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.

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.

NON-ENDOSCOPIC ESOPHAGEAL SAMPLING DEVICE AND BIOMARKER PANEL FOR DETECTION OF BARRETT'S ESOPHAGUS (BE) AND ESOPHAGEAL ADENOCARCINOMA (EAC).

BACKGROUND: We previously reported an encapsulated balloon (EsoCheck TM , EC), which selectively samples the distal esophagus, that coupled with a two methylated DNA biomarker panel (EsoGuard TM , EG), detected Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), with a sensitivity and specificity of 90.3% and 91.7%, respectively. This previous study utilized frozen EC samples. AIM: To assess a next generation EC sampling device and EG assay that utilizes a room temperature sample preservative to enable office-based testing. METHODS: Cases with nondysplastic (ND) and dysplastic (indefinite=IND, low grade dysplasia = LGD, high grade dysplasia = HGD) BE, EAC, junctional adenocarcinoma (JAC) and controls with no intestinal metaplasia (IM) were included. Nurses or physician assistants at six institutions, who were trained in EC administration, delivered the encapsulated balloon per orally and inflated it in the stomach. The inflated balloon was pulled back to sample 5 cm of the distal esophagus, then deflated and retracted into the EC capsule to prevent sample contamination from proximal esophagus. Nextgen EG sequencing assays performed on bisulfite-treated DNA extracted from EC samples determined levels of methylated Vimentin (mVIM) and methylated Cyclin A1 (mCCNA1) in a CLIA-certified laboratory, blinded to patients' phenotypes. 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 EC sampling. Mean time for EC sampling was just over 3 minutes. The cases included 31 NDBE, 16 IND/LGD, 23 HGD, and 18 EAC/JAC. Thirty-seven (53%) of the non-dysplastic and dysplastic BE cases were short-segment BE (SSBE; < 3 cm). Overall sensitivity for detecting all cases was 85% (95% CI= 0.78-0.93) and specificity was 85% (95% CI=0.79-0.90). Sensitivity for NDBE was 84% (n=37). The EC/EG test detected 100% of cancers. CONCLUSION: The next-generation EC/EG technology has been both successfully updated to incorporate a room temperature sample collection preservative and successfully implemented in a CLIA certified laboratory. When performed by trained personnel, EC/EG detects non-dysplastic BE, dysplastic BE, and cancer with high sensitivity and specificity, replicating the operating characteristics of the initial pilot study of this technology. Future applications utilizing EC/EG to screen broader populations at risk for developing cancer are proposed. SIGNIFICANCE: This multi-center study demonstrates the successful performance of a commercially available clinically implementable non-endoscopic screening test for BE in the U.S., as recommended in the most recent ACG Guideline and AGA Clinical Update. It transitions and validates a prior academic laboratory-based study of frozen research samples over to a CLIA laboratory, one that also integrates a clinically practical room temperature method for sample acquisition and storage, enabling office-based screening.

Evidence-Based Cognitive Endoscopy Simulators: Do They Exist? A Systematic Search and Evaluation of Existing Platforms.

BACKGROUND: The development of guidelines by gastroenterology societies increasingly stresses evidence-based endoscopic practice. AIMS: We performed a systematic assessment to determine whether endoscopic video teaching platforms incorporate evidence-based educational strategies and methods in order to disseminate guideline-based endoscopic management strategies. METHODS: Platforms with a video component were systematically identified using the Google search engine, Apple and Android application stores, and searching four major gastroenterology society websites and three known platforms, to identify all relevant platforms. Two video samples from each teaching platform were reviewed independently by two authors and assessed for use of a priori defined principles of evidence-based medicine, as determined by consensus agreement and for the use of simulation. RESULTS: Fourteen platforms were included in the final analysis, and two videos from each were analyzed. One of the 14 platforms used simulation and incorporated evidence-based medicine principles consistently. Nine of the 14 platforms were not transparent in regard to citation. None of the platforms consistently cited the certainty of evidence or explained how evidence was selected. CONCLUSIONS: Education of guideline-based endoscopic management strategies using principles of evidence-based medicine is under-utilized in endoscopic videos. In addition, the use of cognitive simulation is absent in this arena. There is a paucity of evidence-based cognitive endoscopy simulators designed for fellows that incorporate systematic evaluation, and efforts should be made to create this platform.

