Estimated impact and value of blood-based colorectal cancer screening at varied adherence compared with stool-based screening.

OBJECTIVE: This analysis estimated the outcomes of triennial blood-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening at various adherence, including perfect adherence, compared with triennial multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) screening at the reported real-world adherence rate. METHODS: The validated CRC-AIM model simulated a US cohort of average-risk individuals receiving triennial screening with mt-sDNA or blood-based test from ages 45 to 75 years. Modeled specificity and sensitivity were based on reported data. Adherence was set at a real-world rate of 65.6% for mt-sDNA and at 65.6%, relative 10% incremental increases from 65.6%, or 100% for the blood-based test. Costs of mt-sDNA and the blood-based test were based on prices for clinically available tests ($508.87 and $895, respectively). Value-based pricing was estimated at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000. RESULTS: Both tests resulted in life-years gained (LYG), reduced CRC cases, and reduced deaths versus no screening. With adherence for mt-sDNA set at 65.6% and for blood-based test set at 100%, mt-sDNA resulted in 30% more LYG, 52% more averted CRC cases, and 32% more averted CRC deaths. At reported sensitivity and specificity rates, mt-sDNA at 65.6% adherence dominates (is more effective and less costly) the blood-based test at any adherence. There was no price at which triennial screening with the blood-based test at any adherence was cost-effective compared with mt-sDNA at 65.6% adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Triennial screening with mt-sDNA resulted in better clinical outcomes at a lower cost compared with the modeled blood-based test even at perfect adherence, supporting application of blood-based tests only as a secondary screening option.

Blood-based colorectal cancer screening has lower diagnostic accuracy, lower clinical and health outcomes, and is more expensive than mt-sDNA, even with perfect blood-based screening participation. Although better than no screening at all, blood-based testing is unlikely to exceed performance of stool-based assessment unless a blood-based test is able to meaningfully detect precancerous growths.

Barrett's Esophagus Risk Factors in Patients Without Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Large Population-Based Study.

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is a lethal malignancy with an abysmal 5-year survival rate of <20%.1 Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the only known precursor to EAC.1,2 BE is characterized by intestinal metaplasia of the distal esophagus, typically arising in the setting of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).1 Hence, chronic GERD symptoms are an essential criterion for BE screening in most gastroenterology guidelines, alongside other BE risk factors including age >50 years, male sex, White race, history of tobacco smoking, hiatal hernia (HH) diagnosis, obesity, and family history of BE/EAC in first-degree relatives.1,3 Dysplastic BE and early stage EAC are amenable to endoscopic eradication therapy, highlighting the importance of BE/EAC screening and surveillance.4.

Addressing positive multi-cancer early detection tests in head and neck Surgery: Experience with head and neck work up for high-risk referrals.

OBJECTIVES: Blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are now commercially available. However, there are currently no consensus guidelines available for head and neck cancer (HNC) providers to direct work up or surveillance for patients with a positive MCED test. We seek to describe cases of patients with positive MCED tests suggesting HNC and provide insights for their evaluation. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients referred to Otolaryngology with an MCED result suggesting HNC. Patients enrolled in prospective MCED clinical trials were excluded. Cancer diagnoses were confirmed via frozen-section pathology. RESULTS: Five patients were included (mean age: 69.2 years, range 50-87; 4 male) with MCED-identified-high-risk for HNC or lymphoma. Only patient was symptomatic. After physical exam and follow-up head and neck imaging, circulating tumor HPV DNA testing, two patients were diagnosed with p16 + oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas and underwent appropriate therapy. A third patient had no evidence of head and neck cancer but was diagnosed with sarcoma of the thigh. The remaining two patients had no evidence of malignancy after in-depth workup. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, 2 of 5 patients referred to Otolaryngology with a positive MCED result were diagnosed with HPV + oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. We recommend that positive HNC MCED work up include thorough head and neck examination with flexible laryngoscopy and focused CT or MRI imaging. Given the potential for inaccurate MCED tissue of origin classification, PET/CT may be useful in specific situations. For a patient with no cancer identified, development of clear guidelines is warranted.

