Burnout in healthcare - the Emperor's New Clothes.

Burnout is common among physicians; it severely alters their health and has a negative impact on functioning of healthcare systems. Hypertension, increased cortisol levels, maladaptive behaviors with negative social consequences, and suboptimal quality of care have been associated with healthcare providers' burnout. As the number of patients with cancers, psychiatric and neurodegenerative disorders will rise, we need new solutions to maintain physicians' health and, therefore, quality of care. Coping strategies before the COVID-19 pandemic seem ineffective in scaling all the deficits of the global healthcare systems. Examples of new initiatives include new collaborative projects, such as COH-FIT (The Collaborative Outcomes study on Health and Functioning during Infection Times - https://www.coh-fit.com), which aims to collect global data and understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental health in order to identify various coping strategies for patients and healthcare workers during infection times, or MEMO (Minimizing Error, Maximizing Outcome), funded by the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Others: i) Rome Foundation GastroPsych undertake efforts dedicated to the science and practice of psychogastroenterology, a burgeoning field with roots in behavioral intervention, cognitive science and experimental psychology focused on fostering the professional growth and collaboration of those engaged in medical practices, or ii) World Gastroenterology Organisation (WGO), Train The Trainers (TTT) program including a new topic of the impact of burnout on career longevity in order to foster strategies for staying healthy and increasing career satisfaction. There is a need for continuous development of digital technologies (e.g. training simulators, telemedicine, robots and artificial intelligence). Their implementation into medical practice is inevitable. Now more than ever, there is a need for a new spirit in healthcare. Together with others in the field, we believe this article is a desperate call for maximizing the use of novel technologies supported by collaborative interactions among healthcare providers and medical professionals of diverse medical fields.

Genome-wide analyses characterize shared heritability among cancers and identify novel cancer susceptibility regions.

BACKGROUND: The shared inherited genetic contribution to risk of different cancers is not fully known. In this study, we leverage results from 12 cancer genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to quantify pairwise genome-wide genetic correlations across cancers and identify novel cancer susceptibility loci. METHODS: We collected GWAS summary statistics for 12 solid cancers based on 376 759 participants with cancer and 532 864 participants without cancer of European ancestry. The included cancer types were breast, colorectal, endometrial, esophageal, glioma, head and neck, lung, melanoma, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, and renal cancers. We conducted cross-cancer GWAS and transcriptome-wide association studies to discover novel cancer susceptibility loci. Finally, we assessed the extent of variant-specific pleiotropy among cancers at known and newly identified cancer susceptibility loci. RESULTS: We observed widespread but modest genome-wide genetic correlations across cancers. In cross-cancer GWAS and transcriptome-wide association studies, we identified 15 novel cancer susceptibility loci. Additionally, we identified multiple variants at 77 distinct loci with strong evidence of being associated with at least 2 cancer types by testing for pleiotropy at known cancer susceptibility loci. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these results suggest that some genetic risk variants are shared among cancers, though much of cancer heritability is cancer-specific and thus tissue-specific. The increase in statistical power associated with larger sample sizes in cross-disease analysis allows for the identification of novel susceptibility regions. Future studies incorporating data on multiple cancer types are likely to identify additional regions associated with the risk of multiple cancer types.

Common Germline Risk Variants Impact Somatic Alterations and Clinical Features across Cancers.

Aggregation of genome-wide common risk variants, such as polygenic risk score (PRS), can measure genetic susceptibility to cancer. A better understanding of how common germline variants associate with somatic alterations and clinical features could facilitate personalized cancer prevention and early detection. We constructed PRSs from 14 genome-wide association studies (median n = 64,905) for 12 cancer types by multiple methods and calibrated them using the UK Biobank resources (n = 335,048). Meta-analyses across cancer types in The Cancer Genome Atlas (n = 7,965) revealed that higher PRS values were associated with earlier cancer onset and lower burden of somatic alterations, including total mutations, chromosome/arm somatic copy-number alterations (SCNA), and focal SCNAs. This contrasts with rare germline pathogenic variants (e.g., BRCA1/2 variants), showing heterogeneous associations with somatic alterations. Our results suggest that common germline cancer risk variants allow early tumor development before the accumulation of many somatic alterations characteristic of later stages of carcinogenesis. SIGNIFICANCE: Meta-analyses across cancers show that common germline risk variants affect not only cancer predisposition but the age of cancer onset and burden of somatic alterations, including total mutations and copy-number alterations.

One bite or two? A comparison of single bite and double bite biopsy techniques in gastrointestinal endoscopy (BITES).