Impact of withdrawal time on adenoma detection rate: results from a prospective multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Performing a high-quality colonoscopy is critical for optimizing the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Colonoscopy withdrawal time (a surrogate measure) of ≥6 minutes is recommended; however, a threshold of a high-quality withdrawal and its impact on ADR are not known. METHODS: We examined withdrawal time (excluding polyp resection and bowel cleaning time) of subjects undergoing screening and/or surveillance colonoscopy in a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. We examined the relationship of withdrawal time in 1-minute increments on ADR and reported odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Linear regression analysis was performed to assess the maximal inspection time threshold that impacts the ADR. RESULTS: A total of 1142 subjects (age, 62.3 ± 8.9 years; 80.5% men) underwent screening (45.9%) or surveillance (53.6%) colonoscopy. The screening group had a median withdrawal time of 9.0 minutes (interquartile range [IQR], 3.3) with an ADR of 49.6%, whereas the surveillance group had a median withdrawal time of 9.3 minutes (IQR, 4.3) with an ADR of 63.9%. ADR correspondingly increased for a withdrawal time of 6 minutes to 13 minutes, beyond which ADR did not increase (50.4% vs 76.6%, P < .01). For every 1-minute increase in withdrawal time, there was 6% higher odds of detecting an additional subject with an adenoma (OR, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.10; P = .004). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this multicenter, randomized controlled trial underscore the importance of a high-quality examination and efforts required to achieve this with an incremental yield in ADR based on withdrawal time. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03952611.).

High-Definition Colonoscopy Compared With Cuff- and Cap-Assisted Colonoscopy: Results From a Multicenter, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Mucosal exposure devices including distal attachments such as the cuff and cap have shown variable results in improving adenoma detection rate (ADR) compared with high-definition white light colonoscopy (HDWLE). METHODS: We performed a prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy comparing HDWLE to 2 different types of distal attachments: cuff (CF) (Endocuff Vision) or cap (CP) (Reveal). The primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes included adenomas per colonoscopy, advanced adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rate, right-sided ADR, withdrawal time, and adverse events. Continuous variables were compared using Student's t test and categorical variables were compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact test using statistical software Stata version16. A P value <.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 1203 subjects were randomized to either HDWLE (n = 384; mean 62 years of age; 81.3% males), CF (n = 379; mean 62.7 years of age; 79.9% males) or CP (n = 379; mean age 62.1 years of age; 80.5% males). No significant differences were found among 3 groups for ADR (57.3%, 59.1%, and 55.7%; P = .6), adenomas per colonoscopy (1.4 ± 1.9, 1.6 ± 2.4, and 1.4 ± 2; P = .3), advanced adenoma (7.6%, 9.2%, and 8.2%; P = .7), sessile serrated lesion (6.8%, 6.3%, and 5.5%; P = .8), or right ADR (48.2%, 49.3%, and 46.2%; P = .7). The number of polyps per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the CF group compared with HDWLE and CP group (2.7 ± 3.4, 2.3 ± 2.5, and 2.2 ± 2.3; P = .013). In a multivariable model, after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, withdrawal time, and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale score, there was no impact of device type on the primary outcome of ADR (P = .77). In screening patients, CF resulted in more neoplasms per colonoscopy (CF: 1.7 ± 2.6, HDWLE: 1.3 ± 1.7, and CP: 1.2 ± 1.8; P = .047) with a shorter withdrawal time. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this multicenter randomized controlled trial do not show any significant benefit of using either distal attachment devices (CF or CP) over HDWLE, at least in high-detector endoscopists. The Endocuff may have an advantage in the screening population. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT03952611).

