Clinical consequences of computer-aided colorectal polyp detection.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Randomised trials show improved polyp detection with computer-aided detection (CADe), mostly of small lesions. However, operator and selection bias may affect CADe's true benefit. Clinical outcomes of increased detection have not yet been fully elucidated. METHODS: In this multicentre trial, CADe combining convolutional and recurrent neural networks was used for polyp detection. Blinded endoscopists were monitored in real time by a second observer with CADe access. CADe detections prompted reinspection. Adenoma detection rates (ADR) and polyp detection rates were measured prestudy and poststudy. Histological assessments were done by independent histopathologists. The primary outcome compared polyp detection between endoscopists and CADe. RESULTS: In 946 patients (51.9% male, mean age 64), a total of 2141 polyps were identified, including 989 adenomas. CADe was not superior to human polyp detection (sensitivity 94.6% vs 96.0%) but outperformed them when restricted to adenomas. Unblinding led to an additional yield of 86 true positive polyp detections (1.1% ADR increase per patient; 73.8% were <5 mm). CADe also increased non-neoplastic polyp detection by an absolute value of 4.9% of the cases (1.8% increase of entire polyp load). Procedure time increased with 6.6±6.5 min (+42.6%). In 22/946 patients, the additional detection of adenomas changed surveillance intervals (2.3%), mostly by increasing the number of small adenomas beyond the cut-off. CONCLUSION: Even if CADe appears to be slightly more sensitive than human endoscopists, the additional gain in ADR was minimal and follow-up intervals rarely changed. Additional inspection of non-neoplastic lesions was increased, adding to the inspection and/or polypectomy workload.

Expert assessment of infiltration depth and recommendation of endoscopic resection technique in early Barrett cancer.

BACKGROUND: Early Barrett cancer can be curatively treated by endoscopic resection. The choice of the resection technique, however-endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or submucosal dissection (ESD)-largely depends on the assumed infiltration depth as judged by the endoscopist. However, the accuracy of endoscopic diagnosis of the degree of cancer infiltration is not known. METHODS: Three to four high-quality images (both in overview and close-up) from 202 of early Barrett esophagus cancer cases (82% men, mean age 66.9 years) were selected from our endoscopy database (73.3% stage T1a and 26.7% in stage T1b). Images were shown to 9 Barrett esophagus experts, with patients' clinical data (age, sex, Barrett esophagus length) and biopsy results. The experts were asked to predict infiltration depth (T1b vs. T1a), and to suggest the appropriate endoscopic resection technique (EMR or ESD, or surgery). Interobserver variability (kappa values) was also determined for these parameters. RESULTS: Overall positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) to diagnose T1b versus T1a infiltration were 40.7% (95% CI: 36.7, 44.8) and 79.8% (95% CI: 77.5, 81.9), respectively; kappa value was 0.41. Paris classification (kappa 0.51) and suggested treatment also varied between experts. In a post hoc analysis, only the correlation between lesions classified as invisible or flat according to the Paris classification (IIB; 25% of all cases) and the suggested resection technique was better: In this subgroup, EMR was recommended in >80% of cases, with a high complete (basal R0) resection rate (mean of 88.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Precise endoscopic distinction between mucosal and submucosal involvement of Barrett esophagus cancer by experts as a basis for choosing the resection technique has limited predictive values and high interobserver variability. It seems that mainly invisible/flat lesions may result in good resection outcomes when treated by EMR, but this stratification strategy has to be assessed in further studies.