Estimated Average-Risk Colorectal Cancer Screening-Eligible Population in the US.

This cross-sectional study estimates the number of average-risk colorectal cancer screening­eligible individuals in the US since the US Preventive Services Task Force updated its recommendations in 2021.

Algorithm Training and Testing for a Nonendoscopic Barrett's Esophagus Detection Test in Prospective Multicenter Cohorts.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Endoscopic Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) detection is invasive and expensive. Nonendoscopic BE/EAC detection tools are guideline-endorsed alternatives. We previously described a 5-methylated DNA marker (MDM) panel assayed on encapsulated sponge cell collection device (CCD) specimens. We aimed to train a new algorithm using a 3-MDM panel and test its performance in an independent cohort. METHODS: Algorithm training and test samples were from 2 prospective multicenter cohorts. All BE cases had esophageal intestinal metaplasia (with or without dysplasia/EAC); control subjects had no endoscopic evidence of BE. The CCD procedure was followed by endoscopy. From CCD cell lysates, DNA was extracted, bisulfite treated, and MDMs were blindly assayed. The algorithm was set and locked using cross-validated logistic regression (training set) and its performance was assessed in an independent test set. RESULTS: Training (N = 352) and test (N = 125) set clinical characteristics were comparable. The final panel included 3 MDMs (NDRG4, VAV3, ZNF682). Overall sensitivity was 82% (95% CI, 68%-94%) at 90% (79%-98%) specificity and 88% (78%-94%) sensitivity at 84% (70%-93%) specificity in training and test sets, respectively. Sensitivity was 90% and 68% for all long- and short-segment BE, respectively. Sensitivity for BE with high-grade dysplasia and EAC was 100% in training and test sets. Overall sensitivity for nondysplastic BE was 82%. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for BE detection were 0.92 and 0.94 in the training and test sets, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A locked 3-MDM panel algorithm for BE/EAC detection using a nonendoscopic CCD demonstrated excellent sensitivity for high-risk BE cases in independent validation samples. (Clinical trials.gov: NCT02560623, NCT03060642.).

Next-Generation Multitarget Stool DNA Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: A next-generation multitarget stool DNA test, including assessments of DNA molecular markers and hemoglobin level, was developed to improve the performance of colorectal cancer screening, primarily with regard to specificity. METHODS: In a prospective study, we evaluated a next-generation multitarget stool DNA test in asymptomatic adults 40 years of age or older who were undergoing screening colonoscopy. The primary outcomes were sensitivity of the test for colorectal cancer and specificity for advanced neoplasia (colorectal cancer or advanced precancerous lesions). Advanced precancerous lesions included one or more adenomas or sessile serrated lesions measuring at least 1 cm in the longest dimension, lesions with villous histologic features, and high-grade dysplasia. Secondary objectives included the quantification of sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions and specificity for nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy and comparison of sensitivities for colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions between the multitarget stool DNA test and a commercially available fecal immunochemical test (FIT). RESULTS: Of 20,176 participants, 98 had colorectal cancer, 2144 had advanced precancerous lesions, 6973 had nonadvanced adenomas, and 10,961 had nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy. With the next-generation test, sensitivity for colorectal cancer was 93.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87.1 to 97.7), and specificity for advanced neoplasia was 90.6% (95% CI, 90.1 to 91.0). Sensitivity for advanced precancerous lesions was 43.4% (95% CI, 41.3 to 45.6), and specificity for nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy was 92.7% (95% CI, 92.2 to 93.1). With the FIT, sensitivity was 67.3% (95% CI, 57.1 to 76.5) for colorectal cancer and 23.3% (95% CI, 21.5 to 25.2) for advanced precancerous lesions; specificity was 94.8% (95% CI, 94.4 to 95.1) for advanced neoplasia and 95.7% (95% CI, 95.3 to 96.1) for nonneoplastic findings or negative colonoscopy. As compared with FIT, the next-generation test had superior sensitivity for colorectal cancer (P<0.001) and for advanced precancerous lesions (P<0.001) but had lower specificity for advanced neoplasia (P<0.001). No adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The next-generation multitarget stool DNA test showed higher sensitivity for colorectal cancer and advanced precancerous lesions than FIT but also showed lower specificity. (Funded by Exact Sciences; BLUE-C ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04144738.).

