; P<0.001) and dysplastic recurrence (HR 1.11; P = 0.001).The rates of any BE recurrence and dysplastic recurrence were comparable with the two modalities in this nonrandomized study.

INTRODUCTION: The risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus (BE) increases with advancing degrees of dysplasia. There is a critical need to improve the diagnosis of BE dysplasia, given substantial interobserver variability and overcalls of dysplasia during manual community pathologist reads. We aimed to externally validate a previously cross-validated BE dysplasia diagnosis deep learning model (BEDDLM) that predicts dysplasia grade on whole slide images (WSIs). METHODS: We digitized nondysplastic BE (NDBE), low-grade (LGD), and high-grade dysplasia (HGD) histology slides from 3 external academic centers. A consensus read by 2 expert study pathologists was used as the criterion standard. Slide stain characteristics were normalized using cycle-generative adversarial networks. WSIs were assessed by BEDDLM using an ensemble approach, combining a “You Only Look Once” model followed by a ResNet101 classifier model. RESULTS: We included 489 WSIs. Consensus histopathology revealed 232 NDBE, 117 LGD, and 140 HGD WSIs. The mean age (SD) was 66.9 (11.4) years; 413 (84.7%) were men. Using the BEDDLM ensemble model, sensitivity and specificity for NDBE were 73.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 67.09%–78.85%) and 93.4% (95% CI: 89.62%–96.10%); for LGD, 84.6% (95% CI: 76.78%–90.62%) and 80.6% (95% CI: 76.26%–84.54%); and for HGD, 80.7% (95% CI: 73.19%–86.89%) and 94.8% (95% CI: 91.97%–96.91%), respectively. The F1 score was 0.81, 0 0.69, and 0.83 for NDBE, LGD, and HGD, respectively. DISCUSSION: Our externally validated deep learning model demonstrates substantial accuracy for the diagnosis of BE dysplasia grade on WSIs.

AbstractAlthough endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is associated with higher en-bloc and R0 resection rates than cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (cEMR), its comparative impact on achieving complete remission of dysplasia (CRD) and intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) in BE endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is not well defined. We aimed to compare the journey of patients from initial endoscopic resection (ER) with ESD and cEMR to achieving CRD and CRIM.Patients undergoing ESD or cEMR followed by ablation for BE neoplasia at two academic institutions in the United States were included. Primary outcomes included CRD and CRIM rates following ER in the two groups. Secondary outcomes included the number of resection/ablative procedures from initial ER to achieving CRD and CRIM. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to balance confounding variables between groups.A total of 801 patients (606 cEMR, 195 ESD) were included. ESD group patients had higher en-bloc resection rates (ESD 94.4%, cEMR 44.7%). Higher rates of CRD were observed in patients undergoing initial ESD (HR 1.53, P < 0.01). With time-to-event and IPTW analyses, rates of achieving CRD and CRIM were comparable between the groups. There were no significant differences in mean number of endoscopic resection or ablative procedures among patients undergoing initial cEMR resection compared with those treated with initial ESD.Despite larger lesion sizes and more cancers in patients undergoing ESD, the EET journey to achieving CRD and CRIM was comparable to that in patients receiving cEMR. Prospective studies are required to further study differences between these two treatment approaches.

INTRODUCTION: Barrett esophagus (BE) is the strongest known risk factor for developing esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), the second-most lethal cancer in the United States. Esopredict is a novel validated methylation-based biomarker assay that provides precise quantification of neoplastic progression risk in BE patients. Inherit challenges, including tissue heterogeneity, sampling error, interobserver variability, and inconsistent adherence to surveillance biopsy guidelines, may affect the predictive value results of Esopredict obtained at different anatomic locations or different sampling time points. METHODS: To investigate the spatiotemporal performance of Esopredict across multiple spatiotemporal sampling points, we profiled 220 biopsies obtained from 58 BE patients, including 11 patients with overlapping spatial and temporal biopsies. We focused on spatial profiling (i.e., multiple biopsies obtained at several anatomic locations during a single endoscopy) and temporal profiling (i.e., biopsies obtained from multiple endoscopies performed at different time points). Each patient had an initial histologic diagnosis of nondysplastic Barrett esophagus, indefinite for dysplasia, or low-grade dysplasia. Final follow-up (endpoint) biopsies showed either high-grade dysplasia or EAC (progressors), or nondysplastic Barrett esophagus, indefinite for dysplasia, or low-grade dysplasia (nonprogressors). Biopsies were analyzed with Esopredict to compute a progression risk score, which quantified the likelihood of future progression to high-grade dysplasia or EAC within 5 years. RESULTS: In 52 spatially profiled patients, Esopredict demonstrated a sensitivity of 81% (17/21 progressor patients), based on the highest-scoring biopsy from each patient; sensitivity increased to 100% (12/12) when end point biopsies occurred within 5 years of the index (initial) biopsy. In 28 temporally profiled patients, sensitivity was 100% (8/8 patients), based on the biopsy performed at the time point closest to the end point biopsy. DISCUSSION: Esopredict showed high predictive performance in multiple spatiotemporal samples in BE patients. These data further support the use of Esopredict as a robust test to distinguish high-risk BE patients, who may benefit from endoscopic eradication therapy or increased surveillance frequency, from low-risk patients, who may be candidates for less frequent surveillance and noninterventional observation.