Multicenter, Prospective Trial of Nonendoscopic Biomarker-Driven Detection of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

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.

Outcomes of Transoral Incisionless Fundoplication (TIF 2.0): A Prospective, Multicenter Cohort Study in Academic and Community Practices (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) is an established safe endoscopic technique for the management of GERD but with variable efficacy. In the last decade, the TIF technology and technique have been optimized and more widely accepted but data on outcomes outside clinical trials are limited. We tracked patient-reported and clinical outcomes of GERD patients after TIF 2.0. METHODS: Patients with BMI < 35, hiatal hernia < 2cm, and confirmed GERD with typical and/or atypical symptoms from 9 academic and community medical centers were enrolled in a prospective registry and underwent after TIF 2.0 performed by gastroenterologists and surgeons. The primary outcomes were safety and clinical success (response in >2 of 4 endpoints). Secondary endpoints were symptom improvement, acid exposure time (AET), esophagitis healing, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, and satisfaction. Outcomes were assessed at last follow-up within 12 months. RESULTS: 85 patients underwent TIF 2.0, 81 were included in the outcomes analysis. Clinical success was achieved in 94%, GERD-HRQL scores improved in 89%, and elevated RSI score normalized in 85% of patients with elevated baseline. Patient satisfaction improved from 8% to 79% (p <0.0001). At baseline, 81% were taking at least daily PPI, while 80% were on no or occasional PPI after TIF 2.0 (p<0.0001). Esophageal AET was normal in 72%, greater with an optimized TIF 2.0 valve >300 degree circumference, >3cm length (94% vs 57%, p=0.007). There were no TIF 2.0-related serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: TIF 2.0 is a safe and effective endoscopic outpatient treatment option for select patients with GERD.

Pancreatic Cancer: Pathogenesis, Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a clinically challenging cancer, due to both its late stage at diagnosis and its resistance to chemotherapy. However, recent advances in our understanding of the biology of PDAC have revealed new opportunities for early detection and targeted therapy of PDAC. In this review, we discuss the pathogenesis of PDAC, including molecular alterations in tumor cells, cellular alterations in the tumor microenvironment, and population-level risk factors. We review the current status of surveillance and early detection of PDAC, including populations at high risk and screening approaches. We outline the diagnostic approach to PDAC and highlight key treatment considerations, including how therapeutic approaches change with disease stage and targetable subtypes of PDAC. Recent years have seen significant improvements in our approaches to detect and treat PDAC, but large-scale, coordinated efforts will be needed to maximize the clinical impact for patients and improve overall survival.

Timeline of Development of Pancreatic Cancer and Implications for Successful Early Detection in High-Risk Individuals.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: To successfully implement imaging-based pancreatic cancer (PC) surveillance, understanding the timeline and morphologic features of neoplastic progression is key. We aimed to investigate the progression to neoplasia from serial prediagnostic pancreatic imaging tests in high-risk individuals and identify factors associated with successful early detection. METHODS: We retrospectively examined the development of pancreatic abnormalities in high-risk individuals who were diagnosed with PC or underwent pancreatic surgery, or both, in 16 international surveillance programs. RESULTS: Of 2552 high-risk individuals under surveillance, 28 (1%) developed neoplastic progression to PC or high-grade dysplasia during a median follow-up of 29 months after baseline (interquartile range [IQR], 40 months). Of these, 13 of 28 (46%) presented with a new lesion (median size, 15 mm; range 7-57 mm), a median of 11 months (IQR, 8; range 3-17 months) after a prior examination, by which time 10 of 13 (77%) had progressed beyond the pancreas. The remaining 15 of 28 (54%) had neoplastic progression in a previously detected lesion (12 originally cystic, 2 indeterminate, 1 solid), and 11 (73%) had PC progressed beyond the pancreas. The 12 patients with cysts had been monitored for 21 months (IQR, 15 months) and had a median growth of 5 mm/y (IQR, 8 mm/y). Successful early detection (as high-grade dysplasia or PC confined to the pancreas) was associated with resection of cystic lesions (vs solid or indeterminate lesions (odds ratio, 5.388; 95% confidence interval, 1.525-19.029) and small lesions (odds ratio, 0.890/mm; 95% confidence interval 0.812-0.976/mm). CONCLUSIONS: In nearly half of high-risk individuals developing high-grade dysplasia or PC, no prior lesions are detected by imaging, yet they present at an advanced stage. Progression can occur before the next scheduled annual examination. More sensitive diagnostic tools or a different management strategy for rapidly growing cysts are needed.