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic biopsies can be taken using either single or double bite technique. In the single bite method, intubation time may be proportionately prolonged depending upon the number of biopsies taken. In contrast to this, double bite, though a greater number of biopsies may be taken per unit time, it may influence the quality of the biopsy specimen. The aim of the study was to compare these methods and to see if taking double bite has significant effect on the histological quality of the endoscopic biopsies. METHODS: A prospective, randomised and partly blind study (n = 135, M: 54%, age 21-91 years) divided into two equal arms to compare 144 procedures was conducted. Specimen were compared for time taken to size, depth, crush artefacts, necrosis, fragmentation, distortion, and epithelial stripping. Time taken to collect specimens was also recorded in the upper GI procedures. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed in the histological quality of single and double bite specimens (p < 0.05). However, DB took significantly less time (M = 88.5, SD ± 28.5) as compared to SB (M = 180, SD ± 55.9) (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference between the histological quality of DB and SB and the former technique takes less time, hence reducing intubation time.

Multitrait genetic association analysis identifies 50 new risk loci for gastro-oesophageal reflux, seven new loci for Barrett's oesophagus and provides insights into clinical heterogeneity in reflux diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) has heterogeneous aetiology primarily attributable to its symptom-based definitions. GERD genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have shown strong genetic overlaps with established risk factors such as obesity and depression. We hypothesised that the shared genetic architecture between GERD and these risk factors can be leveraged to (1) identify new GERD and Barrett's oesophagus (BE) risk loci and (2) explore potentially heterogeneous pathways leading to GERD and oesophageal complications. DESIGN: We applied multitrait GWAS models combining GERD (78 707 cases; 288 734 controls) and genetically correlated traits including education attainment, depression and body mass index. We also used multitrait analysis to identify BE risk loci. Top hits were replicated in 23andMe (462 753 GERD cases, 24 099 BE cases, 1 484 025 controls). We additionally dissected the GERD loci into obesity-driven and depression-driven subgroups. These subgroups were investigated to determine how they relate to tissue-specific gene expression and to risk of serious oesophageal disease (BE and/or oesophageal adenocarcinoma, EA). RESULTS: We identified 88 loci associated with GERD, with 59 replicating in 23andMe after multiple testing corrections. Our BE analysis identified seven novel loci. Additionally we showed that only the obesity-driven GERD loci (but not the depression-driven loci) were associated with genes enriched in oesophageal tissues and successfully predicted BE/EA. CONCLUSION: Our multitrait model identified many novel risk loci for GERD and BE. We present strong evidence for a genetic underpinning of disease heterogeneity in GERD and show that GERD loci associated with depressive symptoms are not strong predictors of BE/EA relative to obesity-driven GERD loci.

Development and presentation of an objective risk stratification tool for healthcare workers when dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: risk modelling based on hospitalisation and mortality statistics compared with epidemiological data.

OBJECTIVES: Healthcare workers have greater exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and an estimated 2.5-fold increased risk of contracting COVID-19 than the general population. We wished to explore the predictive role of basic demographics to establish a simple tool that could help risk stratify healthcare workers. SETTING: We undertook a review of the published literature (including multiple search strategies in MEDLINE with PubMed interface) and critically assessed early reports on preprint servers. We explored the relative risk of mortality from readily available demographics to identify the population at the highest risk. RESULTS: The published studies specifically assessing the risk of healthcare workers had limited demographics available; therefore, we explored the general population in the literature. Clinician demographics: Mortality increased with increasing age from 50 years onwards. Male sex at birth, and people of black and minority ethnicity groups had higher susceptibility to both hospitalisation and mortality. Comorbid disease. Vascular disease, renal disease, diabetes and chronic pulmonary disease further increased risk. Risk stratification tool: A risk stratification tool was compiled using a white female aged <50 years with no comorbidities as a reference. A point allocated to risk factors was associated with an approximate doubling in risk. This tool provides numerical support for healthcare workers when determining which team members should be allocated to patient facing clinical duties compared with remote supportive roles. CONCLUSIONS: We generated a tool that provides a framework for objective risk stratification of doctors and healthcare professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic, without requiring disclosure of information that an individual may not wish to share with their direct line manager during the risk assessment process. This tool has been made freely available through the British Medical Association website and is widely used in the National Health Service and other external organisations.

Large-scale cross-cancer fine-mapping of the 5p15.33 region reveals multiple independent signals.