Advances in Screening for Barrett Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), the primary form of esophageal cancer in the United States, is a lethal cancer with exponentially increasing incidence. Screening for Barrett esophagus (BE), the only known precursor to EAC, followed by endoscopic surveillance to detect dysplasia and early-stage EAC and subsequent endoscopic treatment (to prevent progression of dysplasia to EAC and to treat early-stage EAC effectively) is recommended by several society guidelines. Sedated endoscopy (the primary current tool for BE screening) is both invasive and expensive, limiting its widespread use. In this review, we aim to provide a comprehensive review of recent innovations in the nonendoscopic detection of BE and EAC. These include swallowable cell sampling devices combined with protein and epigenetic biomarkers (which are now guideline endorsed as alternatives to sedated endoscopy), tethered capsule endomicroscopy, emerging peripheral blood-sampled molecular biomarkers, and exhaled volatile organic compounds. We also summarize progress and challenges in assessing BE and EAC risk, which is an important complementary component of the process for the clinical implementation of these innovative nonendoscopic tools, and propose a new paradigm for the strategy to reduce EAC incidence and mortality.

Next-generation Multi-target Stool DNA Panel Accurately Detects Colorectal Cancer and Advanced Precancerous Lesions.

The multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test screens for colorectal cancer by analyzing DNA methylation/mutation and hemoglobin markers to algorithmically derive a qualitative result. A new panel of highly discriminant candidate methylated DNA markers (MDM) was recently developed. Performance of the novel MDM panel, with hemoglobin, was evaluated in a simulated screening population using archived stool samples weighted to early-stage colorectal cancer and prospectively collected advanced precancerous lesions (APL). Marker selection study (MSS) and separate preliminary independent verification studies (VS) were conducted utilizing samples from multi-center, case-control studies. Sample processing included targeted MDM capture, bisulfite conversion, and MDM quantitation. Fecal hemoglobin was quantified using ELISA. Samples were stratified into 75%/25% training-testing sets; model outcomes were cross-validated 1,000 times. All laboratory operators were blinded. The MSS included 232 cases (120 colorectal cancer/112 APLs) and 490 controls. The VS featured 210 cases (112 colorectal cancer/98 APLs) and 567 controls; APLs were 86.7% adenomas and 13.3% sessile serrated lesions (SSL). Average age was 65.5 (cases) and 63.2 (controls) years. Mean sensitivity in the VS from cross-validation was 95.2% for colorectal cancer and 57.2% for APLs, with specificities of 89.8% (no CRC/APLs) and 92.4% (no neoplasia). Subgroup analyses showed colorectal cancer sensitivities of 93.4% (stage I) and 94.2% (stage II). APL sensitivity was 82.9% for high-grade dysplasia, 73.4% for villous lesions, 49.8% for tubular lesions, and 30.2% for SSLs. These data support high sensitivity and specificity for a next-generation mt-sDNA test panel. Further evaluation of assay performance will be characterized in a prospective, multi-center clinical validation study (NCT04144738). PREVENTION RELEVANCE: This study highlights performance of the next-generation mt-sDNA test, which exhibits high sensitivity and specificity for detecting colorectal cancer and APLs. This noninvasive option has potential to increase screening participation and clinical outcomes. A multi-center, clinical validation trial is underway. See related commentary by Bresalier, p. 93.