Patients With Esophageal Adenocarcinoma With Prior Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Symptoms Are Similar to Those Without Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: A Cross-Sectional Study.

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.

Transoral incisionless fundoplication for recurrent symptoms after laparoscopic fundoplication.

BACKGROUND: Revision of a failed laparoscopic fundoplication carries higher risk of complication and lower chance of success compared to the original surgery. Transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF) may be an endoscopic alternative for select GERD patients without need of a moderate/large hiatal hernia repair. The aim of this study was to assess feasibility, efficacy, and safety of TIF 2.0 after failed laparoscopic Nissen or Toupet fundoplication (TIFFF). METHODS: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent TIFFF between September 2017 and December 2020 using TIF 2.0 technique (EsophyX Z/Z+) performed by gastroenterologists and surgeons. Patients were included if they had (1) recurrent GERD symptoms, (2) pathologic reflux based upon pH testing or Grade C/D esophagitis or Barrett's esophagus, and (3) hiatal hernia ≤ 2 cm. The primary outcome was improvement in GERD Health-Related Quality of Life (GERD-HRQL) post-TIFFF. The TIFFF cohort was also compared to a similar surgical re-operative cohort using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Twenty patients underwent TIFFF (median 4.1 years after prior fundoplication) and mean GERD-HRQL score improved from 24.3 ± 22.9 to 14.75 ± 21.6 (p = 0.014); mean Reflux Severity Index (RSI) score improved from 14.1 ± 14.6 to 9.1 ± 8.0 (p = 0.046) with 8/10 (80%) of patients with normal RSI (< 13) post-TIF. Esophagitis healed in 78% of patients. PPI use decreased from 85 to 55% with 8/20 (45%) patients off of PPI. Importantly, mean acid exposure time decreased from 12% ± 17.8 to 0.8% ± 1.1 (p = 0.028) with 9/9 (100%) of patients with normalized pH post-TIF. There were no statistically significant differences in clinical efficacy outcomes between TIFFF and surgical revision, but TIFFF had significantly fewer late adverse events. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic rescue with TIF is a safe and efficacious alternative to redo laparoscopic surgery in symptomatic patients with appropriate anatomy and objective evidence of persistent or recurrent reflux.

Alterations in the Duodenal Fluid Microbiome of Patients With Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The tumor microbiome of patients with pancreas ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) includes bacteria normally present in the upper gastrointestinal tract. If the predominant source of intratumoral bacteria in patients with PDAC is retrograde migration from the duodenum, duodenal fluid could be a representative biospecimen for determining microbiome profiles of patients with PDAC or at risk of developing PDAC. METHODS: We performed a case-control study comparing bacterial and fungal (16S and 18S rRNA) profiles of secretin-stimulated duodenal fluid collections from 308 patients undergoing duodenal endoscopy including 134 normal pancreas control subjects, 98 patients with pancreatic cyst(s) and 74 patients with PDAC. RESULTS: Alterations in duodenal fluid microbiomes with diminished alpha diversity were significantly associated with age >70 and proton pump inhibitor use. Patients with PDAC had significantly decreased duodenal microbial alpha diversity compared with age-matched control subjects with normal pancreata and those with pancreatic cyst(s). There was evidence of enrichment of Bifidobacterium genera in the duodenal fluid of patients with PDAC compared with control subjects and those with pancreatic cyst(s). There were also enrichment of duodenal fluid Fusobacteria and Rothia bacteria among patients with PDAC with short-term survival. Duodenal fluid microbiome profiles were not significantly different between control subjects and patients with pancreatic cyst(s). CONCLUSION: Patients with PDAC have alterations in their duodenal fluid microbiome profiles compared with patients with pancreatic cysts and those with normal pancreata. ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02000089.

