Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32738955›Full record

Trial reportLancet (London, England)2020

Cytosponge-trefoil factor 3 versus usual care to identify Barrett's oesophagus in a primary care setting: a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.

Rebecca C Fitzgerald, Massimiliano di Pietro, Maria O'Donovan, Roberta Maroni, Beth Muldrew, Irene Debiram-Beecham, Marcel Gehrung, Judith Offman, Monika Tripathi, Samuel G Smith and 5 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lancet (London, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05657080 (An Investigation on Cytosponge and Molecular Biomarkers to Identify Patients With Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia), which is not on this map. Cited by 139 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
139citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
29.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT05657080 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

An Investigation on Cytosponge and Molecular Biomarkers to Identify Patients With Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia (GIM)

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of CambridgeRan2023 to 2024Enrolled226ConditionsGastric Cancer, Gastric Intestinal Metaplasia, Gastric AtrophyArmsCytosponge-TFF3
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

139 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 243 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Chemoprevention of Barrett's Esophagus: a Systematic Review and Comprehensive Assessment of Bias.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Prevalence of Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma With and Without Gastroesophageal Reflux: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Unsedated transnasal endoscopy for the detection of Barrett's esophagus: systematic review and meta-analysis.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2023
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Barriers and Enablers to Capsule Sponge Screening Among People With Heartburn: A Community-Based Qualitative Study in the UK.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Advances in the Diagnosis of Barrett's Esophagus.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Screening for Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma: recent advances and next steps.Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus · 2026
    Review
  16. Esophageal cancer: from pathogenesis to precision therapies.Signal transduction and targeted therapy · 2026
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Diagnostic and Prognostic Biomarkers for Barrett's Esophagus.Gastroenterology clinics of North America · 2026
    Review
  20. A guide to cancer screening.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026
    Review

79 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Rebecca C FitzgeraldMRC Cancer Unit, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: rcf29@mrc-cu.cam.ac.uk.
Massimiliano di PietroMRC Cancer Unit, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Maria O'DonovanMRC Cancer Unit, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Roberta MaroniCancer Research UK and King's College London Cancer Prevention Trials Unit, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Beth MuldrewCancer Research UK and King's College London Cancer Prevention Trials Unit, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Irene Debiram-BeechamMRC Cancer Unit, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Marcel GehrungCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Judith OffmanCancer Prevention Group, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Monika TripathiMRC Cancer Unit, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Hospitals National Health Service Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Samuel G SmithLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Benoit AigretCancer Research UK and King's College London Cancer Prevention Trials Unit, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Fiona M WalterThe Primary Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Greg RubinInstitute of Population Health Sciences, Newcastle University, Sir James Spence Institute, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
BEST3 Trial team
Peter SasieniCancer Research UK and King's College London Cancer Prevention Trials Unit, School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
National Health Service · GBKing's College London · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBRoyal Victoria Infirmary · GBUniversity of Leeds · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 21047Cancer Research UK 25356Cancer Research UK 27047Cancer Research UK A21047Medical Research Council MC_UU_12022/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTreatment of dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus prevents progression to adenocarcinoma; however, the optimal diagnostic strategy for Barrett's oesophagus is unclear. The Cytosponge-trefoil factor 3 (TFF3) is a non-endoscopic test for Barrett's oesophagus. The aim of this study was to investigate whether offering this test to patients on medication for gastro-oesophageal reflux would increase the detection of Barrett's oesophagus compared with standard management.

methodsThis multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial was done in 109 socio-demographically diverse general practice clinics in England. Randomisation was done both at the general practice clinic level (cluster randomisation) and at the individual patient level, and the results for each type of randomisation were analysed separately before being combined. Patients were eligible if they were aged 50 years or older, had been taking acid-suppressants for symptoms of gastro-oesophageal reflux for more than 6 months, and had not undergone an endoscopy procedure within the past 5 years. General practice clinics were selected by the local clinical research network and invited to participate in the trial. For cluster randomisation, clinics were randomly assigned (1:1) by the trial statistician using a computer-generated randomisation sequence; for individual patient-level randomisation, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by the general practice clinics using a centrally prepared computer-generated randomisation sequence. After randomisation, participants received either standard management of gastro-oesophageal reflux (usual care group), in which participants only received an endoscopy if required by their general practitioner, or usual care plus an offer of the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure, with a subsequent endoscopy if the procedure identified TFF3-positive cells (intervention group). The primary outcome was the diagnosis of Barrett's oesophagus at 12 months after enrolment, expressed as a rate per 1000 person-years, in all participants in the intervention group (regardless of whether they had accepted the offer of the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure) compared with all participants in the usual care group. Analyses were intention-to-treat. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN68382401, and is completed.

findingsBetween March 20, 2017, and March 21, 2019, 113 general practice clinics were enrolled, but four clinics dropped out shortly after randomisation. Using an automated search of the electronic prescribing records of the remaining 109 clinics, we identified 13 657 eligible patients who were sent an introductory letter with 14 days to opt out. 13 514 of these patients were randomly assigned (per practice or at the individual patient level) to the usual care group (n=6531) or the intervention group (n=6983). Following randomisation, 149 (2%) of 6983 participants in the intervention group and 143 (2%) of 6531 participants in the usual care group, on further scrutiny, did not meet all eligibility criteria or withdrew from the study. Of the remaining 6834 participants in the intervention group, 2679 (39%) expressed an interest in undergoing the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure. Of these, 1750 (65%) met all of the eligibility criteria on telephone screening and underwent the procedure. Most of these participants (1654 [95%]; median age 69 years) swallowed the Cytosponge successfully and produced a sample. 231 (3%) of 6834 participants had a positive Cytosponge-TFF3 result and were referred for an endoscopy. Patients who declined the offer of the Cytosponge-TFF3 procedure and all participants in the usual care group only had an endoscopy if deemed necessary by their general practitioner. During an average of 12 months of follow-up, 140 (2%) of 6834 participants in the intervention group and 13 (<1%) of 6388 participants in the usual care group were diagnosed with Barrett's oesophagus (absolute difference 18·3 per 1000 person-years [95% CI 14·8-21·8]; rate ratio adjusted for cluster randomisation 10·6 [95% CI 6·0-18·8], p<0·0001). Nine (<1%) of 6834 participants were diagnosed with dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus (n=4) or stage I oesophago-gastric cancer (n=5) in the intervention group, whereas no participants were diagnosed with dysplastic Barrett's oesophagus or stage I gastro-oesophageal junction cancer in the usual care group. Among 1654 participants in the intervention group who swallowed the Cytosponge device successfully, 221 (13%) underwent endoscopy after testing positive for TFF3 and 131 (8%, corresponding to 59% of those having an endoscopy) were diagnosed with Barrett's oesophagus or cancer. One patient had a detachment of the Cytosponge from the thread requiring endoscopic removal, and the most common side-effect was a sore throat in 63 (4%) of 1654 participants.

interpretationIn patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux, the offer of Cytosponge-TFF3 testing results in improved detection of Barrett's oesophagus. Cytosponge-TFF3 testing could also lead to the diagnosis of treatable dysplasia and early cancer. This strategy will lead to additional endoscopies with some false positive results.

fundingCancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research, the UK National Health Service, Medtronic, and the Medical Research Council.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBarrett EsophagusBiomarkersEsophagoscopyFemaleGastroesophageal RefluxHumansMaleMiddle AgedTrefoil Factor-3BiomarkersTFF3 protein, humanTrefoil Factor-3

Identifiers

PMID32738955
PMCPMC7408501
OpenAlexW3046326116

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.