Prevalence and Predictors of Barrett's Esophagus After Negative Initial Endoscopy: Analysis From Two National Databases.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Guidelines suggest a single screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in patients with multiple risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (BE). We aimed to determine BE prevalence and predictors on repeat EGD after a negative initial EGD, using 2 large national databases (GI Quality Improvement Consortium [GIQuIC] and TriNetX). METHODS: Patients who underwent at least 2 EGDs were included and those with BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma detected at initial EGD were excluded. Patient demographics and prevalence of BE on repeat EGD were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess for independent risk factors for BE detected on the repeat EGD. RESULTS: In 214,318 and 153,445 patients undergoing at least 2 EGDs over a median follow-up of 28-35 months, the prevalence of BE on repeat EGD was 1.7% in GIQuIC and 3.4% in TriNetX, respectively (26%-45% of baseline BE prevalence). Most (89%) patients had nondysplastic BE. The prevalence of BE remained stable over time (from 1 to >5 years from negative initial EGD) but increased with increasing number of risk factors. BE prevalence in a high-risk population (gastroesophageal reflux disease plus ≥1 risk factor for BE) was 3%-4%. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of >350,000 patients, rates of BE on repeat EGD ranged from 1.7%-3.4%, and were higher in those with multiple risk factors. Most were likely missed at initial evaluation, underscoring the importance of a high-quality initial endoscopic examination. Although routine repeat endoscopic BE screening after a negative initial examination is not recommended, repeat screening may be considered in carefully selected patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and ≥2 risk factors for BE, potentially using nonendoscopic tools.

Population Based Time Trends in the Epidemiology and Mortality of Gastroesophageal Junction and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on the epidemiology of gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GEJAC), particularly in comparison to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). With the advent of molecular non-endoscopic Barrett's esophagus (BE) detection tests which sample the esophagus and gastroesophageal junction, early detection of EAC and GEJAC has become a possibility and their epidemiology has gained importance. AIMS: We sought to evaluate time trends in the epidemiology and survival of patients with EAC and GEJAC in a population-based cohort. METHODS: EAC and GEJAC patients from 1976 to 2019 were identified using ICD 9 and 10 diagnostic codes from the Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP). Clinical data and survival status were abstracted. Poisson regression was used to calculate incidence rate ratios (IRR). Survival analysis and Cox proportional models were used to assess predictors of survival. RESULTS: We included 443 patients (287 EAC,156 GEJAC). The incidence of EAC and GEJAC during 1976-2019 was 1.40 (CI 1.1-1.74) and 0.83 (CI 0.61-1.11) per 100,000 people, respectively. There was an increase in the incidence of EAC (IRR = 2.45, p = 0.011) and GEJAC (IRR = 3.17, p = 0.08) from 2000 to 2004 compared to 1995-1999, plateauing in later time periods. Most patients had associated BE and presented at advanced stages, leading to high 5-year mortality rates (66% in EAC and 59% in GEJAC). Age and stage at diagnosis were predictors of mortality. CONCLUSION: The rising incidence of EAC/GEJAC appears to have plateaued somewhat in the last decade. However, both cancers present at advanced stages with persistently poor survival, underscoring the need for early detection.

Plasma Assay of Cell-Free Methylated DNA Markers of Colorectal Cancer: A Tumor-Agnostic Approach to Monitor Recurrence and Response to Anticancer Therapies.

BACKGROUND: Radiographic surveillance of colorectal cancer (CRC) after curative-intent therapy is costly and unreliable. Methylated DNA markers (MDMs) detected primary CRC and metastatic recurrence with high sensitivity and specificity in cross-sectional studies. This study evaluated using serial MDMs to detect recurrence and monitor the treatment response to anti-cancer therapies. METHODS: A nested case-control study was drawn from a prospective cohort of patients with CRC who completed curative-intent therapy for CRC of all stages. Plasma MDMs were assayed vis target enrichment long-probe quantitative-amplified signal assays, normalized to B3GALT6, and analyzed in combination with serum carcinoembryonic antigen to yield an MDM score. Clinical information, including treatment and radiographic measurements of the tumor burden, were longitudinally collected. RESULTS: Of the 35 patients, 18 had recurrence and 17 had no evidence of disease during the study period. The MDM score was positive in 16 out of 18 patients who recurred and only 2 of the 17 patients without recurrence. The MDM score detected recurrence in 12 patients preceding clinical or radiographic detection of recurrent CRC by a median of 106 days (range 90-232 days). CONCLUSIONS: Plasma MDMs can detect recurrent CRC prior to radiographic detection; this tumor-agnostic liquid biopsy approach may assist cancer surveillance and monitoring.

Plasma Methylated DNA Markers for Melanoma Surveillance.