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have identified thousands of cancer risk loci revealing many risk regions shared across multiple cancers. Characterizing the cross-cancer shared genetic basis can increase our understanding of global mechanisms of cancer development. In this study, we collected GWAS summary statistics based on up to 375,468 cancer cases and 530,521 controls for fourteen types of cancer, including breast (overall, estrogen receptor [ER]-positive, and ER-negative), colorectal, endometrial, esophageal, glioma, head/neck, lung, melanoma, ovarian, pancreatic, prostate, and renal cancer, to characterize the shared genetic basis of cancer risk. We identified thirteen pairs of cancers with statistically significant local genetic correlations across eight distinct genomic regions. Specifically, the 5p15.33 region, harboring the TERT and CLPTM1L genes, showed statistically significant local genetic correlations for multiple cancer pairs. We conducted a cross-cancer fine-mapping of the 5p15.33 region based on eight cancers that showed genome-wide significant associations in this region (ER-negative breast, colorectal, glioma, lung, melanoma, ovarian, pancreatic, and prostate cancer). We used an iterative analysis pipeline implementing a subset-based meta-analysis approach based on cancer-specific conditional analyses and identified ten independent cross-cancer associations within this region. For each signal, we conducted cross-cancer fine-mapping to prioritize the most plausible causal variants. Our findings provide a more in-depth understanding of the shared inherited basis across human cancers and expand our knowledge of the 5p15.33 region in carcinogenesis.

A comprehensive re-assessment of the association between vitamin D and cancer susceptibility using Mendelian randomization.

Previous Mendelian randomization (MR) studies on 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) and cancer have typically adopted a handful of variants and found no relationship between 25(OH)D and cancer; however, issues of horizontal pleiotropy cannot be reliably addressed. Using a larger set of variants associated with 25(OH)D (74 SNPs, up from 6 previously), we perform a unified MR analysis to re-evaluate the relationship between 25(OH)D and ten cancers. Our findings are broadly consistent with previous MR studies indicating no relationship, apart from ovarian cancers (OR 0.89; 95% C.I: 0.82 to 0.96 per 1 SD change in 25(OH)D concentration) and basal cell carcinoma (OR 1.16; 95% C.I.: 1.04 to 1.28). However, after adjustment for pigmentation related variables in a multivariable MR framework, the BCC findings were attenuated. Here we report that lower 25(OH)D is unlikely to be a causal risk factor for most cancers, with our study providing more precise confidence intervals than previously possible.

Surgery versus radical endotherapies for early cancer and high-grade dysplasia in Barrett's oesophagus.

BACKGROUND: Barrett's oesophagus is one of the most common pre-malignant lesions in the world. Currently the mainstay of therapy is surgical management of advanced cancer but this has improved the five-year survival very little since the 1980s. As a consequence, improved survival relies on early detection through endoscopic surveillance programmes. Success of this strategy relies on the fact that late-stage pre-malignant lesions or very early cancers can be cured by intervention. Currently there is considerable controversy over which method is best: that is conventional open surgery or endotherapy (techniques involving endoscopy). OBJECTIVES: We used data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the effectiveness of endotherapies compared with surgery in people with Barrett's oesophagus, those with early neoplasias (defined as high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and those with early cancer (defined as carcinoma in-situ, superficially invasive, early cancer or superficial cancer T-1m (T1-a) and T-1sm (T1-b)). SEARCH METHODS: We used the Cochrane highly sensitive search strategy to identify RCTs in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ISI Web of Science, EBMR, Controlled Trials mRCT and ISRCTN, and LILACS, in July and August 2008. The searches were updated in 2009 and again in April 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Types of studies: RCTs comparing endotherapies with surgery in the treatment of high-grade dysplasia or early cancer. All cellular types of cancer were included (i.e. adenocarcinomas, squamous cell carcinomas and more unusual types) but will be discussed separately. TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS: patients of any age and either gender with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of early neoplasia (HGD and early cancer) in Barrett's or squamous lined oesophagus. Types of interventions; endotherapies (the intervention) compared with surgery (the control), all with curative intent. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Reports of studies that meet the inclusion criteria for this review would have been analysed using the methods detailed in Appendix 9. MAIN RESULTS: We did not identify any studies that met the inclusion criteria. In total we excluded 13 studies that were not RCTs but that compared surgery and endotherapies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This Cochrane review has indicated that there are no RCTs to compare management options in this vital area, therefore trials should be undertaken as a matter of urgency. The problems with such randomised methods are standardising surgery and endotherapies in all sites, standardising histopathology in all centres, assessing which patients are fit or unfit for surgery and making sure there are relevant outcomes for the study (i.e. long-term survival (over five or more years)) and no progression of HGD.

