Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33108124›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational gastroenterology2020

Independent Validation of a Tissue Systems Pathology Assay to Predict Future Progression in Nondysplastic Barrett's Esophagus: A Spatial-Temporal Analysis.

Nicola F Frei, Kadère Konte, Emily A Bossart, Katelyn Stebbins, Yi Zhang, Roos E Pouw, Rebecca J Critchley-Thorne, Jacques J G H M Bergman

Open access · goldAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. AGA Clinical Practice Update on New Technology and Innovation for Surveillance and Screening in Barrett's Esophagus: Expert Review.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2022
    Guideline
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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
  11. Review
  12. Endoscopic Management of Barrett's Esophagus.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nicola F FreiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Kadère KonteDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Emily A BossartCernostics, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Katelyn StebbinsCernostics, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Yi ZhangCernostics, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Roos E PouwDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Rebecca J Critchley-ThorneCernostics, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Jacques J G H M BergmanDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Cernostics (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAn automated risk prediction assay has previously been shown to objectively identify patients with nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE) who are at increased risk of malignant progression. To evaluate the predictive performance of the assay in 76 patients with NDBE of which 38 progressed to high-grade dysplasia/esophageal adenocarcinoma (progressors) and 38 did not (nonprogressors) and to determine whether assessment of additional (spatial) levels per endoscopy and/or multiple (temporal) time points improves assay performance.

methodsIn a blinded, nested case-control cohort, progressors and nonprogressors were matched (age, sex, and Barrett's esophagus length). All random biopsy levels from the baseline endoscopy (spatial samples) and all available previous endoscopies back to 10 years before progression (temporal samples) were assayed. Because the 1:1 ratio of progressors to nonprogressors does not reflect the real-world Barrett's population, negative and positive predictive values were adjusted for prevalence.

resultsSeventy-six patients (58 men), mean age of 63 ± 9 years, were studied. A high-risk score was associated with a prevalence-adjusted annual progression rate of 6.9%. The assay identified 31% of progressors when assessing a single biopsy level from the baseline endoscopy. Sensitivity increased to 50% and 69% in spatial and temporal analyses, respectively, while specificity remained at 95%. DISCUSSION: The assay identified a significant subset of NDBE patients who progress at a rate comparable with published estimates for expert-confirmed low-grade dysplasia. Assessing additional spatial and temporal biopsies increased the predictive accuracy, allowing for identification of most future progressors. Additional studies will evaluate the predictive performance of the assay in low-prevalence settings.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAgedBarrett EsophagusBiopsyCase-Control StudiesDisease ProgressionEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagoscopyEsophagusFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPredictive Value of Tests

Identifiers

PMID33108124
PMCPMC7544172
OpenAlexW3091984427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.