Validation of a biomarker panel in Barrett's esophagus to predict progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma

Diagnosis and management of Barrett esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

MR1 : ESGE recommends the following standards for Barrett esophagus (BE) surveillance:- a minimum of 1-minute inspection time per cm of BE length during a surveillance endoscopy- photodocumentation of landmarks, the BE segment including one picture per cm of BE length, and the esophagogastric junction in retroflexed position, and any visible lesions- use of the Prague and (for visible lesions) Paris classification- collection of biopsies from all visible abnormalities (if present), followed by random four-quadrant biopsies for every 2-cm BE length.Strong recommendation, weak quality of evidence. MR2:  ESGE suggests varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance are advised.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR3:  ESGE suggests that, if a patient has reached 75 years of age at the time of the last surveillance endoscopy and/or the patient's life expectancy is less than 5 years, the discontinuation of further surveillance endoscopies can be considered. Weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence. MR4:  ESGE recommends offering endoscopic eradication therapy using ablation to patients with BE and low grade dysplasia (LGD) on at least two separate endoscopies, both confirmed by a second experienced pathologist.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR5:  ESGE recommends endoscopic ablation treatment for BE with confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD) without visible lesions, to prevent progression to invasive cancer.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR6:  ESGE recommends offering complete eradication of all remaining Barrett epithelium by ablation after endoscopic resection of visible abnormalities containing any degree of dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. MR7:  ESGE recommends endoscopic resection as curative treatment for T1a Barrett's cancer with well/moderate differentiation and no signs of lymphovascular invasion.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR8:  ESGE suggests that low risk submucosal (T1b) EAC (i. e. submucosal invasion depth ≤ 500 µm AND no [lympho]vascular invasion AND no poor tumor differentiation) can be treated by endoscopic resection, provided that adequate follow-up with gastroscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and computed tomography (CT)/positrion emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in expert centers.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR9:  ESGE suggests that submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (tumor invasion > 500 µm into the submucosa), and/or (lympho)vascular invasion, and/or a poor tumor differentiation should be considered high risk. Complete staging and consideration of additional treatments (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and/or surgery) or strict endoscopic follow-up should be undertaken on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR10 A: ESGE recommends that the first endoscopic follow-up after successful endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) of BE is performed in an expert center.Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence. B:  ESGE recommends careful inspection of the neo-squamocolumnar junction and neo-squamous epithelium with high definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy during post-EET surveillance, to detect recurrent dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. C:  ESGE recommends against routine four-quadrant biopsies of neo-squamous epithelium after successful EET of BE.Strong recommendation, low level of evidence. D:  ESGE suggests, after successful EET, obtaining four-quadrant random biopsies just distal to a normal-appearing neo-squamocolumnar junction to detect dysplasia in the absence of visible lesions.Weak recommendation, low level of evidence. E:  ESGE recommends targeted biopsies are obtained where there is a suspicion of recurrent BE in the tubular esophagus, or where there are visible lesions suspicious for dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. MR11:  After successful EET, ESGE recommends the following surveillance intervals:- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of HGD or EAC:at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of LGD:at 1, 3, and 5 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

Signaling Pathways in the Pathogenesis of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a premalignant lesion that can develop into esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). The development of Barrett's esophagus is caused by biliary reflux, which causes extensive mutagenesis in the stem cells of the epithelium in the distal esophagus and gastro-esophageal junction. Other possible cellular origins of BE include the stem cells of the mucosal esophageal glands and their ducts, the stem cells of the stomach, residual embryonic cells and circulating bone marrow stem cells. The classical concept of healing a caustic lesion has been replaced by the concept of a cytokine storm, which forms an inflammatory microenvironment eliciting a phenotypic shift toward intestinal metaplasia of the distal esophagus. This review describes the roles of the NOTCH, hedgehog, NF-κB and IL6/STAT3 molecular pathways in the pathogenesis of BE and EAC.

Utility of ancillary studies in the diagnosis and risk assessment of Barrett's esophagus and dysplasia

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a major risk factor for the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). BE patients undergo periodic endoscopic surveillance with biopsies to detect dysplasia and EAC, but this strategy is imperfect owing to sampling error and inconsistencies in the diagnosis and grading of dysplasia, which may result in an inaccurate diagnosis or risk assessment for progression to EAC. The desire for more accurate diagnosis and better risk stratification has prompted the investigation and development of potential biomarkers that might assist pathologists and clinicians in the management of BE patients, allowing more aggressive endoscopic surveillance and treatment options to be targeted to high-risk individuals, while avoiding frequent surveillance or unnecessary interventions in those at lower risk. It is known that progression of BE to dysplasia and EAC is accompanied by a host of genetic alterations, and that exploration of these markers could be potentially useful to diagnose/grade dysplasia and/or to risk stratify BE patients. Several biomarkers have shown promise in identifying early neoplastic transformation and thus may be useful adjuncts to histologic evaluation. This review provides an overview of some of the currently available biomarkers and assays, including p53 immunostaining, Wide Area Transepithelial Sampling with Three-Dimensional Computer-Assisted Analysis (WATS^3D), TissueCypher, mutational load analysis (BarreGen), fluorescence in situ hybridization, and DNA content abnormalities as detected by DNA flow cytometry.