Cold Vs Hot Snare Endoscopic Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: Randomized Controlled German CHRONICLE Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is standard therapy for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm. It has been suggested recently that polyp resection without current (cold resection) may be superior to the standard technique using cutting/coagulation current (hot resection) by reducing adverse events (AEs), but evidence from a randomized trial is missing. METHODS: In this randomized controlled multicentric trial involving 19 centers, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps ≥20 mm were randomly assigned to cold or hot EMR. The primary outcome was major AE (eg, perforation or postendoscopic bleeding). Among secondary outcomes, major AE subcategories, postpolypectomy syndrome, and residual adenoma were most relevant. RESULTS: Between 2021 and 2023, there were 396 polyps in 363 patients (48.2% were female) enrolled for the intention-to-treat analysis. Major AEs occurred in 1.0% of the cold group and in 7.9% of the hot group (P = .001; odds ratio [OR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.54). Rates for perforation and postendoscopic bleeding were significantly lower in the cold group, with 0% vs 3.9% (P = .007) and 1.0% vs 4.4% (P = .040). Postpolypectomy syndrome occurred with similar frequency (3.1% vs 4.4%; P = .490). After cold resection, residual adenoma was found more frequently, with 23.7% vs 13.8% (P = .020; OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.12-3.38). In multivariable analysis, lesion diameter of ≥4 cm was an independent predictor for major AEs (OR, 3.37) and residual adenoma (OR, 2.47) and for high-grade dysplasia/cancer for residual adenoma (OR, 2.92). CONCLUSIONS: Cold resection of large, nonpedunculated colorectal polyps appears to be considerably safer than hot EMR; however, at the cost of a higher residual adenoma rate. Further studies have to confirm to what extent polyp size and histology can determine an individualized approach. German Clinical Trials Registry (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien), Number DRKS00025170.

COMPUTER-AIDED DIAGNOSIS IMPROVES CHARACTERIZATION OF BARRETT'S NEOPLASIA BY GENERAL ENDOSCOPISTS.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Characterization of visible abnormalities in Barrett esophagus (BE) patients can be challenging, especially for unexperienced endoscopists. This results in suboptimal diagnostic accuracy and poor inter-observer agreement. Computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) systems may assist endoscopists. We aimed to develop, validate and benchmark a CADx system for BE neoplasia. METHODS: The CADx system received pretraining with ImageNet with consecutive domain-specific pretraining with GastroNet which includes 5 million endoscopic images. It was subsequently trained and internally validated using 1,758 narrow-band imaging (NBI) images of early BE neoplasia (352 patients) and 1,838 NBI images of non-dysplastic BE (173 patients) from 8 international centers. CADx was tested prospectively on corresponding image and video test sets with 30 cases (20 patients) of BE neoplasia and 60 cases (31 patients) of non-dysplastic BE. The test set was benchmarked by 44 general endoscopists in two phases (phase 1: no CADx assistance; phase 2: with CADx assistance). Ten international BE experts provided additional benchmark performance. RESULTS: Stand-alone sensitivity and specificity of the CADx system were 100% and 98% for images and 93% and 96% for videos, respectively. CADx outperformed general endoscopists without CADx assistance in terms of sensitivity (p=0.04). Sensitivity and specificity of general endoscopist increased from 84% to 96% and 90 to 98% with CAD assistance (p<0.001), respectively. CADx assistance increased endoscopists' confidence in characterization (p<0.001). CADx performance was similar to Barrett experts. CONCLUSION: CADx assistance significantly increased characterization performance of BE neoplasia by general endoscopists to the level of expert endoscopists. The use of this CADx system may thereby improve daily Barrett surveillance.

Updated German guideline on diagnosis and treatment of squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus.

Diagnosis and therapy of esophageal carcinoma is challenging and requires a multidisciplinary approach. The purpose of the updated German guideline "Diagnosis and Treatment of Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus-version 3.1" is to provide practical and evidence-based advice for the management of patients with esophageal cancer. Recommendations were developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel based on an extensive and systematic evaluation of the published medical literature and the application of well-established methodologies (e.g. Oxford evidence grading scheme, grading of recommendations). Accurate diagnostic evaluation of the primary tumor as well as lymph node and distant metastases is required in order to guide patients to a stage-appropriate therapy after the initial diagnosis of esophageal cancer. In high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia or mucosal carcinoma endoscopic resection shall be performed. Whether endoscopic resection is the definitive therapeutic measure depends on the histopathological evaluation of the resection specimen. Esophagectomy should be performed minimally invasive or in combination with open procedures (hybrid technique). Because the prognosis in locally advanced esophageal carcinoma is poor with surgery alone, multimodality therapy is recommended. In locally advanced adenocarcinomas of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction, perioperative chemotherapy or preoperative radiochemotherapy should be administered. In locally advanced squamous cell carcinomas of the esophagus, preoperative radiochemotherapy followed by complete resection or definitive radiochemotherapy without surgery should be performed. In the case of residual tumor in the resection specimen after neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy and R0 resection of squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, adjuvant immunotherapy with nivolumab should be given. Systemic palliative treatment options (chemotherapy, chemotherapy plus immunotherapy, immunotherapy alone) in unresectable or metastastic esophageal cancer depend on histology and are stratified according to PD-L1 and/or Her2 expression.

