Endoscopic ultrasound-guided colo-colostomy for the treatment of benign complete occlusion of colonic anastomosis: a case series and description of technique.

AIM: The incidence of benign colonic anastomotic stricture is approximately 2% in patients undergoing left hemicolectomy or anterior resection and as high as 16% in patients undergoing low anterior or intersphincteric resection. In the majority, rather than complete occlusion, a stenosis forms, which can be managed with endoscopic balloon dilatation, a self-expanding metallic stent or endoscopic electroincision. In the less common scenario of a completely occluded colonic anastomosis, surgery is often required. In this study, we aim to describe the technique we used to treat this condition non-operatively METHOD: We describe a case series of three patients with benign complete occlusion of their colorectal anastomosis and how we managed them nonoperatively with a colonic/rectal endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) anastomosis technique and a Hot lumen-apposing metallic stent. RESULTS: We demonstrate that the technical and clinical success for this technique is 100%. CONCLUSIONS: We believe that the technique we describe is effective and safe. It should be widely reproducible in centres with expertise in interventional EUS, given the similarity to well-established procedures such as EUS-guided gastroenterostomy. Patient selection and timing of reversal of ileostomy need careful consideration, especially in patients with a history of keloid formation. Given the shorter hospital stay and reduced invasiveness of this technique, we believe it should be considered for all patients who have complete benign occlusion of a colonic anastomosis. However, given the small number of cases and short period of follow-up, the long-term outcome of this technique is not known. More studies with higher power and a longer period of follow-up should be conducted to further ascertain the effectiveness of this technique.

Risk stratification of Barrett's oesophagus using a non-endoscopic sampling method coupled with a biomarker panel: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Barrett's oesophagus predisposes to adenocarcinoma. However, most patients with Barrett's oesophagus will not progress and endoscopic surveillance is invasive, expensive, and fraught by issues of sampling bias and the subjective assessment of dysplasia. We investigated whether a non-endoscopic device, the Cytosponge, could be coupled with clinical and molecular biomarkers to identify a group of patients with low risk of progression suitable for non-endoscopic follow-up. METHODS: In this multicentre cohort study (BEST2), patients with Barrett's oesophagus underwent the Cytosponge test before their surveillance endoscopy. We collected clinical and demographic data and tested Cytosponge samples for a molecular biomarker panel including three protein biomarkers (P53, c-Myc, and Aurora kinase A), two methylation markers (MYOD1 and RUNX3), glandular atypia, and TP53 mutation status. We used a multivariable logistic regression model to compute the conditional probability of dysplasia status. We selected a simple model with high classification accuracy and applied it to an independent validation cohort. The BEST2 study is registered with ISRCTN, number 12730505. FINDINGS: The discovery cohort consisted of 468 patients with Barrett's oesophagus and intestinal metaplasia. Of these, 376 had no dysplasia and 22 had high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal adenocarcinoma. In the discovery cohort, a model with high classification accuracy consisted of glandular atypia, P53 abnormality, and Aurora kinase A positivity, and the interaction of age, waist-to-hip ratio, and length of the Barrett's oesophagus segment. 162 (35%) of 468 of patients fell into the low-risk category and the probability of being a true non-dysplastic patient was 100% (99% CI 96-100) and the probability of having high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal adenocarcinoma was 0% (0-4). 238 (51%) of participants were classified as of moderate risk; the probability of having high-grade dysplasia was 14% (9-21). 58 (12%) of participants were classified as high-risk; the probability of having non-dysplastic endoscopic biopsies was 13% (5-27), whereas the probability of having high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal adenocarcinoma was 87% (73-95). In the validation cohort (65 patients), 51 were non-dysplastic and 14 had high-grade dysplasia. In this cohort, 25 (38%) of 65 patients were classified as being low-risk, and the probability of being non-dysplastic was 96·0% (99% CI 73·80-99·99). The moderate-risk group comprised 27 non-dysplastic and eight high-grade dysplasia cases, whereas the high-risk group (8% of the cohort) had no non-dysplastic cases and five patients with high-grade dysplasia. INTERPRETATION: A combination of biomarker assays from a single Cytosponge sample can be used to determine a group of patients at low risk of progression, for whom endoscopy could be avoided. This strategy could help to avoid overdiagnosis and overtreatment in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Pilot randomized crossover study comparing the efficacy of transnasal disposable endosheath with standard endoscopy to detect Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The transnasal endosheath endoscope is a new disposable technology with potential applicability to the primary care setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of transnasal endosheath endoscopy (TEE) for the detection of Barrett's esophagus, by comparing the diagnostic accuracy of TEE with that of standard endoscopy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, crossover study performed in a single tertiary referral center. Consecutive patients undergoing surveillance for Barrett's esophagus or referred for diagnostic assessment were recruited. All patients were randomized to undergo TEE followed by standard endoscopy or the reverse. Endoscopy experiences and patient preferences were evaluated using a questionnaire. Endoscopic and histologic diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus, and optical image quality of both endoscopic procedures, were compared. RESULTS: A total of 21 of 25 patients completed the study. TEE had sensitivity and specificity of 100 % for an endoscopic diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus, and of 66.7 % and 100 %, respectively, for the histologic diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus. The mean optical quality of standard endoscopy was significantly better than that of TEE (7.11 ±â€Š0.42 vs. 4.06 ±â€Š0.27; P < 0.0001). However, following endoscopy, patients reported a significantly better experience with TEE compared with standard endoscopy (7.05 ±â€Š0.49 vs. 4.35 ±â€Š0.53; P = 0.0006), with 60 % preferring TEE and 25 % preferring sedated standard endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, TEE had equal accuracy for an endoscopic diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus compared with standard endoscopy, at the expense of reduced image quality and a lower yield of intestinal metaplasia on biopsy. TEE was better tolerated and preferred by patients. Hence, TEE needs further evaluation in primary care as an initial diagnostic tool.