Recent advances in understanding and preventing oesophageal cancer.

Oesophageal cancer is a common cancer that continues to have a poor survival. This is largely in part due to its late diagnosis and early metastatic spread. Currently, screening is limited to patients with multiple risk factors via a relatively invasive technique. However, there is a large proportion of patients diagnosed with oesophageal cancer who have not been screened. This has warranted the development of new screening techniques that could be implemented more widely and lead to earlier identification and subsequently improvements in survival rates. This article also explores progress in the surveillance of Barrett's oesophagus, a pre-malignant condition for the development of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. In recent years, advances in early endoscopic intervention have meant that more patients are considered at an earlier stage for potentially curative treatment.

Shared Genetic Etiology of Obesity-Related Traits and Barrett's Esophagus/Adenocarcinoma: Insights from Genome-Wide Association Studies.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a major risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA) and its precursor Barrett's esophagus (BE). Research suggests that individuals with high genetic risk to obesity have a higher BE/EA risk. To facilitate understanding of biological factors that lead to progression from BE to EA, the present study investigated the shared genetic background of BE/EA and obesity-related traits. METHODS: Cross-trait linkage disequilibrium score regression was applied to summary statistics from genome-wide association meta-analyses on BE/EA and on obesity traits. Body mass index (BMI) was used as a proxy for general obesity, and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) for abdominal obesity. For single marker analyses, all genome-wide significant risk alleles for BMI and WHR were compared with summary statistics of the BE/EA meta-analyses. RESULTS: Sex-combined analyses revealed a significant genetic correlation between BMI and BE/EA (rg = 0.13, P = 2 × 10-04) and a rg of 0.12 between WHR and BE/EA (P = 1 × 10-02). Sex-specific analyses revealed a pronounced genetic correlation between BMI and EA in females (rg = 0.17, P = 1.2 × 10-03), and WHR and EA in males (rg = 0.18, P = 1.51 × 10-02). On the single marker level, significant enrichment of concordant effects was observed for BMI and BE/EA risk variants (P = 8.45 × 10-03) and WHR and BE/EA risk variants (P = 2 × 10-02). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence for sex-specific genetic correlations that might reflect specific biological mecha-nisms. The data demonstrate that shared genetic factors are particularly relevant in progression from BE to EA. IMPACT: Our study quantifies the genetic correlation between BE/EA and obesity. Further research is now warranted to elucidate these effects and to understand the shared pathophysiology.

A feasibility trial of Acetic acid-targeted Biopsies versus nontargeted quadrantic biopsies during BArrett's surveillance: the ABBA trial.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this study were to compare neoplasia detection rates for nontargeted biopsies (Seattle protocol) versus acetic acid-targeted biopsies (Portsmouth protocol) during Barrett's surveillance and to explore feasibility, patient/clinician experience, acceptance, and barriers/enablers to study participation and implementation of the acetic acid technique. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods feasibility study including a pilot multicenter, randomized, crossover trial with qualitative interviews. Patients under Barrett's surveillance with no history of neoplasia were included. Patients underwent two endoscopies, one with each protocol, 8 weeks apart. Outcomes included recruitment and retention rates, neoplasia yield, and number of biopsies. RESULTS: 200 patients were recruited from 6 centers, and 174 (87.0 %) underwent both procedures. Neoplasia prevalence was 4.7 % (9/192). High grade dysplasia and cancer were detected with both protocols. Five low grade dysplasias were detected (two with acetic acid, four with nontargeted biopsies; one lesion was detected with both techniques). A total of 2139 biopsies were taken in the nontargeted arm and 226 in the acetic acid arm. Both patients and clinicians found the acetic acid technique acceptable. Based on these data, a noninferiority, tandem, crossover trial would require an estimated 2828 patients. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the feasibility of performing a crossover endoscopy trial in Barrett's surveillance. Low neoplasia yield makes this design necessary and qualitative results demonstrated patient and clinician acceptance. The reduced numbers of biopsies suggest that the acetic acid technique could result in cost savings, providing the lack of missed pathology can be proven in a fully powered definitive trial.