PURPOSE: Surveillance after primary melanoma treatment aims to detect early signs of low-volume systemic disease. The current standard of care, surveillance imaging, is costly and difficult to access. We therefore sought to develop methylated DNA markers (MDMs) as promising alternatives for disease surveillance. METHODS: We used reduced representation bisulfite sequencing (RRBS) to identify MDMs in DNA samples obtained from metastatic melanoma, benign nevi, and normal skin tissues. The identified MDMs underwent validation in an independent cohort of tissue and buffy coat DNA samples. Subsequently, we tested the validated MDMs in the plasma DNA of patients with metastatic melanoma undergoing surveillance with total body imaging and compared them with cancer-free controls. To estimate the overall predictive accuracy of the MDMs, we used random forest modeling with bootstrap cross-validation. RESULTS: Forty MDMs demonstrated discrimination between melanoma cases and controls consisting of benign nevi and normal skin. Nine MDMs passing biological validation in tissue were run on 77 plasma samples from individuals with a history of metastatic melanoma, 49 of whom had evidence of disease detected by imaging at the time of blood draw, and 100 cancer-free controls. The cross-validated sensitivity of the panel for imaging-positive disease was 80% with a specificity of 100% in cancer-free controls, resulting in an overall AUC of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.96). The survival estimates for patients with melanoma who tested positive for the panel at 6 months and 1 year were 67% and 56%, respectively, while those who tested negative had survival rates of 100% and 92%. CONCLUSION: MDMs identified by RRBS demonstrate a high degree of concordance with imaging results in the plasma of patients with metastatic melanoma. Further prospective studies in larger intended use cohorts are needed to confirm these findings.

Positive Predictive Value for Multitarget Stool DNA After Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS) may adversely affect noninvasive stool tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening through several mechanisms. Multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) is approved for CRC screening; however, performance in post-BMS patients is unknown. As the rates of BMS are anticipated to increase with rising incidence of obesity, it is important to evaluate mt-sDNA test performance among these patients. METHODS: In a multisite academic and community-based practice, we obtained mt-sDNA results from 10/2014 to 12/2019 through electronic records and an institutional BMS registry. Average CRC risk patients with BMS prior to a positive mt-sDNA underwent a detailed chart review. Follow-up colonoscopy findings were compared to those among BMS patients screened with colonoscopy alone and a historical cohort of patients without BMS, screened by mt-sDNA. The primary study endpoint was the positive predictive value (PPV) for advanced colorectal neoplasia. RESULTS: Among 336 average-risk patients who had mt-sDNA after BMS, mt-sDNA was positive in 49 (14.6%), 47/49 (96%) underwent follow-up colonoscopy, and the PPV for advanced neoplasia was 12/47 (25.5%). This is similar to the PPV for advanced colorectal neoplasia (425/1542, 28%) in a historical cohort of persons without prior BMS, screened by mt-sDNA at our center (P = .86). Among those who had prior BMS, the rate of advanced neoplasia was higher after mt-sDNA compared to screening colonoscopy alone. CONCLUSION: Despite anatomic and physiologic mechanisms that could alter blood or DNA content in stool, BMS does not appear to adversely affect the PPV of mt-sDNA.

Prevalence of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma With and Without Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) symptoms are an essential criterion for Barrett's esophagus (BE) screening in most gastroenterology society guidelines, a significant proportion of BE and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) cases do not endorse them. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to study the prevalence of BE/EAC in those with and without GERD. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted through 5 major databases for studies reporting prevalence of BE/EAC in patients with and without GERD. Pooled proportions and odds ratios (ORs) of BE, long-segment BE, short-segment BE, dysplasia, and EAC in patients with and without GERD were synthesized. RESULTS: Forty-three articles (12,883 patients with GERD; 51,350 patients without GERD) were included in the final analysis. BE prevalence was 7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.8%-8.5%) and 2.2% (95% CI, 1.6%-3%) among individuals with and without GERD, respectively. EAC prevalence was 0.6% (95% CI, 0.4%-1%) and 0.1% (95% CI, 0%-0.2%) in those with and without GERD, respectively. The overall risks for BE (OR, 2.91; 95% CI, 2.06-4.11) and long-segment BE (OR,4.17; 95% CI, 1.78-9.77) were higher in patients with GERD, but the risk for short-segment BE (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.89-3.52) did not differ between the two groups. In 9 population-based high-quality studies (2244 patients with GERD; 3724 patients without GERD), BE prevalence in patients without GERD was 4.9% (95% CI, 2.6%-9%). BE prevalence was highest in North American studies (10.6% [GERD] and 4.8% [non-GERD]). CONCLUSIONS: BE prevalence in those without GERD is substantial, particularly in large high-quality population-based studies. These data are important to factor in future BE/EAC early detection guidelines.