Serum Carboxypeptidase Activity and Genotype-Stratified CA19-9 to Detect Early-Stage Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Serum diagnostic markers of early-stage pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are needed, especially for stage I disease. As tumors grow and cause pancreatic atrophy, markers derived from pancreatic parenchyma such as serum carboxypeptidase A (CPA) activity lose diagnostic performance. We evaluated, with CA19-9, serum CPA as a marker of early pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Serum CPA activity levels were measured in 345 controls undergoing pancreatic surveillance, divided into 2 sets, set 1 being used to establish a reference range. Variants within the CPA1 locus were sought for their association with pancreatic CPA1 expression to determine if such variants associated with serum CPA levels. A total of 190 patients with resectable PDAC were evaluated. RESULTS: Among controls, those having 1 or more minor alleles of CPA1 variants rs6955723 or rs2284682 had significantly higher serum CPA levels than did those without (P = .001). None of the PDAC cases with pancreatic atrophy had an elevated CPA. Among 122 PDAC cases without atrophy, defining serum CPA diagnostic cutoffs by a subject's CPA1 variants yielded a diagnostic sensitivity of 18% at 99% specificity (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.7-26) (vs 11.1% sensitivity using a uniform diagnostic cutoff); combining CPA with variant-stratified CA19-9 yielded a sensitivity of 68.0% (95% CI, 59.0-76.2) vs 63.1% (95% CI, 53.9- 71.7) for CA19-9 alone; and among stage I PDAC cases, diagnostic sensitivity was 51.9% (95% CI, 31.9-71.3) vs 37.0% (95% CI, 19.4-57.6) for CA19-9 alone. In the validation control set, the variant-stratified diagnostic cutoff yielded a specificity of 98.2%. CONCLUSION: Serum CPA activity has diagnostic utility before the emergence of pancreatic atrophy as a marker of localized PDAC, including stage I disease.

Massively Parallel Sequencing of Esophageal Brushings Enables an Aneuploidy-Based Classification of Patients With Barrett's Esophagus.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Aneuploidy has been proposed as a tool to assess progression in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE), but has heretofore required multiple biopsies. We assessed whether a single esophageal brushing that widely sampled the esophagus could be combined with massively parallel sequencing to characterize aneuploidy and identify patients with disease progression to dysplasia or cancer. METHODS: Esophageal brushings were obtained from patients without BE, with non-dysplastic BE (NDBE), low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD), or adenocarcinoma (EAC). To assess aneuploidy, we used RealSeqS, a technique that uses a single primer pair to interrogate ∼350,000 genome-spanning regions and identify specific chromosome arm alterations. A classifier to distinguish NDBE from EAC was trained on results from 79 patients. An independent validation cohort of 268 subjects was used to test the classifier at distinguishing patients at successive phases of BE progression. RESULTS: Aneuploidy progression was associated with gains of 1q, 12p, and 20q and losses on 9p and 17p. The entire chromosome 8q was often gained in NDBE, whereas focal gain of 8q24 was identified only when there was dysplasia. Among validation subjects, a classifier incorporating these features with a global measure of aneuploidy scored positive in 96% of EAC, 68% of HGD, but only 7% of NDBE. CONCLUSIONS: RealSeqS analysis of esophageal brushings provides a practical and sensitive method to determine aneuploidy in BE patients. It identifies specific chromosome changes that occur early in NDBE and others that occur late and mark progression to dysplasia. The clinical implications of this approach can now be tested in prospective trials.

Endoplasmic stress-inducing variants in carboxyl ester lipase and pancreatic cancer risk.

