Konda, Vani J.

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.

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.

INTRODUCTION: High-resolution manometry (HRM) and functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) are primary and/or complementary diagnostic tools for the evaluation of esophageal motility. We aimed to assess the interrater agreement and accuracy of HRM and FLIP interpretations. METHODS: Esophageal motility specialists from multiple institutions completed the interpretation of 40 consecutive HRM and 40 FLIP studies. Interrater agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for continuous variables and Fleiss' κ statistics for nominal variables. Accuracies of rater interpretation were assessed using the consensus of 3 experienced raters as the reference standard. RESULTS: Fifteen raters completed the HRM and FLIP studies. An excellent interrater agreement was seen in supine median integral relaxation pressure (ICC 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.95–0.98), and a good agreement was seen with the assessment of esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow, peristalsis, and assignment of a Chicago Classification version 4.0 diagnosis using HRM (κ = 0.71, 0.75, and 0.70, respectively). An excellent interrater agreement for EGJ distensibility index and maximum diameter (0.91 [0.90–0.94], 0.92 [0.89–0.95]) was seen, and a moderate-to-good agreement was seen in the assignment of EGJ opening classification, contractile response pattern, and motility classification (κ = 0.68, 0.56, and 0.59, respectively) on FLIP. Rater accuracy for Chicago Classification version 4.0 diagnosis on HRM was 82% (95% confidence interval 78%–84%) and for motility diagnosis on FLIP Panometry was 78% (95% confidence interval 72%–81%). DISCUSSION: Our study demonstrates high levels of interrater agreement and accuracy in the interpretation of HRM and FLIP metrics and moderate-to-high levels for motility classification in FLIP, supporting the use of these approaches for primary or complementary evaluation of esophageal motility disorders.

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.

INTRODUCTION: Functional luminal imaging probe (FLIP) panometry can evaluate esophageal motility in response to sustained esophageal distension at the time of sedated endoscopy. This study aimed to describe a classification of esophageal motility using FLIP panometry and evaluate it against high-resolution manometry (HRM) and Chicago Classification v4.0 (CCv4.0). METHODS: Five hundred thirty-nine adult patients who completed FLIP and HRM with a conclusive CCv4.0 diagnosis were included in the primary analysis. Thirty-five asymptomatic volunteers (“controls”) and 148 patients with an inconclusive CCv4.0 diagnosis or systemic sclerosis were also described. Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) opening and the contractile response (CR) to distension (i.e., secondary peristalsis) were evaluated with a 16-cm FLIP during sedated endoscopy and analyzed using a customized software program. HRM was classified according to CCv4.0. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, 156 patients (29%) had normal motility on FLIP panometry, defined by normal EGJ opening and a normal or borderline CR; 95% of these patients had normal motility or ineffective esophageal motility on HRM. Two hundred two patients (37%) had obstruction with weak CR, defined as reduced EGJ opening and absent CR or impaired/disordered CR, on FLIP panometry; 92% of these patients had a disorder of EGJ outflow per CCv4.0. DISCUSSION: Classifying esophageal motility in response to sustained distension with FLIP panometry parallels the swallow-associated motility evaluation provided with HRM and CCv4.0. Thus, FLIP panometry serves as a well-tolerated method that can complement, or in some cases be an alternative to HRM, for evaluating esophageal motility disorders.

AbstractVolumetric laser endomicroscopy (VLE) has been shown to improve detection of early neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus (BE). However, diagnostic performance using histopathology-correlated VLE regions of interest (ROIs) has not been adequately studied. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of VLE assessors for identification of early BE neoplasia in histopathology-correlated VLE ROIs. In total, 191 ROIs (120 nondysplastic and 71 neoplastic) from 50 BE patients were evaluated in a random order using a web-based module. All ROIs contained histopathology correlations enabled by VLE laser marking. Assessors were blinded to endoscopic BE images and histology. ROIs were first scored as nondysplastic or neoplastic. Level of confidence was assigned to the predicted diagnosis. Outcome measures were: (i) diagnostic performance of VLE assessors for identification of BE neoplasia in all VLE ROIs, defined as accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity; (ii) diagnostic performance of VLE assessors for only high level of confidence predictions; and (iii) interobserver agreement. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for BE neoplasia identification were 79% (confidence interval [CI], 75–83), 75% (CI, 71–79), and 81% (CI, 76–86), respectively. When neoplasia was identified with a high level of confidence, accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 88%, 83%, and 90%, respectively. The overall strength of interobserver agreement was fair (k = 0.29). VLE assessors can identify BE neoplasia with reasonable diagnostic accuracy in histopathology-correlated VLE ROIs, and accuracy is enhanced when BE neoplasia is identified with high level of confidence. Future work should focus on renewed VLE image reviewing criteria and real-time automatic assessment of VLE scans.