Cold versus hot endoscopic mucosal resection for large sessile colon polyps: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND : For large sessile colorectal polyps (LSCPs), endoscopic mucosal resection without diathermy ("cold endoscopic mucosal resection [EMR]") is gaining popularity because of its safety advantages over conventional EMR ("hot EMR"). Polyp recurrence rates have been reported to be higher with cold EMR. Considering these differences, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of these two techniques. METHODS : A decision analysis model was constructed for EMR of an LSCP. The decision tree incorporated the EMR method, clip use, procedural mortality, adverse events and their management, and polyp recurrence. Outcomes included days of lost productivity and marginal cost difference. Adverse event and recurrence rates were extracted from the existing literature, giving emphasis to recent systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials. RESULTS : Through 30 months of follow-up, the average cost of removing an LSCP by cold EMR was US$5213, as compared to $6168 by hot EMR, yielding a $955 cost difference (95 % confidence interval $903-$1006). Average days of lost productivity were 6.2 days for cold EMR and 6.3 days for hot EMR. This cost advantage remained over several analyses accounting for variations in recurrence rates and clip closure strategies. Clip cost and LSCP recurrence rate had the greatest and the least impacts on the marginal cost difference, respectively. CONCLUSION : Cold EMR is the dominant strategy over hot EMR, with lower cost and fewer days of lost productivity. In theory, a complete transition to cold EMR for LSCPs in the USA could result in an annual cost saving approaching US$7 million to Medicare beneficiaries.

Meet EBE: The Development of an Evidence-Based Endoscopy Simulator.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the digital era of evidence-based medicine, there is a paucity of video endoscopy teaching platforms that use evidence-based medicine principles, or that allow for cognitive simulation of endoscopic management strategies. We created a guideline-based teaching platform for fellows that incorporates these features, and tested it. METHODS: A pilot video module with embedded questions was drafted, and after incorporation of feedback from several attending gastroenterologists, an additional 2 modules were created. The embedded questions were designed to simulate cognitive management decisions as if the viewer were doing the endoscopy procedure in the video. A narrator explained the evidence behind the task being performed, and its certainty based on endoscopic guidelines. Quizzes and surveys were developed and administered to a sample of attendings and fellows who completed the video modules to test efficacy, usability, and likeability. RESULTS: Three video modules, named evidence-based endoscopy (EBE), incorporating low fidelity simulation, and utilizing evidence-based medicine principles, were created. Eight fellows and 10 attendings completed the video modules and all quizzes and surveys. Mean test scores improved from before to after completing the video modules (56% to 92%; mean difference = -35%; 95% confidence interval, 27%-47%). Surveys indicated that the product was viewed favorably by participants, and that there is a strong desire for this type of educational product. CONCLUSIONS: The EBE simulator is a unique, desirable, and effective educational platform based on evidence-based medicine principles that fills a gap in available tools for endoscopy education. Further studies are needed to assess whether EBE can aid in long-term knowledge retention and increase adherence to guideline recommendations.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Optimal Management of the Malignant Alimentary Tract Obstruction: Expert Review.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The purpose of this expert review is to describe the current methodologies available to manage malignant alimentary tract obstructions as well the evidence behind the various methods (including their efficacy and safety), indications, and appropriate timing of interventions. METHODS: This is not a formal systematic review but is based on a review of the literature to provide best practice advice statements. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation is carried out. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: For all patients with alimentary tract obstruction, the decision about specific interventions should be made in a multidisciplinary setting including oncologists, surgeons, and endoscopists and take into account the characteristics of the obstruction, patient's expectations, prognosis, expected subsequent therapies, and functional status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer and who are potential candidates for resection or chemoradiation, clinicians should not routinely insert a self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) without multidisciplinary review because of high rates of stent migration, higher morbidity and mortality, and potentially lower R0 (microscopically negative margins) resection rates. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are potential candidates for resection and who have concerns of malnutrition, clinicians may consider the use of enteral feeding tubes (via nasogastric or percutaneous route). Clinicians should be aware of the potential risk of abdominal wall tumor seeding as well as making subsequent gastric conduit formation difficult with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are not candidates for resection, clinicians should consider either SEMS insertion or brachytherapy as sole therapy or in combination. Clinicians should not consider the use of laser therapy or photodynamic therapy because of the lack of evidence of better outcomes and superior alternatives. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: For patients with malignant esophageal obstruction who are undergoing SEMS placement, clinicians should use a fully covered or partially covered SEMS and not an uncovered SEMS, with consideration of a stent-anchoring/fixation method. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who have a life expectancy greater than 2 months, have good functional status, and who are surgically fit, surgical gastrojejunostomy should be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are undergoing surgical gastrojejunostomy, a laparoscopic approach is favored over an open approach because of lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are not candidates for gastrojejunostomy (surgical or endoscopic ultrasound-guided), clinicians should consider the insertion of an enteral stent. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Enteral stents should not be used in patients with multiple luminal obstructions or severely impaired gastric motility because of the limited benefit in these scenarios. Clinicians can consider placement of a venting gastrostomy in these patients. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Depending on the experience of the endoscopist, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy is an acceptable alternative to surgical gastrojejunostomy and enteral stent placement. Clinicians should be aware that there are currently no dedicated Food and Drug Administration-approved devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are candidates for resection, insertion of SEMS is a reasonable choice as a "bridge to surgery" to allow for one-stage, elective resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are not candidates for resection, either SEMS placement or a diverting colostomy are reasonable choices depending on the patient's goals and functional status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: SEMS is a reasonable option for patients with proximal (or right-sided) malignant obstructions, both as a "bridge to surgery" and in the palliative setting. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: SEMS placement is a reasonable alternative for patients with extracolonic malignancy who are not candidates for surgery, although their placement is more technically challenging, clinical success rates are more variable, and complications (including stent migration) are more frequent.