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

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

Accuracy of polyp characterization by artificial intelligence and endoscopists: a prospective, non-randomized study in a tertiary endoscopy center.

Background and study aims Artificial intelligence (AI) in gastrointestinal endoscopy is developing very fast. Computer-aided detection of polyps and computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) for polyp characterization are available now. This study was performed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a new commercially available CADx system in clinical practice. Patients and methods This prospective, non-randomized study was performed at a tertiary academic endoscopy center from March to August 2022. We included patients receiving a colonoscopy. Polypectomy had to be performed in all polyps. Every patient was examined concurrently by an endoscopist and AI using two opposing screens. The AI system, overseen by a second observer, was not visible to the endoscopist. The primary outcome was accuracy of the AI classifying the polyps into "neoplastic" and "non-neoplastic." The secondary outcome was accuracy of the classification by the endoscopists. Sessile serrated lesions were classified as neoplastic. Results We included 156 patients (mean age 65; 57 women) with 262 polyps ≤10 mm. Eighty-four were hyperplastic polyps (32.1%), 158 adenomas (60.3%), seven sessile serrated lesions (2.7%) and 13 other entities (normal/inflammatory colonmucosa, lymphoidic polyp) (4.9%) on histological diagnosis. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of AI were 89.70% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 84.02%-93.88%), 75.26% (95% CI: 65.46%-83.46%) and 84.35% (95% CI:79.38%-88.53%), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy for less experienced endoscopists (2-5 years of endoscopy) were 95.56% (95% CI: 84.85%-99.46%), 61.54% (95% CI: 40.57%-79.77%) and 83.10% (95% CI: 72.34%-90.95%) and for experienced endoscopists 90.83% (95% CI: 84.19%-95.33%), 71.83% (95% CI: 59.90%-81.87%) and 83.77% (95% CI: 77.76%-88.70%), respectively. Conclusion Accuracy for polyp characterization by a new commercially available AI system is high, but does not fulfill the criteria for a "resect-and-discard" strategy.

Towards a robust and compact deep learning system for primary detection of early Barrett's neoplasia: Initial image-based results of training on a multi-center retrospectively collected data set.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic detection of early neoplasia in Barrett's esophagus is difficult. Computer Aided Detection (CADe) systems may assist in neoplasia detection. The aim of this study was to report the first steps in the development of a CADe system for Barrett's neoplasia and to evaluate its performance when compared with endoscopists. METHODS: This CADe system was developed by a consortium, consisting of the Amsterdam University Medical Center, Eindhoven University of Technology, and 15 international hospitals. After pretraining, the system was trained and validated using 1.713 neoplastic (564 patients) and 2.707 non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE; 665 patients) images. Neoplastic lesions were delineated by 14 experts. The performance of the CADe system was tested on three independent test sets. Test set 1 (50 neoplastic and 150 NDBE images) contained subtle neoplastic lesions representing challenging cases and was benchmarked by 52 general endoscopists. Test set 2 (50 neoplastic and 50 NDBE images) contained a heterogeneous case-mix of neoplastic lesions, representing distribution in clinical practice. Test set 3 (50 neoplastic and 150 NDBE images) contained prospectively collected imagery. The main outcome was correct classification of the images in terms of sensitivity. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the CADe system on test set 1 was 84%. For general endoscopists, sensitivity was 63%, corresponding to a neoplasia miss-rate of one-third of neoplastic lesions and a potential relative increase in neoplasia detection of 33% for CADe-assisted detection. The sensitivity of the CADe system on test sets 2 and 3 was 100% and 88%, respectively. The specificity of the CADe system varied for the three test sets between 64% and 66%. CONCLUSION: This study describes the first steps towards the establishment of an unprecedented data infrastructure for using machine learning to improve the endoscopic detection of Barrett's neoplasia. The CADe system detected neoplasia reliably and outperformed a large group of endoscopists in terms of sensitivity.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection techniques and technology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review.

