Citations

ABSTRACT Objectives: Clinical features of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) have been well‐described in the literature, however, characterization of features experienced by patients with other eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) is lacking. Using data collected from a patient contact registry, we sought to characterize and contrast patient‐reported gastrointestinal and extragastrointestinal symptoms and comorbidities in non‐EoE EGIDs, including eosinophilic gastritis, gastroenteritis and colitis, relative to EoE. Methods: We conducted a cross‐sectional study of contact registry data collected from 2015 to 2018. Statistical comparisons were made using chi‐square (categorical measures) and the Mann‐Whitney U test (continuous measures). Multivariable analyses were used to evaluate associations between treatment and feelings of isolation. Results: Of the 715 reporting an EGID diagnosis (n = 525 EoE; n = 190 non‐EoE EGID), a higher proportion of those with a non‐EoE EGID reported more frequent specific and nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms, including nausea, abdominal pain, diarrhea, constipation, and bloating ( P < 0.01 for all). Participants with a non‐EoE EGID were more likely to report higher frequency of fatigue, isolation, and deep muscle or joint pain ( P < 0.01 for all). Specific food elimination and elemental formula treatments were associated with increased odds of more frequent (at least weekly) feelings of isolation for participants with EoE (adjusted odds rtaio [aOR]: 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.5‐‐4.1 for specific food elimination and adjusted OR: 1.9; 95% CI: 1.2‐‐3.3 for elemental formula). Conclusions: Significant differences exist in the symptoms and comorbidities experienced between those with EoE versus non‐EoE EGIDs. Additional investigation is needed to elucidate the factors that may contribute to the high disease burden of these poorly understood conditions.

OBJECTIVES: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), a chronic food allergic disease, lacks sensitive and specific peripheral biomarkers. We hypothesized that levels of EoE-related biomarkers captured using a 1-hour minimally invasive Esophageal String Test (EST) would correlate with mucosal eosinophil counts and tissue concentrations of these same biomarkers. We aimed to determine whether a 1-hour EST accurately distinguishes active from inactive EoE or a normal esophagus. METHODS: In a prospective, multisite study, children and adults (ages 7–55 years) undergoing a clinically indicated esophagogastroduodenoscopy performed an EST with an esophageal dwell time of 1 hour. Subjects were divided into 3 groups: active EoE, inactive EoE, and normal esophageal mucosa. Eosinophil-associated protein levels were compared between EST effluents and esophageal biopsy extracts. Statistical modeling was performed to select biomarkers that best correlated with and predicted eosinophilic inflammation. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four subjects (74 children, 60 adults) with active EoE (n = 62), inactive EoE (n = 37), and patient controls with a normal esophagus (n = 35) completed the study. EST-captured eosinophil-associated biomarkers correlated significantly with peak eosinophils/high-power field, endoscopic visual scoring, and the same proteins extracted from mucosal biopsies. Statistical modeling, using combined eotaxin-3 and major basic protein-1 concentrations, led to the development of EoE scores that distinguished subjects with active EoE from inactive EoE or normal esophagi. Eighty-seven percent of children, 95% of parents, and 92% of adults preferred the EST over endoscopy if it provided similar information. DISCUSSION: The 1-hour EST accurately distinguishes active from inactive EoE in children and adults and may facilitate monitoring of disease activity in a safe and minimally invasive fashion.

Abstract Archival tumor samples present a rich resource of annotated specimens for genomics research. However, standard variant calling approaches require a matched normal sample from the same individual, which is often not available with archival tissue. Without a matched normal sample, it is very difficult to distinguish between true somatic variants and germline variants that are private to the individual. Archival FFPE sections often contain adjacent normal tissue, but this normal tissue is often contaminated with infiltrating tumor cells. Comparative somatic variant callers are designed to exclude variants present in the normal sample, so a novel approach is required to leverage sequencing of adjacent normal tissue. Here we present LumosVar 2.0, a software package designed to jointly analyze multiple samples from the same patient. The approach is based on the concept that the allelic fraction of somatic variants, but not germline variants, would be diluted by the presence of normal tissue. Given the allele specific copy number state and expected tumor fraction of each sample, one can model the expected allelic fractions of somatic and germline variants. LumosVar estimates allele specific copy number and tumor sample fractions from the data, and uses the model to call somatic and germline variants. LumosVar is also able to detect sub clonal events and spatial heterogeneity between samples. To evaluate this approach, we used a glioblastoma dataset, where enhancing (high tumor content) and non-enhancing (low tumor content) samples were available for each patient, as well as the matched normal sample to define the true somatic variants. We show that both sensitivity and positive predictive value are improved by analyzing the high tumor and low tumor jointly compared to analyzing the samples individually or in silico pooling of the two samples. Finally, we apply this approach to a set of breast and prostate archival FFPE tumor samples where normal samples were not available for germline sequencing. Citation Format: Rebecca F. Halperin, Winnie S. Liang, Erica Tassone, Jonathan Adkins, Megan Russell, Nhan Tran, Nicole Hank, James Newell, Sandeep Gupta, Michael Berens, Ronald Korn, David W. Craig, Sara A. Byron. Leveraging spatial heterogeneity in tumor purity for improved somatic variant calling of archival tumor-only samples [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-007. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-LB-007

Consensus diagnostic recommendations to distinguish GORD from eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) by response to a trial of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) unexpectedly uncovered an entity called ‘PPI-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia’ (PPI-REE). PPI-REE refers to patients with clinical and histological features of EoE that remit with PPI treatment. Recent and evolving evidence, mostly from adults, shows that patients with PPI-REE and patients with EoE at baseline are clinically, endoscopically and histologically indistinguishable and have a significant overlap in terms of features of Th2 immune-mediated inflammation and gene expression. Furthermore, PPI therapy restores oesophageal mucosal integrity, reduces Th2 inflammation and reverses the abnormal gene expression signature in patients with PPI-REE, similar to the effects of topical steroids in patients with EoE. Additionally, recent series have reported that patients with EoE responsive to diet/topical steroids may also achieve remission on PPI therapy. This mounting evidence supports the concept that PPI-REE represents a continuum of the same immunological mechanisms that underlie EoE. Accordingly, it seems counterintuitive to differentiate PPI-REE from EoE based on a differential response to PPI therapy when their phenotypic, molecular, mechanistic and therapeutic features cannot be reliably distinguished. For patients with symptoms and histological features of EoE, it is reasonable to consider PPI therapy not as a diagnostic test, but as a therapeutic agent. Due to its safety profile, ease of administration and high response rates (up to 50%), PPI can be considered a first-line treatment before diet and topical steroids. The reasons why some patients with EoE respond to PPI, while others do not, remain to be elucidated.