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.

Identifying DNA methylation biomarkers for non-endoscopic detection of Barrett's esophagus.

We report a biomarker-based non-endoscopic method for detecting Barrett's esophagus (BE) based on detecting methylated DNAs retrieved via a swallowable balloon-based esophageal sampling device. BE is the precursor of, and a major recognized risk factor for, developing esophageal adenocarcinoma. Endoscopy, the current standard for BE detection, is not cost-effective for population screening. We performed genome-wide screening to ascertain regions targeted for recurrent aberrant cytosine methylation in BE, identifying high-frequency methylation within the CCNA1 locus. We tested CCNA1 DNA methylation as a BE biomarker in cytology brushings of the distal esophagus from 173 individuals with or without BE. CCNA1 DNA methylation demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.95 for discriminating BE-related metaplasia and neoplasia cases versus normal individuals, performing identically to methylation of VIM DNA, an established BE biomarker. When combined, the resulting two biomarker panel was 95% sensitive and 91% specific. These results were replicated in an independent validation cohort of 149 individuals who were assayed using the same cutoff values for test positivity established in the training population. To progress toward non-endoscopic esophageal screening, we engineered a well-tolerated, swallowable, encapsulated balloon device able to selectively sample the distal esophagus within 5 min. In balloon samples from 86 individuals, tests of CCNA1 plus VIM DNA methylation detected BE metaplasia with 90.3% sensitivity and 91.7% specificity. Combining the balloon sampling device with molecular assays of CCNA1 plus VIM DNA methylation enables an efficient, well-tolerated, sensitive, and specific method of screening at-risk populations for BE.

A nonrandomized trial of vitamin D supplementation for Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency may increase esophageal cancer risk. Vitamin D affects genes regulating proliferation, apoptosis, and differentiation and induces the tumor suppressor 15-hydroxyprostaglandin dehydrogenase (PGDH) in other cancers. This nonrandomized interventional study assessed effects of vitamin D supplementation in Barrett's esophagus (BE). We hypothesized that vitamin D supplementation may have beneficial effects on gene expression including 15-PGDH in BE. METHODS: BE subjects with low grade or no dysplasia received vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol) 50,000 international units weekly plus a proton pump inhibitor for 12 weeks. Esophageal biopsies from normal plus metaplastic BE epithelium and blood samples were obtained before and after vitamin D supplementation. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D was measured to characterize vitamin D status. Esophageal gene expression was assessed using microarrays. RESULTS: 18 study subjects were evaluated. The baseline mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level was 27 ng/mL (normal ≥30 ng/mL). After vitamin D supplementation, 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels rose significantly (median increase of 31.6 ng/mL, p<0.001). There were no significant changes in gene expression from esophageal squamous or Barrett's epithelium including 15-PGDH after supplementation. CONCLUSION: BE subjects were vitamin D insufficient. Despite improved vitamin D status with supplementation, no significant alterations in gene expression profiles were noted. If vitamin D supplementation benefits BE, a longer duration or higher dose of supplementation may be needed.

