Screening for Barrett's esophagus: results from a population-based survey

Public Preference Heterogeneity and Predicted Uptake Rate of Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Screening Programs in Rural China: Discrete Choice Experiments and Latent Class Analysis

BACKGROUND

Rapid increases in the morbidity and mortality of patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer (UGC) in high-incidence countries in Asia have raised public health concerns. Screening can effectively reduce the incidence and mortality of patients with UGC, but the low population uptake rate seriously affects the screening effect.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the characteristics that influence residents' preference heterogeneity for a UGC-screening program and the extent to which these characteristics predict residents' uptake rates.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment was conducted in 1000 residents aged 40-69 years who were randomly selected from 3 counties (Feicheng, Linqu, and Dongchangfu) in Shandong Province, China. Each respondent was repeatedly asked to choose from 9 discrete choice questions of 2 hypothetical screening programs comprising 5 attributes: screening interval, screening technique, regular follow-up for precancerous lesions, mortality reduction, and out-of-pocket costs. The latent class logit model was used to estimate residents' preference heterogeneity for each attribute level, their willingness to pay, and the expected uptake rates.

RESULTS

Of the 1000 residents invited, 926 (92.6%) were included in the final analyses. The mean age was 57.32 (SD 7.22) years. The best model contained 4 classes of respondents (Akaike information criterion=7140.989, Bayesian information criterion=7485.373) defined by different preferences for the 5 attributes. In the 4-class model, out of 926 residents, 88 (9.5%) were assigned to class 1, named as the negative latent type; 216 (3.3%) were assigned to class 2, named as the positive integrated type; 434 (46.9%) were assigned to class 3, named as the positive comfortable type; and 188 (20.3%) were assigned to class 4, named as the neutral quality type. For these 4 latent classes, "out-of-pocket cost" is the most preferred attribute in negative latent type and positive integrated type residents (45.04% vs 66.04% importance weights), whereas "screening technique" is the most preferred factor in positive comfortable type residents (62.56% importance weight) and "screening interval" is the most valued attribute in neutral quality type residents (47.05% importance weight). Besides, residents in different classes had common preference for painless endoscopy, and their willingness to pay were CNY ¥385.369 (US $59.747), CNY ¥93.44 (US $14.486), CNY ¥1946.48 (US $301.810), and CNY ¥3566.60 (US $552.961), respectively. Residents' participation rate could increase by more than 89% (except for the 60.98% in class 2) if the optimal UGC screening option with free, follow-up for precancerous lesions, 45% mortality reduction, screening every year, and painless endoscopy was implemented.

CONCLUSIONS

Public preference heterogeneity for UGC screening does exist. Most residents have a positive attitude toward UGC screening, but their preferences vary in selected attributes and levels, except for painless endoscopy. Policy makers should consider these heterogeneities to formulate UGC-screening programs that incorporate the public's needs and preferences to improve participation rates.

Dutch individuals' views of screening for oesophageal cancer: a focus group study

OBJECTIVE

Screening for early oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), including its precursor Barrett's oesophagus (BO), can potentially reduce OAC-related morbidity and mortality. This study explores Dutch at-risk individuals' views of screening an at-risk population for BO/OAC.

DESIGN

We invited 372 individuals with risk factors for OAC from primary care practices, 73 individuals with surveillance experience, and 221 participants of previous studies (BO/OAC screening trial or survey) to participate in focus groups. Transcripts were inductively and thematically analysed by two independent researchers.

RESULTS

A total of 50 individuals (42% with gastro-oesophageal reflux symptoms) of 50-75 years participated. Themes that were raised included: theme 1 'screening intentions' describing participants' motivation to be screened (eg, early diagnosis, potential reassurance, physician recommendation, and knowing someone with cancer) or decline screening (eg, anticipated discomfort or suboptimal accuracy of the test); theme 2 'risk-based eligibility' describing the tension between effectiveness (eg, targeting high-risk individuals) and inclusivity (eg, making screening available for everyone); theme 3 'distributive justice', in which the pressure of a potential new screening programme on healthcare resources was discussed; and theme 4 'information needs' describing the perceived lack of information access and individuals' preference to discuss screening with their general practitioner.