Abstract Background Volumetric laser endomicroscopy (VLE) allows for near-microscopic imaging of the superficial esophageal wall and may improve detection of early neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus (BE). Interpretation of a 6-cm long, circumferential VLE “full scan” may however be challenging for endoscopists. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of VLE experts in correctly diagnosing VLE full scans of early neoplasia and non-dysplastic BE (NDBE). Methods 29 VLE full scan videos (15 neoplastic and 14 NDBE) were randomly evaluated by 12 VLE experts using a web-based module. Experts were blinded to the endoscopic BE images and histology. The 15 neoplastic cases contained a subtle endoscopically visible lesion, which on endoscopic resection showed high grade dysplasia or cancer. NDBE cases had no visible lesions and an absence of dysplasia in all biopsies. VLE videos were first scored as “neoplastic” or “NDBE.” If neoplastic, assessors located the area most suspicious for neoplasia. Primary outcome was the performance of VLE experts in differentiating between non-dysplastic and neoplastic full scan videos, calculated by accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. Secondary outcomes included correct location of neoplasia, interobserver agreement, and level of confidence. Results VLE experts correctly labelled 73 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 67 % – 79 %) of neoplastic VLE videos. In 54 % (range 27 % – 66 %) both neoplastic diagnosis and lesion location were correct. NDBE videos were consistent with endoscopic biopsies in 52 % (95 %CI 46 % – 57 %). Interobserver agreement was fair (kappa 0.28). High level of confidence was associated with a higher rate of correct neoplastic diagnosis (81 %) and lesion location (73 %). Conclusions Identification of subtle neoplastic lesions in VLE full scans by experts was disappointing. Future studies should focus on improving methodologies for reviewing full scans, development of refined VLE criteria for neoplasia, and computer-aided diagnosis of VLE scans.

SUMMARY Volumetric laser endomicroscopy (VLE) uses optical coherence tomography (OCT) for real-time, microscopic cross-sectional imaging. A US-based multi-center registry was constructed to prospectively collect data on patients undergoing upper endoscopy during which a VLE scan was performed. The objective of this registry was to determine usage patterns of VLE in clinical practice and to estimate quantitative and qualitative performance metrics as they are applied to Barrett's esophagus (BE) management. All procedures utilized the NvisionVLE Imaging System (NinePoint Medical, Bedford, MA) which was used by investigators to identify the tissue types present, along with focal areas of concern. Following the VLE procedure, investigators were asked to answer six key questions regarding how VLE impacted each case. Statistical analyses including neoplasia diagnostic yield improvement using VLE was performed. One thousand patients were enrolled across 18 US trial sites from August 2014 through April 2016. In patients with previously diagnosed or suspected BE (894/1000), investigators used VLE and identified areas of concern not seen on white light endoscopy (WLE) in 59% of the procedures. VLE imaging also guided tissue acquisition and treatment in 71% and 54% of procedures, respectively. VLE as an adjunct modality improved the neoplasia diagnostic yield by 55% beyond the standard of care practice. In patients with no prior history of therapy, and without visual findings from other technologies, VLE-guided tissue acquisition increased neoplasia detection over random biopsies by 700%. Registry investigators reported that VLE improved the BE management process when used as an adjunct tissue acquisition and treatment guidance tool. The ability of VLE to image large segments of the esophagus with microscopic cross-sectional detail may provide additional benefits including higher yield biopsies and more efficient tissue acquisition. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02215291

Background Probe‐based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE) provides microscopic imaging during an endoscopic procedure. Its introduction as a standard modality in gastroenterology has brought significant progress in management strategies, affecting many aspects of clinical care and requiring standardisation of practice and training. Objective This study aimed to provide guidance on the standardisation of its practice and training in Barrett's oesophagus, biliary strictures, colorectal lesions and inflammatory bowel diseases. Methods Initial statements were developed by five group leaders, based on the available clinical evidence. These statements were then voted and edited by the 26 participants, using a modified Delphi approach. After two rounds of votes, statements were validated if the threshold of agreement was higher than 75%. Results Twenty‐six experts participated and, among a total of 77 statements, 61 were adopted (79%) and 16 were rejected (21%). The adoption of each statement was justified by the grade of evidence. Conclusion pCLE should be used to enhance the diagnostic arsenal in the evaluation of these indications, by providing microscopic information which improves the diagnostic performance of the physician. In order actually to implement this technology in the clinical routine, and to ensure good practice, standardised initial and continuing institutional training programmes should be established.