Advances in Biomarkers for Risk Stratification in Barrett's Esophagus

Dysplasia currently is the primary biomarker used to risk stratify patients with Barrett's esophagus, but dysplasia has a number of considerable limitations in this regard. Thus, investigators over the years have explored innumerable alternative molecular biomarkers for risk stratification in Barrett's esophagus. This report focuses only on those biomarkers that appear most promising based on the availability of multiple published studies corroborating good results, and on the commercial availability of the test. These promising biomarkers include p53 immunostaining, TissueCypher, BarreGEN, and wide-area transepithelial sampling with computer-assisted 3-dimensional analysis (WATS^3D).

Epidemiology of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: Implications for Screening and Surveillance

In the United States, the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma increased markedly since the 1970s with a recent stabilization. Despite evolving screening and surveillance strategies to diagnose, risk triage, and intervene in Barrett's esophagus patients to prevent esophageal adenocarcinoma, most cases present with advanced disease and poor resultant survival. Epidemiologic studies have identified the main risk factors for these conditions, including increasing age, male sex, white race, gastroesophageal reflux disease, abdominal obesity, cigarette smoking, and lack of infection with Helicobacter pylori. This review summarizes the current epidemiologic evidence with implications for screening and surveillance in Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Independent Blinded Validation of a Tissue Systems Pathology Test to Predict Progression in Patients With Barrett's Esophagus

INTRODUCTION

A risk prediction test was previously validated to predict progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). The aim of our study was to independently validate this test to predict the risk of progression to HGD/EAC in BE patients with nondysplastic (ND), indefinite for dysplasia and low-grade dysplasia (LGD).

METHODS

A single-blinded, case-control study was conducted to stratify patients with BE as low, intermediate, or high risk for progression to HGD/EAC within 5 years using a previously described risk prediction test. Patients with BE who progressed to HGD/EAC after at least 1 year (n = 58) were matched to patients undergoing surveillance without progression (n = 210, median surveillance 7 years). Baseline biopsies with subspecialist diagnoses of ND, indefinite for dysplasia, or LGD were tested in a blinded manner, and the predictive performance of the test was assessed.

RESULTS

This risk prediction test stratified patients with BE based on progression risk with the high-risk group at 4.7-fold increased risk for HGD/EAC compared with the low-risk group (95% confidence interval 2.5-8.8, P < 0.0001). Prevalence-adjusted positive predictive value at 5 years was 23%. The high-risk class and male sex provided predictive power that was independent of pathologic diagnosis, age, segment length, and hiatal hernia. Patients with ND BE who scored high risk progressed at a higher rate (26%) than patients with subspecialist-confirmed LGD (21.8%) at 5 years.

DISCUSSION

A risk prediction test identifies patients with ND BE who are at high risk for progression to HGD/EAC and may benefit from early endoscopic therapy or increased surveillance.

Radiofrequency Ablation of Barrett's Esophagus: Have We Gone Too Far, or Not Far Enough?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a premalignant condition of the esophagus associated with an increased risk for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is a safe and effective first-line treatment for dysplastic BE and early stage EAC. This report reviews clinically relevant evidence published over the last 3 years regarding RFA for BE.

RECENT FINDINGS

Our use of this technology has simultaneously gone too far, in that many patients who may not derive a benefit from these treatments are receiving them, and not far enough, in that many patients who would be eligible for ablative therapy never undergo screening exams to assess them for dysplastic BE, or do not have endoscopic therapy considered part of the treatment of superficial invasive cancer. Research to better identify patients with BE, risk stratify those patients, improve the quality of RFA treatment, and inform surveillance practices has the potential to optimize the benefit of RFA, and minimize the harms, costs, and risks.

A genomic biomarker-based model for cancer risk stratification of non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus patients after extended follow up; results from Dutch surveillance cohorts

Barrett’s esophagus is the only known mucosal precursor for the highly malignant esophageal adenocarcinoma. Malignant degeneration of non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus occurs in < 0.6% per year in Dutch surveillance cohorts. Therefore, it has been proposed to increase the surveillance intervals from 3 to 5 years, potentially increasing development of advanced stage interval cancers. To prevent such cases robust biomarkers for more optimal stratification over longer follow up periods for non-dysplastic Barrett’s patients are required. In this multi-center study, aberrations for chromosomes 7, 17, and structural abnormalities for c-MYC, CDKN2A, TP53, Her-2/neu and 20q assessed by DNA fluorescence in situ hybridization on brush cytology specimens, were used to determine marker scores and to perform clonal diversity measurements, as described previously. In this study, these genetic biomarkers were combined with clinical variables and analyzed to obtain the most efficient cancer prediction model after an extended period of follow-up (median time of 7 years) by applying Cox regression modeling, bootstrapping and leave-one-out analyses. A total of 334 patients with Barrett’s esophagus without dysplasia from 6 community hospitals (n = 220) and one academic center (n = 114) were included. The annual progression rate to high grade dysplasia and/or esophageal adenocarcinoma was 1.3%, and to adenocarcinoma alone 0.85%. A prediction model including age, Barrett circumferential length, and a clonicity score over the genomic set including chromosomes 7, 17, 20q and c-MYC, resulted in an area under the curve of 0.88. The sensitivity and specificity of this model were 0.91 and 0.38. The positive and negative predictive values were 0.13 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.19) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.99). We propose the implementation of the model to identify non-dysplastic Barrett’s patients, who are required to remain in surveillance programs with 3-yearly surveillance intervals from those that can benefit from less frequent or no surveillance.