Analysis of dysplasia in patients with Barrett's esophagus based on expression pattern of 90 genes.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Diagnoses of dysplasia, based on histologic analyses, dictate management decisions for patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). However, there is much intra- and inter-observer variation in identification of dysplasia-particularly low-grade dysplasia. We aimed to identify a biomarker that could be used to assign patients with low-grade dysplasia to a low- or high-risk group. METHODS: We performed a stringent histologic assessment of 150 frozen esophageal tissues samples collected from 4 centers in the United Kingdom (from 2000 through 2006). The following samples with homogeneous diagnoses were selected for gene expression profiling: 28 from patients with nondysplastic BE, 10 with low-grade dysplasia, 13 with high-grade dysplasia (HGD), and 8 from patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma. A leave-one-out cross-validation analysis was used identify a gene expression signature associated with HGD vs nondysplastic BE. Functional pathways associated with gene signature sets were identified using the MetaCore analysis. Gene expression signature sets were validated using gene expression data on BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma accessed through National Center for Biotechnology Information Gene Expression Omnibus, as well as a separate set of samples (n = 169) collected from patients who underwent endoscopy in the United Kingdom or the Netherlands and analyzed histologically. RESULTS: We identified an expression pattern of 90 genes that could separate nondysplastic BE tissues from those with HGD (P < .0001). Genes in a pathway regulated by retinoic acid-regulated nuclear protein made the largest contribution to this gene set (P < .0001); the transcription factor MYC regulated at least 30% of genes within the signature (P < .0001). In the National Center for Biotechnology Information Gene Expression Omnibus validation set, the signature separated nondysplastic BE samples from esophageal adenocarcinoma samples (P = .0012). In the UK and Netherlands validation cohort, the signature identified dysplastic tissues with an area under the curve value of 0.87 (95% confidence interval: 0.82-0.93). Of samples with low-grade dysplasia (LGD), 64% were considered high risk according to the 90-gene signature; these patients had a higher rate of disease progression than those with a signature categorized as low risk (P = .047). CONCLUSIONS: We identified an expression pattern of 90 genes in esophageal tissues of patients with BE that was associated with low- or high-risk for disease progression. This pattern might be used in combination with histologic analysis of biopsy samples to stratify patients for treatment. It would be most beneficial for analysis of patients without definitive evidence of HGD but for whom early endoscopic intervention is warranted.

