The utility of a genetic progression risk test for Barrett esophagus.

This study sought to characterize the utility of a gene methylation-based biomarker test that has been validated to predict progression towards esophageal adenocarcinoma. Barrett esophagus (BE) is a precursor condition for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) with somewhat variable approaches among gastroenterologists toward managing neoplastic progression risk. Capsulomics has developed a validated multigene DNA methylation-based biomarker assay performed on BE biopsies designed to address this variability by classifying BE patients into progression risk groups. In the current study, a survey was administered to practicing gastroenterologists in order to assess the potential impact of this assay on clinical practice. In this context, 89% (95% Cl: 85.4-92.6%) of surveyed physicians felt strongly that the multigene Barrett Esophagus test helped resolve uncertainties and optimize care of patients with BE by impacting their decisions on surveillance intervals and use of active treatments, such as ablation. The assay significantly impacted surveillance intervals for both high-risk (22.0 no assay vs 12.3 months with assay; P = 1.7E-8) and low-risk (7.9 no assay vs 11.4 months with assay, P = 8.8E-4) stratified case results. Finally, the assay also significantly impacted decisions to pursue active ablation treatments in both high-risk (5% recommending ablation without assay vs 42% with assay; P = 3.7E-11) and low-risk (42% recommending ablation without assay vs 29% with assay; P = .049) stratified case results. Results demonstrated a strong effect of the assay on clinical decision making, even in conjunction with established clinical guidelines.

Assessment of Ergonomic Strain and Positioning During Bronchoscopic Procedures: A Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Poor ergonomics place health care workers at risk for work-related overuse injuries. Repetitive and prolonged hand maneuvers, such as those performed during endoscopic procedures, may lead to musculoskeletal complaints and work-related injuries. However, the prevalence of health care-related work injuries among physicians is thought to be underreported and there is a paucity of literature investigating the impact of ergonomic strain on bronchoscopy. We designed a feasibility study to explore the differences in ergonomic strain and muscle activity of bronchoscopists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study of bronchoscopic procedures was performed in a simulated environment. Preselected target areas were identified and airway sampling was performed with real-time ergonomic assessment utilizing electromyogram (EMG), grip strength, and musculoskeletal use and motion analysis. RESULTS: Procedural data was obtained for all procedures (78 bronchoscopies by 13 subjects) for both ergonomic and EMG scores. Experienced bronchoscopists demonstrated less EMG burden (P=0.007) and improved ergonomic positioning (P=0.007) during bronchoscopy when compared with less experienced bronchoscopists. Procedures performed with rotational-head bronchoscopes trended toward improved ergonomics (P=0.15) and lower EMG scores (P=0.88). A significant improvement in ergonomic scores was seen with the rotational-head bronchoscope when targeting the left upper lobe (P=0.036). CONCLUSION: Poor ergonomic positioning and excessive muscle strain appear present within bronchoscopy procedures but may be improved in those with more bronchoscopy experience. Technological advances in bronchoscope design may also have the potential to improve procedural ergonomics. Additional prospective studies are warranted to define the long-term impact on bronchoscopic ergonomics.