ESGE suggests conventional endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD; marking and mucosal incision followed by circumferential incision and stepwise submucosal dissection) for most esophageal and gastric lesions. ESGE suggests tunneling ESD for esophageal lesions involving more than two-thirds of the esophageal circumference. ESGE recommends the pocket-creation method for colorectal ESD, at least if traction devices are not used. The use of dedicated ESD knives with size adequate to the location/thickness of the gastrointestinal wall is recommended. It is suggested that isotonic saline or viscous solutions can be used for submucosal injection. ESGE recommends traction methods in esophageal and colorectal ESD and in selected gastric lesions. After gastric ESD, coagulation of visible vessels is recommended, and post-procedural high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (or vonoprazan). ESGE recommends against routine closure of the ESD defect, except in duodenal ESD. ESGE recommends corticosteroids after resection of  > 50 % of the esophageal circumference. The use of carbon dioxide when performing ESD is recommended. ESGE recommends against the performance of second-look endoscopy after ESD. ESGE recommends endoscopy/colonoscopy in the case of significant bleeding (hemodynamic instability, drop in hemoglobin > 2 g/dL, severe ongoing bleeding) to perform endoscopic hemostasis with thermal methods or clipping; hemostatic powders represent rescue therapies. ESGE recommends closure of immediate perforations with clips (through-the-scope or cap-mounted, depending on the size and shape of the perforation), as soon as possible but ideally after securing a good plane for further dissection.

[Sarcopenia in patients with pancreatic cancer, an independant prognostic factor]. / Sarkopenie als unabhängiger Prognosefaktor bei Pankreaskarzinom.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is despite modern diagnostic tools and treatment regimen associated with poor outcome. Many patients show cachexia and sarcopenia. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis the SMI (cm²/m²) was measured by determining the skelettal muscle area in a computed tomography image at lumbar vertebrae 3. Further clinical parameters were measured to determine the outcome. RESULTS: The mean survival after diagnosis in the population with sarcopenia was significantly lower (14,4 vs 17,7 months, p=0,046). Significantly shorter survival was also seen for higher age (p=0,006), no tumor resection (p=0,004), metastases (p=0,002) and high CA19-9 level (p=0,002) CONCLUSION: Sarcopenia is an indipendant prognostic factor in patients with pancreatic cancer. SMI should be measured clinical practice and further studies are necessary to asses a potential therapeutic strategy.

Wide-area transepithelial sampling with computer-assisted analysis to detect high grade dysplasia and cancer in Barrett's esophagus: a multicenter randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Current surveillance for Barrett's esophagus (BE), consisting of four-quadrant random forceps biopsies (FBs), has an inherent risk of sampling error. Wide-area transepithelial sampling (WATS) may increase detection of high grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). In this multicenter randomized trial, we aimed to evaluate WATS as a substitute for FB. METHODS: Patients with known BE and a recent history of dysplasia, without visible lesions, at 17 hospitals were randomized to receive either WATS followed by FB or vice versa. All WATS samples were examined, with computer assistance, by at least two experienced pathologists at the CDx Diagnostics laboratory. Similarly, all FBs were examined by two expert pathologists. The primary end point was concordance/discordance for detection of HGD/EAC between the two techniques. RESULTS: 172 patients were included, of whom 21 had HGD/EAC detected by both modalities, 18 had HGD/EAC detected by WATS but missed by FB, and 12 were detected by FB but missed by WATS. The detection rate of HGD/EAC did not differ between WATS and FB (P = 0.36). Using WATS as an adjunct to FB significantly increased the detection of HGD/EAC vs. FB alone (absolute increase 10 % [95 %CI 6 % to 16 %]). Mean procedural times in minutes for FB alone, WATS alone, and the combination were 6.6 (95 %CI 5.9 to 7.1), 4.9 (95 %CI 4.1 to 5.4), and 11.2 (95 %CI 10.5 to 14.0), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although the combination of WATS and FB increases dysplasia detection in a population of BE patients enriched for dysplasia, we did not find a statistically significant difference between WATS and FB for the detection of HGD/EAC as single modality.