CONCLUSION

Individuals not only expressed high willingness to be screened but also voiced the concern that a new screening programme may pressure limited healthcare resources. If implemented, it is crucial to develop educational materials that meet the public's information needs and explain the test procedures and eligibility criteria while avoiding stigmatising language.

Patient Knowledge, Risk Perception, and Barriers to Barrett's Esophagus Screening

INTRODUCTION

Most patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) do not have a previous diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus (BE), demonstrating a failure of current screening practices. An understanding of patient attitudes and barriers is essential to develop and implement interventions to improve BE screening adherence.

METHODS

We conducted a Web-based survey of patients aged >50 years with chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease at 3 academic medical centers and 1 affiliated safety net health systems. Survey domains included patient characteristics, endoscopy history, familiarity with screening practices, perceived BE/EAC risk, and barriers to screening.

RESULTS

We obtained a response rate of 22.6% (472/2,084) (74% men, mean age 67.9 years). Self-identified race and ethnicity of participants was 66.5% non-Hispanic White, 20.0% non-Hispanic Black, 13.4% other race, and 7.1% Hispanic. Screening for BE was recommended in only 13.2%, and only 5.3% reported previous screening. Respondents had notable gaps in knowledge about screening indications; only two-thirds correctly identified BE risk factors and only 19.5% believed BE screening was needed for gastroesophageal reflux disease. More than 1 in 5 respondents believed they would get BE (31.9%) or EAC (20.2%) but reported barriers to screening. Compared with White respondents, more Black respondents were concerned about getting BE/EAC and interested in screening but report higher barriers to screening.

DISCUSSION

Patients at risk for BE, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, are worried about developing EAC but rarely undergo screening and have poor understanding of screening recommendations.

Public acceptance and uptake of oesophageal adenocarcinoma screening strategies: A mixed-methods systematic review

Oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) is increasingly diagnosed and often fatal, thus representing a growing global health concern. Screening for its precursor, Barrett's oesophagus (BO), combined with endoscopic surveillance and treatment of dysplasia might prevent OAC. This review aimed to systematically explore the public's acceptance and uptake of novel screening strategies for OAC. We systematically searched three electronic databases (Ovid Medline/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE and PsycINFO) from date of inception to July 2, 2021 and hand-searched references to identify original studies published in English on acceptability and uptake of OAC screening. Two reviewers independently reviewed and appraised retrieved records and two reviewers extracted data (verified by one other reviewer). Of the 3674 unique records, 19 studies with 15 249 participants were included in the review. Thematic analysis of findings showed that acceptability of OAC screening is related to disease awareness, fear, belief in benefit, practicalities and physical discomfort. The findings were mapped on the Integrated Screening Action Model. Minimally invasive screening tests are generally well-tolerated: patient-reported outcomes were reported for sedated upper endoscopy (tolerability ++), transnasal endoscopy (tolerability +), tethered capsule endomicroscopy (tolerability +/-), and the Cytosponge-TFF3 test (acceptability ++). In discrete choice experiments, individuals mainly valued screening test accuracy. OAC screening has been performed in trials using conventional upper endoscopy (n = 231 individuals), transnasal endoscopy (n = 966), capsule endoscopy (n = 657) and the Cytosponge-TFF3 test (n = 9679), with uptake ranging from 14·5% to 48·1%. Intended participation in OAC screening in questionnaire-based studies ranged from 62·8% to 71·4%. We conclude that the general public seems to have interest in OAC screening. The findings will provide input for the design of a screening strategy that incorporates the public's values and preferences to improve informed participation. Identification of a screening strategy effective in reducing OAC mortality and morbidity remains a crucial prerequisite.

FUNDING

This study was funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) under grant 555,004,206.

