ArticleEClinicalMedicine2021
Economic evaluation of Cytosponge®-trefoil factor 3 for Barrett esophagus: A cost-utility analysis of randomised controlled trial data.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06501274 (A Pragmatic Interventional Study to Assess the Clinical Value of Capsule Sponge in the Assessment of Response to Treatment of Non-stenotic Eosinophilic Oesophagitis in a Single District General Hospital), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
A Pragmatic Interventional Study to Assess the Clinical Value of Capsule Sponge in the Assessment of Response to Treatment of Non-stenotic Eosinophilic Oesophagitis in a Single District General Hospital
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost effectiveness analysis of Barrett's esophagus screening: A systematic review.Best practice & research. Clinical gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- Diagnosis and treatment of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease - a systematic review of cost-effectiveness and economic burden.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Using a mobile unit to deliver capsule sponge testing for Barrett's oesophagus in the community in England through GP invitation and self-referral: an implementation study.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Advances in the Diagnosis of Barrett's Esophagus.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Mechanism-Driven Diagnostic Development: A Specimen-Aware Framework Illustrated by Colorectal Cancer and Solid Tumours.Cancers · 2026Review
- Discovery and Validation of Molecular Biomarkers for Differentiation of Nondysplastic Barrett's Esophagus from High-grade Dysplasia and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2026Article
- Nonendoscopic Screening for Barrett's Esophagus: Current Methods, Evidence, and Future Directions.Gastro hep advances · 2026Review
- Liquid Biopsy and Nonendoscopic Biomarkers for Precision Early Detection of Esophageal Cancer: Evidence, Risk Stratification and Translational Challenges.Journal of Cancer · 2026Review
- Future of image enhanced endoscopy of esophageal adenocarcinoma.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Review
- Cost-effective identification of Barrett's esophagus in the community: A first step towards screening.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Article
- Prognostic impact of deprivation on esophagogastroduodenoscopy outcome.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- New dimensions of electrospun nanofiber material designs for biotechnological uses.Trends in biotechnology · 2024Review
- Nanofiber capsules for minimally invasive sampling of biological specimens from gastrointestinal tract.Acta biomaterialia · 2022Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEsophageal adenocarcinoma has a very poor prognosis unless detected early. The Cytosponge-trefoil factor 3 (TFF3) is a non-endoscopic test for Barrett esophagus, a precursor of esophageal adenocarcinoma. Randomised controlled trial data from the BEST3 trial has shown that an offer of Cytosponge-TFF3 in the primary care setting in England to individuals on medication for acid reflux increases detection of Barrett esophagus 10-fold over a year compared with standard care. This is an economic evaluation of Cytosponge-TFF3 screening versus usual care using data from the BEST3 trial which took place between 20th March 2017 and 21st March 2019.
methodsA Markov model with a one-year cycle-length and a lifetime time horizon was created, adapting previous modeling work on Cytosponge screening. The impact of one round of Cytosponge screening was modelled in patients with a median age of 69 years (based on BEST3 trial population). Cost-effectiveness was expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted on model parameters.
findingsPer person, one round of Cytosponge-TFF3 screening, including confirmatory endoscopy and treatment, in the intervention arm costed £82 more than usual care and generated an additional 0.015 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) at an ICER of £5,500 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis gave an ICER of £5,405 (95% CI -£6,791 to £17,600). The average QALY gain per person is small because the majority of patients in the model will not develop BE and therefore will have no resulting change in their utility, however the small proportion of patients who are identified with BE dysplasia or cancer derive large benefit. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY, the probability that Cytosponge-TFF3 was cost-effective was over 90%.
interpretationUsing data from a pragmatic randomised trial, one-off Cytosponge-TFF3 screen is cost-effective relative to usual care for patients with gastro-esophageal reflux disease, despite relatively low uptake and an older population in this trial setting than previously modelled. Improving Cytosponge-TFF3 uptake and targeting younger patients is likely to further improve cost-effectiveness.
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.