Assessing the capacity of methylated DNA markers of cervical squamous cell carcinoma to discriminate oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma in human papillomavirus mediated disease.

OBJECTIVE: Early identification of human papillomavirus associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV(+)OPSCC) is challenging and novel biomarkers are needed. We hypothesized that a panel of methylated DNA markers (MDMs) found in HPV(+) cervical squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) will have similar discrimination in HPV(+)OPSCC tissues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues were obtained from patients with primary HPV(+)OPSCC or HPV(+)CSCC; control tissues included normal oropharynx palatine tonsil (NOP) and cervix (NCS). Using a methylation-specific polymerase chain reaction, 21 previously validated cervical MDMs were evaluated on tissue-extracted DNA. Discrimination between case and control cervical and oropharynx tissue was assessed using area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: 34 HPV(+)OPSCC, 36 HPV(+)CSCC, 26 NOP, and 24 NCS patients met inclusion criteria. Within HPV(+)CSCC, 18/21 (86%) of MDMs achieved an AUC ≥ 0.9 and all MDMs exhibited better than chance classifications relative to control cervical tissue (all p < 0.001). In contrast, within HPV(+)OPSCC only 5/21 (24%) MDMs achieved an AUC ≥ 0.90 but 19/21 (90%) exhibited better than chance classifications relative to control tonsil tissue (all p < 0.001). Overall, 13/21 MDMs had statistically significant lower AUCs in the oropharyngeal cohort compared to the cervical cohort, and only 1 MDM exhibited a statistically significant increase in AUC. CONCLUSIONS: Previously validated MDMs exhibited robust performance in independent HPV(+)CSCC patients. However, most of these MDMs exhibited higher discrimination for HPV(+)CSCC than for HPV(+)OPSCC. This suggests that each SCC subtype requires a unique set of MDMs for optimal discrimination. Future studies are necessary to establish an MDM panel for HPV(+)OPSCC.

Methylated DNA Markers for Sporadic Colorectal and Endometrial Cancer Are Strongly Associated with Lynch Syndrome Cancers.

Lynch syndrome (LS) markedly increases risks of colorectal and endometrial cancers. Early detection biomarkers for LS cancers could reduce the needs for invasive screening and surgical prophylaxis.To validate a panel of methylated DNA markers (MDM) previously identified in sporadic colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer for discrimination of these cancers in LS.In a case-control design, previously identified MDMs for the detection of colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer were assayed by qMSP on tissue-extracted DNA. Results were normalized to ACTB values within each sample. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator models to classify colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer were trained on sporadic cases and controls and then applied to classify colorectal cancer and endometrial cancer, in those with LS, and cross-validated.We identified colorectal cancer cases (23 with LS, 48 sporadic), colorectal controls (32 LS, 48 sporadic), endometrial cancer cases (30 LS, 48 sporadic), and endometrial controls (29 LS, 37 sporadic). A 3-MDM panel (LASS4, LRRC4, and PPP2R5C) classified LS-CRC from LS controls with an AUC of 0.92 (0.84-0.99); results were similar for sporadic colorectal cancer. A 6-MDM panel (SFMBT2, MPZ, CYTH2, DIDO1, chr10.4479, and EMX2OS) discriminated LS-EC from LS controls with an AUC of 0.92 (0.83-1.0); the AUC for sporadic endometrial cancer versus sporadic controls was nominally higher, 0.99 (0.96-1.0).MDMs previously identified in sporadic endometrial cancer and colorectal cancer discriminate between endometrial cancer and benign endometrium and colorectal cancer and benign colorectum in LS. This supports the inclusion of patients with LS within future prospective clinical trials evaluating endometrial cancer and colorectal cancer MDMs and may provide a new avenue for cancer screening or surveillance in this high-risk population. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: Lynch syndrome (LS) markedly increases risks of colorectal and endometrial cancers. Early detection biomarkers for LS cancers could reduce the needs for invasive screening and surgery. Methylated DNA markers previously identified in sporadic endometrial cancer and colorectal cancer discriminate between benign and cancer tissue in LS.