BACKGROUND: Endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress-inducing variants in several pancreatic secretory enzymes have been associated with pancreatic disease. Multiple variants in CEL, encoding carboxyl ester lipase, are known to cause maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY8) but have not been implicated in pancreatic cancer risk. METHODS: The prevalence of ER stress-inducing variants in the CEL gene was compared among pancreatic cancer cases vs. controls. Variants were identified by next-generation sequencing and confirmed by Sanger sequencing. Variants of uncertain significance (VUS) were assessed for their effect on the secretion of CEL protein and variants with reduced protein secretion were evaluated to determine if they induced endoplasmic reticulum stress. RESULTS: ER stress-inducing CEL variants were found in 34 of 986 cases with sporadic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and 21 of 1045 controls (P = 0.055). Most of the variants were either the CEL-HYB1 variant, the I488T variant, or the combined CEL-HYB1/I488T variant; one case had a MODY8 variant. CONCLUSION: This case/control analysis finds ER stress-inducing CEL variants are not associated with an increased likelihood of having pancreatic cancer.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Pancreas Cancer Screening in High-Risk Individuals: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association Institute Clinical Practice Update is to describe the indications for screening for pancreas cancer in high-risk individuals. METHODS: The evidence reviewed in this work is based on reports of pancreas cancer screening studies in high-risk individuals and expert opinion. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Pancreas cancer screening should be considered in patients determined to be at high risk, including first-degree relatives of patients with pancreas cancer with at least 2 affected genetically related relatives. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Pancreas cancer screening should be considered in patients with genetic syndromes associated with an increased risk of pancreas cancer, including all patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, hereditary pancreatitis, patients with CDKN2A gene mutation, and patients with 1 or more first-degree relatives with pancreas cancer with Lynch syndrome, and mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, PALB2, and ATM genes. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Genetic testing and counseling should be considered for familial pancreas cancer relatives who are eligible for surveillance. A positive germline mutation is associated with an increased risk of neoplastic progression and may also lead to screening for other relevant associated cancers. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Participation in a registry or referral to a pancreas Center of Excellence should be pursued when possible for high-risk patients undergoing pancreas cancer screening. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Clinicians should not screen average-risk individuals for pancreas cancer. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals should begin at age 50 years, or 10 years younger than the initial age of familial onset. Screening should be initiated at age 40 years in CKDN2A and PRSS1 mutation carriers with hereditary pancreatitis and at age 35 years in the setting of Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Magnetic resonance imaging and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) should be used in combination as the preferred screening modalities in individuals undergoing pancreas cancer screening. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: The target detectable pancreatic neoplasms are resectable stage I pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma and high-risk precursor neoplasms, such as intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms with high-grade dysplasia and some enlarged pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasias. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Screening intervals of 12 months should be considered when there are no concerning pancreas lesions, with shortened intervals and/or the performance of EUS in 6-12 months directed towards lesions determined to be low risk (by a multidisciplinary team). EUS evaluation should be performed within 3-6 months for indeterminate lesions and within 3 months for high-risk lesions, if surgical resection is not planned. New-onset diabetes in a high-risk individual should lead to additional diagnostic studies or change in surveillance interval. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Decisions regarding therapy directed towards abnormal findings detected during screening should be made by a dedicated multidisciplinary team together with the high-risk individual and their family. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Surgical resection should be performed at high-volume centers. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Clinicians should consider discontinuing pancreas cancer screening in high-risk individuals when they are more likely to die of non-pancreas cancer-related causes due to comorbidity and/or are not candidates for pancreas resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: The limitations and potential risks of pancreas cancer screening should be discussed with patients before initiating a screening program.

Endoscopic approaches to gastroesophageal reflux disease.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common chronic conditions affecting adults. A substantial proportion of patients continue to have symptoms despite medical therapy, and there has been increased demand for minimally invasive GERD therapy. We will examine currently available techniques and outcomes data on endoscopic approaches to the treatment of GERD. RECENT FINDINGS: In the last 2 years, research has given rise to more robust understanding of not only the pathophysiology of GERD but also how to better manage the various phenotypes. We are learning the ideal patient to benefit from endoscopic GERD therapy. In this review, we describe the four major endoluminal techniques for treating GERD and summarize current data. SUMMARY: Endoscopic therapies are well positioned to fill the 'therapy gap' between medical therapy and more invasive surgical procedures.

Guidelines on management of pancreatic cysts detected in high-risk individuals: An evaluation of the 2017 Fukuoka guidelines and the 2020 International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) consortium statements.

BACKGROUND: Objectives: Pancreatic cysts are frequently detected in high-risk individuals (HRI) undergoing surveillance for pancreatic cancer. The International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium developed consensus recommendations for surgical resection of pancreatic cysts in HRI that are similar to the Fukuoka guidelines used for the management of sporadic cysts. We compared the performance characteristics of CAPS criteria for pancreatic cyst management in HRI with the Fukuoka guidelines originally designed for the management of cysts in non-HRI. METHODS: Using prospectively collected data from CAPS studies, we determined for each patient with resected screen-detected cyst(s) whether Fukuoka guidelines or CAPS consensus statements would have recommended surgery. We compared sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and Receiver Operator Characteristics (ROC) curves of these guidelines at predicting the presence of high-grade dysplasia or invasive cancer in pancreatic cysts. RESULTS: 356/732 HRI had ≥ one pancreatic cyst detected; 24 had surgery for concerning cystic lesions. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for the Fukuoka criteria were 40%, 85%, 40%, and 85%, while those of the CAPS criteria were 60%, 85%, 50%, 89%, respectively. ROC curve analyses showed no significant difference between the Fukuoka and CAPS criteria. CONCLUSIONS: In HRI, the CAPS and Fukuoka criteria are moderately specific, but not sufficiently sensitive for detecting advanced neoplasia in cystic lesions. New approaches are needed to guide the surgical management of cystic lesions in HRI.