Cystic pancreatic neoplasms in a tertiary gastroenterologic referral center: Evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound, progression rate and malignancy rate in a large unicentric cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Cystic pancreatic neoplasms (CPN) are frequently diagnosed due to better diagnostic techniques and patients becoming older. However, diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and value of follow-up are still unclear. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The aim of our retrospective study was to investigate the frequency of different cystic pancreatic neoplasms (intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm [IPMN], serous and mucinous cystadenoma, solid pseudopapillary neoplasia), diagnostic accuracy, size progression, and rate of malignancy using EUS in a tertiary reference center in Germany. Between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2018, 455 patients were diagnosed with cystic pancreatic lesions (798 EUS examinations). RESULTS: Endoscopic ultrasound diagnosed 223 patients with cystic pancreatic neoplasms, including 138 (61.9%) patients with branch duct IPMN, 16 (7.2%) with main duct IPMN, and five (2.2%) with mixed-type IPMN. In the largest subgroup of branch duct IPMN, cysts were size progressive in 20 patients (38.5%). Fine needle aspiration (FNA) was performed in 21 patients, and confirmed the suspected diagnosis in 12/21 patients. 28 surgical resections were performed, in 7/28 patients (25%), high-grade dysplasia or cancer was diagnosed. Endoscopic ultrasound diagnosis of serous and mucinous cystic pancreatic neoplasms was correct in 68.4%. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic ultrasound differential diagnosis of CPNs is challenging. Even in a tertiary expert center, differentiation of serous and mucinous cystic neoplasia is not guaranteed. Relevant size progression of CPN, however, is rare, as is the rate of malignancy. The data of this study suggest that morphologic criteria to assess pancreatic cysts alone are not sufficient to allow a clear diagnosis. Hence, for the improved assessment of pancreatic cysts, EUS should be combined with additional tests and techniques such as MRT/MRCP, contrast-enhanced EUS, and/or FNA/fine needle biopsy including fluid analysis. The combination and correlation of imaging studies with EUS findings is mandatory.

eQTL Set-Based Association Analysis Identifies Novel Susceptibility Loci for Barrett Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Over 20 susceptibility single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) have been identified for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and its precursor, Barrett esophagus (BE), explaining a small portion of heritability. METHODS: Using genetic data from 4,323 BE and 4,116 EAC patients aggregated by international consortia including the Barrett's and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium (BEACON), we conducted a comprehensive transcriptome-wide association study (TWAS) for BE/EAC, leveraging Genotype Tissue Expression (GTEx) gene-expression data from six tissue types of plausible relevance to EAC etiology: mucosa and muscularis from the esophagus, gastroesophageal (GE) junction, stomach, whole blood, and visceral adipose. Two analytical approaches were taken: standard TWAS using the predicted gene expression from local expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL), and set-based SKAT association using selected eQTLs that predict the gene expression. RESULTS: Although the standard approach did not identify significant signals, the eQTL set-based approach identified eight novel associations, three of which were validated in independent external data (eQTL SNP sets for EXOC3, ZNF641, and HSP90AA1). CONCLUSIONS: This study identified novel genetic susceptibility loci for EAC and BE using an eQTL set-based genetic association approach. IMPACT: This study expanded the pool of genetic susceptibility loci for EAC and BE, suggesting the potential of the eQTL set-based genetic association approach as an alternative method for TWAS analysis.