Validation of a methylated DNA marker panel for the nonendoscopic detection of Barrett's esophagus in a multisite case-control study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We previously identified a 5 methylated DNA marker (MDM) panel for the detection of nonendoscopic Barrett's esophagus (BE). In this study, we aimed to recalibrate the performance of the 5 MDM panel using a simplified assay in a training cohort, validate the panel in an independent test cohort, and explore the accuracy of an MDM panel with only 3 markers.

METHODS

Participants were recruited from 3 medical centers. The sponge on a string device (EsophaCap; CapNostics, Concord, NC, USA) was swallowed and withdrawn, followed by endoscopy, in BE cases and control subjects. A 5 MDM panel was blindly assayed using a simplified assay. Random forest modeling analysis was performed, in silico cross-validated in the training set, and then locked down, before test set analysis.

RESULTS

The training set had 199 patients: 110 BE cases and 89 control subjects, and the test set had 89 patients: 60 BE cases and 29 control subjects. Sensitivity of the 5 MDM panel for BE diagnosis was 93% at 90% specificity in the training set and 93% at 93% specificity in the test set. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were .96 and .97 in the training and test sets, respectively. Model accuracy was not influenced by age, sex, or smoking history. Multiple 3 MDM panels achieved similar accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

A 5 MDM panel for BE is highly accurate in training and test sets in a blinded multisite case-control analysis using a simplified assay. This panel may be reduced to only 3 MDMs in the future. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02560623.).

Public Preferences and Predicted Uptake for Esophageal Cancer Screening Strategies: A Labeled Discrete Choice Experiment

INTRODUCTION:

As novel, less invasive (non)endoscopic techniques for detection of Barrett's esophagus (BE) have been developed, there is now renewed interest in screening for BE and related neoplasia. We aimed to determine public preferences for esophageal adenocarcinoma screening to understand the potential of minimally invasive screening modalities.

METHODS:

A discrete choice experiment was conducted in 1,500 individuals, aged 50–75 years, from the general population. Individuals were repeatedly asked to choose between screening scenarios based on conventional upper endoscopy, transnasal endoscopy, nonendoscopic cell collection devices, breath analysis, and a blood test, combined with various levels of test sensitivity and specificity, and no screening. A multinomial logit model was used to estimate individuals' preferences and to calculate expected participation rates.

RESULTS:

In total, 554 respondents (36.9%) completed the survey. The average predicted uptake was 70.5% (95% confidence interval: 69.1%–71.8%). Test sensitivity (47.7%), screening technique (32.6%), and specificity (19.7%) affected screening participation (all P < 0.05). A low test sensitivity had the highest impact on screening participation, resulting in a 25.0% (95% confidence interval: 22.6%–27.7%) decrease. Respondents preferred noninvasive screening tests over endoscopic and capsule-based techniques, but only if sensitivity and specificity were above 80%.

DISCUSSION:

Our study suggests that individuals generally prefer noninvasive BE screening tests. However, these tests would unlikely improve screening uptake when associated with a much lower accuracy for detecting BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma compared with conventional upper endoscopy. Improving accuracy of minimally invasive screening strategies and informing the target population about these accuracies is therefore essential to maximally stimulate screening participation.

Individuals' Preferences for Esophageal Cancer Screening: A Discrete Choice Experiment

OBJECTIVES

The increasing incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and the dismal prognosis has stimulated interest in the early detection of EAC. Our objective was to determine individuals' preferences for EAC screening and to assess to what extent procedural characteristics of EAC screening tests predict willingness for screening participation.

METHODS

A discrete choice experiment questionnaire was sent by postal mail to 1000 subjects aged 50 to 75 years who were randomly selected from the municipal registry in the Netherlands. Each subject answered 12 discrete choice questions of 2 hypothetical screening tests comprising 5 attributes: EAC-related mortality risk reduction, procedure-related pain and discomfort, screening location, test specificity, and costs. A multinomial logit model was used to estimate individuals' preferences for each attribute level and to calculate expected rates of uptake.

