ArticleBMJ open gastroenterology2019
Mutational load may predict risk of progression in patients with Barrett's oesophagus and indefinite for dysplasia: a pilot study.
Article in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Practical Guide to Incorporating Novel Barrett's Screening/Surveillance Tools into Clinical Practice.Current gastroenterology reports · 2026Review
- Emerging Biomarkers for Managing Barrett's Esophagus.Gastrointestinal endoscopy clinics of North America · 2026Review
- Article
- Signaling Pathways in the Pathogenesis of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- 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 · 2022Review
- Current state of prognostication, therapy and prospective innovations for Barrett's-related esophageal adenocarcinoma: a literature review.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Review
- Radiofrequency Ablation of Barrett's Esophagus: Have We Gone Too Far, or Not Far Enough?Current gastroenterology reports · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsMutational load (ML) has been shown to help risk-stratify those that may progress from non-dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus (BE) to dysplastic disease. Management of patients with BE and indefinite for dysplasia (BE-IND) is challenging and risk stratification tools are lacking. The aim of this pilot study is to evaluate the utility of ML for risk stratification in patients with BE-IND.
methodsThis is a single-centre, retrospective pilot study evaluating ML quantification in patients with BE-IND. Histology at follow-up endoscopy at least 1 year after the baseline endoscopy was used to determine if a patient progressed to low or high dysplasia. The ML levels were then compared among patients who progressed to dysplasia versus those who did not.
resultsThirty-five patients who met the inclusion criteria were identified, and seven met the exclusion criteria. Twenty-eight patients were analysed, of whom eight progressed to low-grade dysplasia (6) and high-grade dysplasia (2). Seven of these eight patients had some level of genomic instability detected in their IND biopsy (ML ≥0.5). Ten of the 20 (50%) who did not progress had no ML level. At an ML cut-off above 1.5, the risk of progression to high-grade dysplasia was 33% vs 0% (p=0.005), with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 85%.
conclusionThese results indicate that ML may be able to risk-stratify progression to high-grade dysplasia in BE-IND. Larger studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.