Chak, Amitabh

INTRODUCTION: Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) is effective for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk cases, but the optimal technical approach to this intervention remains uncertain. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of 787 clinical trial patients who underwent successful stent placement, we studied the impact of (i) whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP or naturally during the conduct of the case, (ii) the amount of effort expended on PSP, (iii) stent length, (iv) stent diameter, and (v) guidewire caliber. We used logistic regression models to examine the adjusted association between each technical factor and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). RESULTS: Ninety-one of the 787 patients experienced PEP. There was no clear association between PEP and whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP (vs occurring naturally; odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–1.84), whether substantial effort expended on stent placement (vs nonsubstantial effort; OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.73–3.45), stent length (>5 vs ≤5 cm; OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63–1.61), stent diameter (≥5 vs <5 Fr; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.65–1.96), or guidewire caliber (0.035 vs 0.025 in; 0.83, 95% CI 0.49–1.41). DISCUSSION: The 5 modifiable technical factors studied in this secondary analysis of large-scale randomized trial data did not appear to have a strong impact on the benefit of prophylactic PSP in preventing PEP after high-risk ERCP. Within the limitations of post hoc subgroup analysis, these findings may have important implications in procedural decision making and suggest that the benefit of PSP is robust to variations in technical approach.

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: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) combining endoscopic resection (ER) with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) followed by ablation is the standard of care for the treatment of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE). We have previously shown comparable rates of complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) with both approaches. However, data comparing recurrence after CRIM are lacking. We compared rates of recurrence after CRIM with both techniques in a multicenter cohort. METHODS: Patients undergoing EET achieving CRIM at 3 academic institutions were included. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted. Outcomes included rates and predictors of any BE and dysplastic BE recurrence in the 2 groups. Cox-proportional hazards models and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis were used for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 621 patients (514 EMR and 107 ESD) achieving CRIM were included in the recurrence analysis. The incidence of any BE (15.7, 5.7 per 100 patient-years) and dysplastic BE recurrence (7.3, 5.3 per 100 patient-years) were comparable in the EMR and ESD groups, respectively. On multivariable analyses, the chances of BE recurrence were not influenced by ER technique (hazard ratio 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.51–1.49; P = 0.62), which was also confirmed by IPTW analysis (ESD vs EMR: hazard ratio 0.98; 95% confidence interval 0.56–1.73; P = 0.94). BE length, lesion size, and history of cigarette smoking were independent predictors of BE recurrence. DISCUSSION: Patients with BE dysplasia/neoplasia achieving CRIM, initially treated with EMR/ablation, had comparable recurrence rates to ESD/ablation. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these outcomes between the 2 ER techniques.

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.

Abstract Background The difference in clinical outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early Barrett's esophagus (BE) neoplasia remains unclear. We compared the recurrence/residual tissue rates, resection outcomes, and adverse events after ESD and EMR for early BE neoplasia. Methods We included patients who underwent EMR or ESD for BE-associated high grade dysplasia (HGD) or T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) at eight academic hospitals. We compared demographic, procedural, and histologic characteristics, and follow-up data. A time-to-event analysis was performed to evaluate recurrence/residual disease and a Kaplan–Meier curve was used to compare the groups. Results 243 patients (150 EMR; 93 ESD) were included. EMR had lower en bloc (43 % vs. 89 %; P < 0.001) and R0 (56 % vs. 73 %; P = 0.01) rates than ESD. There was no difference in the rates of perforation (0.7 % vs. 0; P > 0.99), early bleeding (0.7 % vs. 1 %; P > 0.99), delayed bleeding (3.3 % vs. 2.1 %; P = 0.71), and stricture (10 % vs. 16 %; P = 0.16) between EMR and ESD. Patients with non-curative resections who underwent further therapy were excluded from the recurrence analysis. Recurrent/residual disease was 31.4 % [44/140] for EMR and 3.5 % [3/85] for ESD during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 15.5 (6.75–30) and 8 (2–18) months, respectively. Recurrence-/residual disease-free survival was significantly higher in the ESD group. More patients required additional endoscopic resection procedures to treat recurrent/residual disease after EMR (EMR 24.2 % vs. ESD 3.5 %; P < 0.001). Conclusions ESD is safe and results in more definitive treatment of early BE neoplasia, with significantly lower recurrence/residual disease rates and less need for repeat endoscopic treatments than with EMR.