RESULTS

In total, 375 individuals (37.5%) completed the questionnaire. Test specificity, pain and discomfort, mortality reduction, and out-of-pocket costs all had a significant impact on respondents' preferences. The average expected uptake of EAC screening was 62.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 61.1-64.5). Severe pain and discomfort had the largest impact on screening uptake (-22.8%; 95% CI -26.8 to -18.7). Male gender (β 2.81; P < .001), cancer worries (β 1.96; P = .01), endoscopy experience (β 1.46; P = .05), and upper gastrointestinal symptoms (β 1.50; P = .05) were significantly associated with screening participation.

CONCLUSIONS

EAC screening implementation should consider patient preferences to maximize screening attendance uptake. Based on our results, an optimal screening test should have high specificity, cause no or mild to moderate pain or discomfort, and result in a decrease in EAC-related mortality.

Upper gastrointestinal tract capsule endoscopy using a nurse-led protocol: First reported experience

AIM

To test the feasibility and performance of a novel upper gastrointestinal (GI) capsule endoscope using a nurse-led protocol.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort analysis of patients who declined gastroscopy (oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, OGD) but who consented to upper GI capsule endoscopy. Patients swallowed the upper GI capsule following ingestion of 1 liter of water (containing simethicone). A series of positional changes were used to exploit the effects of water flow and move the upper GI capsule from one gravity-dependent area to another using a nurse-led protocol. Capsule transit time, video reading time, mucosal visualisation, pathology detection and patient tolerance was evaluated.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were included in the study. The mean capsule transit times in the oesophagus and stomach were 28 s and 68 min respectively. Visualisation of the following major anatomical landmarks was achieved (graded 1-5: Poor to excellent): Oesophagus, 4.8 (± 0.5); gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ), 4.8 (± 0.8); cardia, 4.8 (± 0.8); fundus, 3.8 (± 1.2); body, 4.5 (± 1); antrum, 4.5 (± 1); pylorus, 4.7 (± 0.8); duodenal bulb, 4.7 (± 0.7); second part of the duodenum (D2), 4.7 (± 1). The upper GI capsule reached D2 in 64% of patients. The mean video reading time was 48 min with standard playback mode and 20 min using Quickview (P = 0.0001). No pathology was missed using Quickview. Procedural tolerance was excellent. No complications were seen with the upper GI capsule.

CONCLUSION

The upper GI capsule achieved excellent views of the upper GI tract. Future studies should compare the diagnostic accuracy between upper GI capsule and OGD.

Recent Advances in Non-invasive Esophageal Tissue Sampling

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The costs to society and accuracy of screening for esophageal cancer and other esophageal diseases with standard endoscopy are formidable. As a result, the applicability of endoscopy as a general screening tool has been challenged.

RECENT FINDINGS

To maintain accuracy but reduce the price of endoscopy on society, multiple adjunct or replacement technologies are being developed that are less expensive and more easily applied. These devices include image-enhancing techniques that more reliably identify dysplasia and cancer reducing the need for extensive biopsy sampling during standard endoscopy. They also include ambulatory forms for procuring esophageal imaging including smaller endoscopes and capsule endoscopy. Finally, some of the newer methods either obtain samples of esophageal tissue through bedside maneuvers not requiring endoscopy or retrieve information about mucosal inflammation and function without the need to procure esophageal tissue. There is an exciting future for esophageal diagnosis with tools that will save cost and/or provide greater accuracy and safety for some of the most common esophageal disorders.

Asia-Pacific consensus on the management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: an update focusing on refractory reflux disease and Barrett's oesophagus

OBJECTIVE

Since the publication of the Asia-Pacific consensus on gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in 2008, there has been further scientific advancement in this field. This updated consensus focuses on proton pump inhibitor-refractory reflux disease and Barrett's oesophagus.