Author Correction: Gastroesophageal reflux GWAS identifies risk loci that also associate with subsequent severe esophageal diseases.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Gastroesophageal reflux GWAS identifies risk loci that also associate with subsequent severe esophageal diseases.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is caused by gastric acid entering the esophagus. GERD has high prevalence and is the major risk factor for Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EA). We conduct a large GERD GWAS meta-analysis (80,265 cases, 305,011 controls), identifying 25 independent genome-wide significant loci for GERD. Several of the implicated genes are existing or putative drug targets. Loci discovery is greatest with a broad GERD definition (including cases defined by self-report or medication data). Further, 91% of the GERD risk-increasing alleles also increase BE and/or EA risk, greatly expanding gene discovery for these traits. Our results map genes for GERD and related traits and uncover potential new drug targets for these conditions.

Aspirin as an adjuvant treatment for cancer: feasibility results from the Add-Aspirin randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical, epidemiological, and randomised data indicate that aspirin might prevent tumour development and metastasis, leading to reduced cancer mortality, particularly for gastro-oesophageal and colorectal cancer. Randomised trials evaluating aspirin use after primary radical therapy are ongoing. We present the pre-planned feasibility analysis of the run-in phase of the Add-Aspirin trial to address concerns about toxicity, particularly bleeding after radical treatment for gastro-oesophageal cancer. METHODS: The Add-Aspirin protocol includes four phase 3 randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of daily aspirin on recurrence and survival after radical cancer therapy in four tumour cohorts: gastro-oesophageal, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer. An open-label run-in phase (aspirin 100 mg daily for 8 weeks) precedes double-blind randomisation (for participants aged under 75 years, aspirin 300 mg, aspirin 100 mg, or matched placebo in a 1:1:1 ratio; for patients aged 75 years or older, aspirin 100 mg or matched placebo in a 2:1 ratio). A preplanned analysis of feasibility, including recruitment rate, adherence, and toxicity was performed. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry (ISRCTN74358648) and remains open to recruitment. FINDINGS: After 2 years of recruitment (October, 2015, to October, 2017), 3494 participants were registered (115 in the gastro-oesophageal cancer cohort, 950 in the colorectal cancer cohort, 1675 in the breast cancer cohort, and 754 in the prostate cancer cohort); 2719 (85%) of 3194 participants who had finished the run-in period proceeded to randomisation, with rates consistent across tumour cohorts. End of run-in data were available for 2253 patients; 2148 (95%) of the participants took six or seven tablets per week. 11 (0·5%) of the 2253 participants reported grade 3 toxicity during the run-in period, with no upper gastrointestinal bleeding (any grade) in the gastro-oesophageal cancer cohort. The most frequent grade 1-2 toxicity overall was dyspepsia (246 [11%] of 2253 participants). INTERPRETATION: Aspirin is well-tolerated after radical cancer therapy. Toxicity has been low and there is no evidence of a difference in adherence, acceptance of randomisation, or toxicity between the different cancer cohorts. Trial recruitment continues to determine whether aspirin could offer a potential low cost and well tolerated therapy to improve cancer outcomes. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme, The MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease and Barrett esophagus: an overview of evidence-based guidelines.

Gastroesophageal reflux disease is an extremely common condition worldwide, with the published prevalence rates varying from 2.5% in China to 51.2% in Greece. Its economic and morbidity burden is vast, and optimizing care for this condition carries huge financial and patient­related benefits. The disease can be complicated by progression to Barrett esophagus (BE), a precancerous condition that affects approximately 2% of the population and remains undiagnosed in many individuals. The National Institute of Clinical Excellence has produced guidelines on cost­effective management of gastroesophageal reflux disease in patients in the United Kingdom, and the Benign Barrett's and Cancer Taskforce consensus was the largest international review of evidence known on the management of benign BE complications. This paper is a review of these guidelines with updates on new evidence. Areas for future development involve risk­stratifying patients to surveillance, chemoprevention agents, and genetic biomarkers to help decide who will be at highest risk of malignant progression. Evidence supports the safety of proton pump inhibitors for symptom control in the medium term (ie, 9 years) and reducing the risk of progression of BE, while surgical options are cost­effective treatments for certain patients. Barrett esophagus surveillance should be directed towards high­risk groups, while those at lower risk may benefit from chemoprevention strategies.

From Tumor Immunology to Immunotherapy in Gastric and Esophageal Cancer.