Initial multicenter experience with nitrous oxide cryoballoon for treatment of flat duodenal adenomas (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EMR is the preferred endoscopic therapy for duodenal adenomas (DAs) but is associated with an overall adverse event rate of 26%. Cryotherapy using a Cryoballoon Focal Ablation System (CbFAS) can safely and effectively eradicate esophageal intestinal metaplasia. We report our first experience with cryoballoon ablation for treatment of flat DAs. METHODS: This was an American, multicenter, retrospective study involving 5 centers. DAs (Paris 0-IIa and 0-IIb) were treated with nitrous oxide for 5 to 12 seconds using CbFAS. Follow-up EGD was performed at 3 to 12 months. RESULTS: Seventeen DAs (mean size, 22.7 ± 14.3 mm; 12 tubular, 5 tubulovillous) from 13 patients (mean age, 66.5 ± 9.99 years; 61.5% males) were included in the study. Thirteen of 17 DAs (76.5%) had failed previous treatment, and 4 of 17 (23.5%) were treatment naÏve. All procedures were technically successful and achieved a >50% decrease in size after cryoballoon ablation There was no increase in size or progression of disease for any lesions. Overall, treatment was completed in 15 of 17 patients, and recurrence-free survival was achieved in 12 of 17 (71%) after a median follow-up of 15.5 months (interquartile range [IQR], 6.8-19.4). The median cryoablation time per polyp was 4 minutes (IQR, 1-7.5 minutes), and the median total procedure time was 25 minutes (IQR, 22-30.5 minutes). There were no intra- or postprocedural adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Nitrous oxide cryoballoon ablation of nonpolypoid DAs is feasible, with promising safety and efficacy.

Mutations in the pancreatic secretory enzymes CPA1 and CPB1 are associated with pancreatic cancer.

To evaluate whether germline variants in genes encoding pancreatic secretory enzymes contribute to pancreatic cancer susceptibility, we sequenced the coding regions of CPB1 and other genes encoding pancreatic secretory enzymes and known pancreatitis susceptibility genes (PRSS1, CPA1, CTRC, and SPINK1) in a hospital series of pancreatic cancer cases and controls. Variants in CPB1, CPA1 (encoding carboxypeptidase B1 and A1), and CTRC were evaluated in a second set of cases with familial pancreatic cancer and controls. More deleterious CPB1 variants, defined as having impaired protein secretion and induction of endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress in transfected HEK 293T cells, were found in the hospital series of pancreatic cancer cases (5/986, 0.5%) than in controls (0/1,045, P = 0.027). Among familial pancreatic cancer cases, ER stress-inducing CPB1 variants were found in 4 of 593 (0.67%) vs. 0 of 967 additional controls (P = 0.020), with a combined prevalence in pancreatic cancer cases of 9/1,579 vs. 0/2,012 controls (P < 0.01). More ER stress-inducing CPA1 variants were also found in the combined set of hospital and familial cases with pancreatic cancer than in controls [7/1,546 vs. 1/2,012; P = 0.025; odds ratio, 9.36 (95% CI, 1.15-76.02)]. Overall, 16 (1%) of 1,579 pancreatic cancer cases had an ER stress-inducing CPA1 or CPB1 variant, compared with 1 of 2,068 controls (P < 0.00001). No other candidate genes had statistically significant differences in variant prevalence between cases and controls. Our study indicates ER stress-inducing variants in CPB1 and CPA1 are associated with pancreatic cancer susceptibility and implicate ER stress in pancreatic acinar cells in pancreatic cancer development.

