Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29635420›Full record

ArticleDiseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus2018

Validation of a biomarker panel in Barrett's esophagus to predict progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma.

S Eluri, E Klaver, L C Duits, S A Jackson, J J Bergman, N J Shaheen

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Utility of ancillary studies in the diagnosis and risk assessment of Barrett's esophagus and dysplasia.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2022
    Review
  4. Endoscopic Management of Barrett's Esophagus.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Risk of Cancer in Patients With Barrett Esophagus.Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

S EluriDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
E KlaverDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
L C DuitsDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
S A JacksonInterpace Diagnostics, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
J J BergmanDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
N J ShaheenDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

Funding

DIGESTIVE DISEASES EPIDEMIOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAMT32DK007634 · NIDDK · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI ROBERT S. SANDLER · 1990 to 2026
$7.4M
Non-Endoscopic Surveillance for Barrett's Esophagus Following Ablative TherapyK24DK100548 · NIDDK · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI SHAHEEN, NICHOLAS J · 2013 to 2017
$896k
NIDDK NIH HHS K24 DK100548NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK007634
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In a prior study, baseline mutational load (ML) predicted progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in Barrett's esophagus (BE) with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.95. We aimed to validate the test characteristics of this predictive biomarker panel using crude DNA lysates in a larger well-characterized cohort. We performed a nested case-control study of BE patients from three tertiary referral centers in the Netherlands. Cases had baseline nondysplastic BE (NDBE) and developed HGD/EAC ≥ 2 years later. Controls were matched 2:1, had baseline NDBE, and no progression. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based mutational analysis was performed on crude lysates from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. ML was calculated from loss of heterozygosity (LOH) and microsatellite instability (MSI) at 10 genomic loci. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were created to assess the diagnostic utility of various cutoffs of ML for progression. Of 159 subjects, 58 were progressors and 101 were nonprogressors, there was no difference in mean ML in preprogression tissue in progressors and nonprogressors (ML = 0.73 ± 0.69 vs. ML = 0.74 ± 0.61, P = 0.93). ROC curves showed poor discrimination of ML in predicting progression with AUC of 0.50 at ML ≥ 1. AUC did not vary with different ML cut-points. The utility of the ML to stratify BE patients for risk of progression was not confirmed in this study. The etiology for discrepancies between this and prior studies showing high predictiveness is likely due to the use of crude lysates in this study, but requires further investigation.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAgedArea Under CurveBarrett EsophagusBiomarkers, TumorBiopsyCase-Control StudiesDisease ProgressionDNA Mutational AnalysisEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagusFemaleHumansHyperplasiaLoss of HeterozygosityMaleBiomarkers, TumorNeoplasm Proteins

Identifiers

PMID29635420
PMCPMC6215490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.