Gastrointestinal malignancies at five regional referral hospitals in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of published data regarding the trend and distribution of gastrointestinal malignancies in Uganda. OBJECTIVES: To study the trend and distribution of gastrointestinal malignancies over a 10 year period at five regional referral hospitals in Uganda. METHODS: Patient's charts with histologically confirmed diagnoses of gastrointestinal malignancies for the period 2002-2011 were identified. Case information, which included age at diagnosis, sex, and year of diagnosis, primary anatomic site of the tumour and hospitals attended, was retrospectively abstracted. Patient's clinical and demographic features were compared. RESULTS: Oesophageal cancer was the most common (28.8%) followed by liver (25.8%), stomach (18.4%) and colorectal (14.3%). The mean age at diagnosis for all the cancers was not significantly different in both sexes 54.1, (SD16.1) versus 53.6, (SD 14.7). The highest mean annual number of cases of oesophageal and stomach cancers was 21.8, (SD 15.5) and 16.6, (SD 13.0) respectively from Mbarara Hospital; Lacor had the highest mean annual number of liver cancer cases (21, SD 17.7) followed by Mbale (11.4, SD 8.3). The mean annual number of colorectal cancers was highest in Mbale Hospital (10.3, SD 8.1) followed by Lacor (4.9, SD 3.9). The distribution of oesophageal, liver, stomach and colorectal cancers diagnosed per year across the five referral hospitals was different, P<0.001. CONCLUSION: Oesophageal, liver, stomach and colorectal cancer remain the most common gastrointestinal malignancies and their rate is increasing in Uganda. There is a need for awareness, endoscopic and radiological assessment of symptomatic individuals and a need for screening of high index patients.

Endoscopic Evaluation in the Workup of Pancreatic Cancer.

Early diagnosis and accurate staging of pancreatic cancer is very important to plan optimal management strategy. Endoscopy plays an important role in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer. Endoscopic ultrasound imaging (EUS) is the most sensitive modality for diagnosis, especially for small pancreatic tumors; it also allows tissue acquisition for histological diagnosis. Computed tomography scanning and EUS play complementary roles in staging and are comparable in determining resectability. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography allows tissue sampling but is limited to palliative biliary drainage in most cases. In this article, we review the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic adenocarcinoma, with special emphasis on the use of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

Linkage and related analyses of Barrett's esophagus and its associated adenocarcinomas.

BACKGROUND: Familial aggregation and segregation analysis studies have provided evidence of a genetic basis for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and its premalignant precursor, Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aim to demonstrate the utility of linkage analysis to identify the genomic regions that might contain the genetic variants that predispose individuals to this complex trait (BE and EAC). METHODS: We genotyped 144 individuals in 42 multiplex pedigrees chosen from 1000 singly ascertained BE/EAC pedigrees, and performed both model-based and model-free linkage analyses, using S.A.G.E. and other software. Segregation models were fitted, from the data on both the 42 pedigrees and the 1000 pedigrees, to determine parameters for performing model-based linkage analysis. Model-based and model-free linkage analyses were conducted in two sets of pedigrees: the 42 pedigrees and a subset of 18 pedigrees with female affected members that are expected to be more genetically homogeneous. Genome-wide associations were also tested in these families. RESULTS: Linkage analyses on the 42 pedigrees identified several regions consistently suggestive of linkage by different linkage analysis methods on chromosomes 2q31, 12q23, and 4p14. A linkage on 15q26 is the only consistent linkage region identified in the 18 female-affected pedigrees, in which the linkage signal is higher than in the 42 pedigrees. Other tentative linkage signals are also reported. CONCLUSION: Our linkage study of BE/EAC pedigrees identified linkage regions on chromosomes 2, 4, 12, and 15, with some reported associations located within our linkage peaks. Our linkage results can help prioritize association tests to delineate the genetic determinants underlying susceptibility to BE and EAC.