Management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer: updated recommendations from the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening Consortium met in 2018 to update its consensus recommendations for the management of individuals with increased risk of pancreatic cancer based on family history or germline mutation status (high-risk individuals). METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was employed to reach consensus among a multidisciplinary group of experts who voted on consensus statements. Consensus was considered reached if ≥75% agreed or disagreed. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 55 statements. The main goals of surveillance (to identify high-grade dysplastic precursor lesions and T1N0M0 pancreatic cancer) remained unchanged. Experts agreed that for those with familial risk, surveillance should start no earlier than age 50 or 10 years earlier than the youngest relative with pancreatic cancer, but were split on whether to start at age 50 or 55. Germline ATM mutation carriers with one affected first-degree relative are now considered eligible for surveillance. Experts agreed that preferred surveillance tests are endoscopic ultrasound and MRI/magnetic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, but no consensus was reached on how to alternate these modalities. Annual surveillance is recommended in the absence of concerning lesions. Main areas of disagreement included if and how surveillance should be performed for hereditary pancreatitis, and the management of indeterminate lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic surveillance is recommended for selected high-risk individuals to detect early pancreatic cancer and its high-grade precursors, but should be performed in a research setting by multidisciplinary teams in centres with appropriate expertise. Until more evidence supporting these recommendations is available, the benefits, risks and costs of surveillance of pancreatic surveillance need additional evaluation.

Gene Variants That Affect Levels of Circulating Tumor Markers Increase Identification of Patients With Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9), and cancer antigen 125 (CA-125) in blood are used as markers to determine the response of patients with cancer to therapy, but are not used to identify patients with pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We obtained blood samples from 504 patients undergoing pancreatic surveillance from 2002 through 2018 who did not develop pancreatic cancer and measured levels of the tumor markers CA19-9, CEA, CA-125, and thrombospondin-2. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in FUT3, FUT2, ABO, and GAL3ST2 that have been associated with levels of tumor markers were used to establish SNP-defined ranges for each tumor marker. We also tested the association between additional SNPs (in FUT6, MUC16, B3GNT3, FAM3B, and THBS2) with levels of tumor markers. To calculate the diagnostic specificity of each SNP-defined range, we assigned the patients under surveillance into training and validation sets. After determining the SNP-defined ranges, we determined the sensitivity of SNP-adjusted tests for the tumor markers, measuring levels in blood samples from 245 patients who underwent resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) from 2010 through 2017. RESULTS: A level of CA19-9 that identified patients with PDAC with 99% specificity had 52.7% sensitivity. When we set the cut-off levels of CA19-9 based on each SNP, the test for CA19-9 identified patients with PDAC with 60.8% sensitivity and 98.8% specificity. Among patients with FUT3 alleles that encode a functional protein, levels of CA19-9 greater than the SNP-determined cut-off values identified 66.4% of patients with PDAC, with 99.3% specificity. In the validation set, levels of CEA varied among patients with vs without SNP in FUT2, by blood group, and among smokers vs nonsmokers; levels of CA-125 varied among patients with vs without the SNP in GAL3ST2. The use of the SNPs to define the ranges of CEA and CA-125 did not significantly increase the diagnostic accuracy of the assays for these proteins. Combining data on levels of CA19-9 and CEA, CA19-9 and CA-125, or CA19-9 and thrombospondin-2 increased the sensitivity of detection of PDAC, but slightly reduced specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Including information on SNPs associated with levels of CA19-9, CEA, and CA-125 can improve the diagnostic accuracy of assays for these tumor markers in the identification of patients with PDAC. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT02000089.

Multifocal Cryoballoon Ablation for Eradication of Barrett's Esophagus-Related Neoplasia: A Prospective Multicenter Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Ablation of Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the preferred approach for the treatment of neoplasia without visible lesions. Limited data on cryoballoon ablation (CBA) suggest its potential clinical utility. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of CBA in a multicenter study of patients with neoplastic BE. METHODS: In a prospective clinical trial, 11 academic and community centers recruited consecutive patients with BE of 1-6 cm length and low-grade dysplasia, high-grade dysplasia (HGD), or intramucosal adenocarcinoma (ImCA) confirmed by central pathology. Patients with symptomatic pre-existing strictures or visible BE lesions had dilation or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), respectively, before enrollment. A nitrous oxide cryoballoon focal ablation system was used to treat all visible columnar mucosa in up to 5 sessions. Study end points included complete eradication of all dysplasia (CE-D) and intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) at 1 year. RESULTS: One hundred twenty patients with BE with ImCA (20%), HGD (56%), or low-grade dysplasia (23%) were enrolled. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the CE-D and CE-IM rates were 76% and 72%, respectively. In the per-protocol analysis (94 patients), the CE-D and CE-IM rates were 97% and 91%, respectively. Postablation pain was mild and short lived. Fifteen subjects (12.5%) developed strictures requiring dilation. One patient (0.8%) with HGD progressed to ImCA, which was successfully treated with EMR. Another patient (0.8%) developed gastrointestinal bleeding associated with clopidogrel use. One patient (0.8%) had buried BE with HGD in 1 biopsy, not confirmed by subsequent EMR. DISCUSSION: In patients with neoplastic BE, CBA was safe and effective. Head-to-head comparisons between CBA and other ablation modalities are warranted (clinicaltrials.gov registration NCT02514525).