Development of Electronic Health Record-Based Machine Learning Models to Predict Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Risk.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) is suggested in those with risk factors, but remains underutilized. BE/esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) risk prediction tools integrating multiple risk factors have been described. However, accuracy remains modest (area under the receiver-operating curve [AUROC] ≤0.7), and clinical implementation has been challenging. We aimed to develop machine learning (ML) BE/EAC risk prediction models from an electronic health record (EHR) database. METHODS: The Clinical Data Analytics Platform, a deidentified EHR database of 6 million Mayo Clinic patients, was used to predict BE and EAC risk. BE and EAC cases and controls were identified using International Classification of Diseases codes and augmented curation (natural language processing) techniques applied to clinical, endoscopy, laboratory, and pathology notes. Cases were propensity score matched to 5 independent randomly selected control groups. An ensemble transformer-based ML model architecture was used to develop predictive models. RESULTS: We identified 8,476 BE cases, 1,539 EAC cases, and 252,276 controls. The BE ML transformer model had an overall sensitivity, specificity, and AUROC of 76%, 76%, and 0.84, respectively. The EAC ML transformer model had an overall sensitivity, specificity, and AUROC of 84%, 70%, and 0.84, respectively. Predictors of BE and EAC included conventional risk factors and additional novel factors, such as coronary artery disease, serum triglycerides, and electrolytes. DISCUSSION: ML models developed on an EHR database can predict incident BE and EAC risk with improved accuracy compared with conventional risk factor-based risk scores. Such a model may enable effective implementation of a minimally invasive screening technology.

Neoplasia Diagnosis After Multi-target Stool DNA Is Enhanced Among Lowest Baseline Detectors.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Variation in colorectal neoplasia detection limits the effectiveness of screening colonoscopy. By evaluating neoplasia detection rates of individual colonoscopists, we aimed to quantify the effects of pre-procedural knowledge of a positive (+) multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) on colonoscopy quality metrics. METHODS: We retrospectively identified physicians who performed a high volume of + mt-sDNA colonoscopies; colorectal neoplasia at post-mt-sDNA colonoscopy was recorded. These colonoscopists were stratified into quartiles based on baseline adenoma detection rates. Baseline colonoscopy adenoma detection rates and sessile serrated lesion detection rates were compared to post-mt-sDNA colonoscopy neoplasia diagnosis rates among each quartile. Withdrawal times were measured from negative exams. RESULTS: During the study period (2014-17) the highest quartile of physicians by volume of post-mt-sDNA colonoscopies were evaluated. Among thirty-five gastroenterologists, their median screening colonoscopy adenoma detection rate was 32% (IQR, 28-39%) and serrated lesion detection rate was 13% (8-15%). After + mt-sDNA, adenoma diagnosis increased to 47% (36-56%) and serrated lesion diagnosis increased to 31% (17-42%) (both p < 0.0001). Median withdrawal time increased from 10 (7-13) to 12 (10-17) minutes (p < 0.0001) and was proportionate across quartiles. After + mt-sDNA, lower baseline detectors had disproportionately higher rates of adenoma diagnosis in female versus male patients (p = 0.048) and higher serrated neoplasia diagnosis rates among all patients (p = 0.0092). CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of + mt-sDNA enriches neoplasia diagnosis compared to average risk screening exams. Adenomatous and serrated lesion diagnosis was magnified among those with lower adenoma detection rates. Awareness of the mt-sDNA result may increase physician attention during colonoscopy. Pre-procedure knowledge of a positive mt-sDNA test improves neoplasia diagnosis rates among colonoscopists with lower baseline adenoma detection rates, independent of withdrawal time.