Evaluation of a minimally invasive cell sampling device coupled with assessment of trefoil factor 3 expression for diagnosing Barrett's esophagus: a multi-center case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a commonly undiagnosed condition that predisposes to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Routine endoscopic screening for BE is not recommended because of the burden this would impose on the health care system. The objective of this study was to determine whether a novel approach using a minimally invasive cell sampling device, the Cytosponge, coupled with immunohistochemical staining for the biomarker Trefoil Factor 3 (TFF3), could be used to identify patients who warrant endoscopy to diagnose BE. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A case-control study was performed across 11 UK hospitals between July 2011 and December 2013. In total, 1,110 individuals comprising 463 controls with dyspepsia and reflux symptoms and 647 BE cases swallowed a Cytosponge prior to endoscopy. The primary outcome measures were to evaluate the safety, acceptability, and accuracy of the Cytosponge-TFF3 test compared with endoscopy and biopsy. In all, 1,042 (93.9%) patients successfully swallowed the Cytosponge, and no serious adverse events were attributed to the device. The Cytosponge was rated favorably, using a visual analogue scale, compared with endoscopy (p < 0.001), and patients who were not sedated for endoscopy were more likely to rate the Cytosponge higher than endoscopy (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.001). The overall sensitivity of the test was 79.9% (95% CI 76.4%-83.0%), increasing to 87.2% (95% CI 83.0%-90.6%) for patients with ≥3 cm of circumferential BE, known to confer a higher cancer risk. The sensitivity increased to 89.7% (95% CI 82.3%-94.8%) in 107 patients who swallowed the device twice during the study course. There was no loss of sensitivity in patients with dysplasia. The specificity for diagnosing BE was 92.4% (95% CI 89.5%-94.7%). The case-control design of the study means that the results are not generalizable to a primary care population. Another limitation is that the acceptability data were limited to a single measure. CONCLUSIONS: The Cytosponge-TFF3 test is safe and acceptable, and has accuracy comparable to other screening tests. This test may be a simple and inexpensive approach to identify patients with reflux symptoms who warrant endoscopy to diagnose BE.

Population-based study reveals new risk-stratification biomarker panel for Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The risk of progression of Barrett's esophagus (BE) to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is low and difficult to calculate. Accurate tools to determine risk are needed to optimize surveillance and intervention. We assessed the ability of candidate biomarkers to predict which cases of BE will progress to EAC or high-grade dysplasia and identified those that can be measured in formalin-fixed tissues. METHODS: We analyzed data from a nested case-control study performed using the population-based Northern Ireland BE Register (1993-2005). Cases who progressed to EAC (n = 89) or high-grade dysplasia ≥ 6 months after diagnosis with BE were matched to controls (nonprogressors, n = 291), for age, sex, and year of BE diagnosis. Established biomarkers (abnormal DNA content, p53, and cyclin A expression) and new biomarkers (levels of sialyl Lewis(a), Lewis(x), and Aspergillus oryzae lectin [AOL] and binding of wheat germ agglutinin) were assessed in paraffin-embedded tissue samples from patients with a first diagnosis of BE. Conditional logistic regression analysis was applied to assess odds of progression for patients with dysplastic and nondysplastic BE, based on biomarker status. RESULTS: Low-grade dysplasia and all biomarkers tested, other than Lewis(x), were associated with risk of EAC or high-grade dysplasia. In backward selection, a panel comprising low-grade dysplasia, abnormal DNA ploidy, and AOL most accurately identified progressors and nonprogressors. The adjusted odds ratio for progression of patients with BE with low-grade dysplasia was 3.74 (95% confidence interval, 2.43-5.79) for each additional biomarker and the risk increased by 2.99 for each additional factor (95% confidence interval, 1.72-5.20) in patients without dysplasia. CONCLUSIONS: Low-grade dysplasia, abnormal DNA ploidy, and AOL can be used to identify patients with BE most likely to develop EAC or high-grade dysplasia.