Surgical and endoscopic management options for patients with GERD based on proton pump inhibitor symptom response: recommendations from an expert U.S. panel.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The objective of this study was to examine expert opinion and agreement on the treatment of distinct GERD profiles from surgical and therapeutic endoscopy perspectives. METHODS: We used the RAND/University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method over 6 months (July 2018 to January 2019) to assess the appropriateness of antireflux interventions among foregut surgeons and therapeutic gastroenterologists. Patients with primary atypical or extraesophageal symptoms were not considered. Patient scenarios were grouped according to their symptom response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy. The primary outcome was appropriateness of an intervention. RESULTS: Antireflux surgery with laparoscopic fundoplication (LF) and magnetic sphincter augmentation (MSA) were ranked as appropriate for all complete and partial PPI responder scenarios. Transoral incisionless fundoplication was ranked as appropriate in complete and partial PPI responders without a hiatal hernia. Radiofrequency energy was not ranked as appropriate for complete or partial responders. There was lack of agreement between surgery and interventional gastroenterology groups on the appropriateness of LF and MSA for PPI nonresponders. Rankings for PPI nonresponders were similar when results from impedance-pH testing on PPI therapy were available, except that LF and MSA were not ranked as appropriate for PPI nonresponders if the impedance-pH study was negative. CONCLUSIONS: This work highlights areas of agreement for invasive therapeutic approaches for GERD and provides impetus for further interdisciplinary collaboration and trials to compare and generate novel and effective treatment approaches and care pathways, including the role of impedance-pH testing in PPI nonresponders.

Risk of Neoplastic Progression in Individuals at High Risk for Pancreatic Cancer Undergoing Long-term Surveillance.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Screening of individuals who have a high risk of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), because of genetic factors, frequently leads to identification of pancreatic lesions. We investigated the incidence of PDAC and risk factors for neoplastic progression in individuals at high risk for PDAC enrolled in a long-term screening study. METHODS: We analyzed data from 354 individuals at high risk for PDAC (based on genetic factors of family history), enrolled in Cancer of the Pancreas Screening cohort studies at tertiary care academic centers from 1998 through 2014 (median follow-up time, 5.6 years). All subjects were evaluated at study entry (baseline) by endoscopic ultrasonography and underwent surveillance with endoscopic ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, and/or computed tomography. The primary endpoint was the cumulative incidence of PDAC, pancreatic intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3, or intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm with high-grade dysplasia (HGD) after baseline. We performed multivariate Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, pancreatic lesions with worrisome features (solid mass, multiple cysts, cyst size > 3 cm, thickened/enhancing walls, mural nodule, dilated main pancreatic duct > 5 mm, or abrupt change in duct caliber) or rapid cyst growth (>4 mm/year) were detected in 68 patients (19%). Overall, 24 of 354 patients (7%) had neoplastic progression (14 PDACs and 10 HGDs) over a 16-year period; the rate of progression was 1.6%/year, and 93% had detectable lesions with worrisome features before diagnosis of the PDAC or HGD. Nine of the 10 PDACs detected during routine surveillance were resectable; a significantly higher proportion of patients with resectable PDACs survived 3 years (85%) compared with the 4 subjects with symptomatic, unresectable PDACs (25%), which developed outside surveillance (log rank P < .0001). Neoplastic progression occurred at a median age of 67 years; the median time from baseline screening until PDAC diagnosis was 4.8 years (interquartile range, 1.6-6.9 years). CONCLUSIONS: In a long-term (16-year) follow-up study of individuals at high-risk for PDAC, we found most PDACs detected during surveillance (9/10) to be resectable, and 85% of these patients survived for 3 years. We identified radiologic features associated with neoplastic progression.