METHODS

A steering committee identified three areas to address: (1) burden of disease and diagnosis of reflux disease; (2) proton pump inhibitor-refractory reflux disease; (3) Barrett's oesophagus. Three working groups formulated draft statements with supporting evidence. Discussions were done via email before a final face-to-face discussion. We used a Delphi consensus process, with a 70% agreement threshold, using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria to categorise the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

RESULTS

A total of 32 statements were proposed and 31 were accepted by consensus. A rise in the prevalence rates of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in Asia was noted, with the majority being non-erosive reflux disease. Overweight and obesity contributed to the rise. Proton pump inhibitor-refractory reflux disease was recognised to be common. A distinction was made between refractory symptoms and refractory reflux disease, with clarification of the roles of endoscopy and functional testing summarised in two algorithms. The definition of Barrett's oesophagus was revised such that a minimum length of 1 cm was required and the presence of intestinal metaplasia no longer necessary. We recommended the use of standardised endoscopic reporting and advocated endoscopic therapy for confirmed dysplasia and early cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

These guidelines standardise the management of patients with refractory gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and Barrett's oesophagus in the Asia-Pacific region.

Recent developments in pathogenesis, diagnosis and therapy of Barrett's esophagus

The burden of illness from esophageal adenocarcinoma continues to rise in the Western world, and overall prognosis is poor. Given that Barrett’s esophagus (BE), a metaplastic change in the esophageal lining is a known cancer precursor, an opportunity to decrease disease development by screening and surveillance might exist. This review examines recent updates in the pathogenesis of BE and comprehensively discusses known risk factors. Diagnostic definitions and challenges are outlined, coupled with an in-depth review of management. Current challenges and potential solutions related to screening and surveillance are discussed. The effectiveness of currently available endoscopic treatment techniques, particularly with regards to recurrence following successful endotherapy and potential chemopreventative agents are also highlighted. The field of BE is rapidly evolving and improved understanding of pathophysiology, combined with emerging methods for screening and surveillance offer hope for future disease burden reduction.

Screening for Barrett's Esophagus

There is substantial interest in identifying patients with premalignant conditions such as Barrett's esophagus (BE), to improve outcomes of subjects with esophageal adenocarcinoma. However, there is limited consensus on the rationale for screening, the appropriate target population, and optimal screening modality. Recent progress in the development and validation of minimally invasive tools for BE screening has reinvigorated interest in BE screening. BE risk scores combining clinical, anthropometric, and laboratory variables are being developed that may allow more precise targeting of screening to high-risk individuals. This article reviews and summarizes data on recent progress and challenges in screening for BE.

A randomized comparative effectiveness trial of novel endoscopic techniques and approaches for Barrett's esophagus screening in the community

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare participation rates and clinical effectiveness of sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (sEGD) and unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) for esophageal assessment and Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening in a population-based cohort.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, controlled trial in a community population. Subjects ≥50 years of age who previously completed validated gastrointestinal symptom questionnaires were randomized (stratified by age, sex, and reflux symptoms) to one of three screening techniques (either sEGD or uTNE in a mobile research van (muTNE) or uTNE in a hospital outpatient endoscopy suite (huTNE)) and invited to participate.

RESULTS

Of the 459 subjects, 209 (46%) agreed to participate (muTNE n=76, huTNE n=72, and sEGD n=61). Participation rates were numerically higher in the unsedated arms of muTNE (47.5%) and huTNE (45.7%) compared with the sEGD arm (40.7%), but were not statistically different (P=0.27). Complete evaluation of the esophagus was similar using muTNE (99%), huTNE (96%), and sEGD (100%) techniques (P=0.08). Mean recovery times (min) were longer for sEGD (67.3) compared with muTNE (15.5) and huTNE (18.5) (P<0.001). Approximately 80% of uTNE subjects were willing to undergo the procedure again in future. Respectively, 29% and 7.8% of participating subjects had esophagitis and BE.

CONCLUSIONS

Mobile van and clinic uTNE screening had comparable clinical effectiveness with similar participation rates and safety profile to sEGD. Evaluation time with uTNE was significantly shorter. Prevalence of BE and esophagitis in community subjects ≥50 years of age was substantial. Mobile and outpatient unsedated techniques may provide an effective alternative strategy to sEGD for esophageal assessment and BE screening.