Esophageal and gastric cancers represent tumors with poor prognosis. Unfortunately, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy have made only limited progress in recent years in improving the generally disappointing outcome. Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors is a novel treatment approach that quickly entered clinical practice in malignant melanoma and renal cell cancer, but the role in esophageal and gastric cancer is still poorly defined. The principal prognostic/predictive biomarkers for immunotherapy efficacy currently considered are PD-L1 expression along with defects in mismatch repair genes resulting in microsatellite instability (MSI-H) phenotype. The new molecular classification of gastric cancer also takes these factors into consideration. Available reports regarding PD-1, PD-L1, PD-L2 expression and MSI status in gastric and esophageal cancer are reviewed to summarize the clinical prognostic and predictive role together with potential clinical implications. The most important recently published clinical trials evaluating checkpoint inhibitor efficacy in these tumors are also summarized.

Esomeprazole and aspirin in Barrett's oesophagus (AspECT): a randomised factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal adenocarcinoma is the sixth most common cause of cancer death worldwide and Barrett's oesophagus is the biggest risk factor. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of high-dose esomeprazole proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) and aspirin for improving outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. METHODS: The Aspirin and Esomeprazole Chemoprevention in Barrett's metaplasia Trial had a 2 × 2 factorial design and was done at 84 centres in the UK and one in Canada. Patients with Barrett's oesophagus of 1 cm or more were randomised 1:1:1:1 using a computer-generated schedule held in a central trials unit to receive high-dose (40 mg twice-daily) or low-dose (20 mg once-daily) PPI, with or without aspirin (300 mg per day in the UK, 325 mg per day in Canada) for at least 8 years, in an unblinded manner. Reporting pathologists were masked to treatment allocation. The primary composite endpoint was time to all-cause mortality, oesophageal adenocarcinoma, or high-grade dysplasia, which was analysed with accelerated failure time modelling adjusted for minimisation factors (age, Barrett's oesophagus length, intestinal metaplasia) in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2004-003836-77. FINDINGS: Between March 10, 2005, and March 1, 2009, 2557 patients were recruited. 705 patients were assigned to low-dose PPI and no aspirin, 704 to high-dose PPI and no aspirin, 571 to low-dose PPI and aspirin, and 577 to high-dose PPI and aspirin. Median follow-up and treatment duration was 8·9 years (IQR 8·2-9·8), and we collected 20 095 follow-up years and 99·9% of planned data. 313 primary events occurred. High-dose PPI (139 events in 1270 patients) was superior to low-dose PPI (174 events in 1265 patients; time ratio [TR] 1·27, 95% CI 1·01-1·58, p=0·038). Aspirin (127 events in 1138 patients) was not significantly better than no aspirin (154 events in 1142 patients; TR 1·24, 0·98-1·57, p=0·068). If patients using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were censored at the time of first use, aspirin was significantly better than no aspirin (TR 1·29, 1·01-1·66, p=0·043; n=2236). Combining high-dose PPI with aspirin had the strongest effect compared with low-dose PPI without aspirin (TR 1·59, 1·14-2·23, p=0·0068). The numbers needed to treat were 34 for PPI and 43 for aspirin. Only 28 (1%) participants reported study-treatment-related serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: High-dose PPI and aspirin chemoprevention therapy, especially in combination, significantly and safely improved outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca, Wellcome Trust, and Health Technology Assessment.

An assessment of candidate genes to assist prognosis in gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer (GC) is the fourth commonest cancer worldwide, with the second highest mortality rate. Its poor mortality is linked to delayed presentation. There is a drive towards non-invasive biomarker screening and monitoring of many different types of cancer, although with limited success so far. We aimed to determine if any genes from a 32-gene panel could be used to determine GC prognosis. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective study on the expression of 32 genes, selected for their proven or potential links to GC, on historic formalin fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) GC specimens from our unit. Gene expression was measured using quantitative nuclease protection assays (qNPA) technology. Following statistical analysis of the results, immunohistochemical staining for eight genes, both discriminating and non-discriminating, was conducted in seven age and sex matched non-metastatic: metastatic GC pairings. The stained samples were reviewed by two blinded consultant histopathologists. RESULTS: Multivariate Cox analysis of the gene expression data revealed metastatic status, age, sex and five genes appeared to influence GC survival. Genes negatively influencing survival included BCAS1, P53 and HSP90AA1 (relative risks 2.20, 3.73 and 7.53 respectively). Genes conveying survival benefit included CASP3 and TERT (relative risks 0.10 and 0.24 respectively). Immunohistochemical staining of seven age and sex matched non-metastatic: metastatic pairs revealed no association between gene expression and protein expression. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found several genes whose expression may affect GC prognosis. However, immunohistochemical analysis revealed no association between gene expression and protein expression. It remains to be determined whether gene expression or protein expression are reliable means of assessing GC prognosis.