Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35030332›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Oncology2022

Use of a Cytosponge biomarker panel to prioritise endoscopic Barrett's oesophagus surveillance: a cross-sectional study followed by a real-world prospective pilot.

Nastazja Dagny Pilonis, Sarah Killcoyne, W Keith Tan, Maria O'Donovan, Shalini Malhotra, Monika Tripathi, Ahmad Miremadi, Irene Debiram-Beecham, Tara Evans, Rosemary Phillips and 9 more

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 39 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.3field-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.

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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Advances in the Diagnosis of Barrett's Esophagus.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Emerging Biomarkers for Managing Barrett's Esophagus.Gastrointestinal endoscopy clinics of North America · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Algorithm Training and Testing for a Nonendoscopic Barrett's Esophagus Detection Test in Prospective Multicenter Cohorts.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

Nastazja Dagny PilonisMRC Cancer Unit, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Sarah KillcoyneMRC Cancer Unit, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
W Keith TanMRC Cancer Unit, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Maria O'DonovanMRC Cancer Unit, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Department of Histopathology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Shalini MalhotraMRC Cancer Unit, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Department of Histopathology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Monika TripathiMRC Cancer Unit, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Department of Histopathology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Ahmad MiremadiMRC Cancer Unit, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK; Department of Histopathology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Irene Debiram-BeechamMRC Cancer Unit, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Tara EvansMRC Cancer Unit, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Rosemary PhillipsDepartment of Gastroenterology, Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust, Harlow, UK.
Danielle L MorrisDepartment of Gastroenterology, East and North Herts NHS Trust, Stevenage, UK.
Craig VickeryDepartment of Surgery, West Suffolk Hospital, Bury St Edmunds, UK.
Jon HarrisonDepartment of Gastroenterology, Harrogate District Hospital, Harrogate, UK.
Massimiliano di PietroMRC Cancer Unit, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jacobo Ortiz-Fernandez-SordoNottingham Digestive Diseases Centre and NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Rehan HaidryNottingham Digestive Diseases Centre and NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust and University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Abigail KerridgeMRC Cancer Unit, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Peter D SasieniCancer Prevention Group in Clinical Trials Unit, King's Clinical Trials Unit, King's College London, London, UK.
Rebecca C FitzgeraldMRC Cancer Unit, Hutchison-MRC Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Electronic address: rcf29@cam.ac.uk.
MRC Cancer Unit · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GBEast and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust · GBHarrogate District Hospital · GBHutchison/MRC Research Centre · GBKing's College London · GBPrincess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust · GBWest Suffolk Hospital · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 12088Cancer Research UK 21047Cancer Research UK 25356Cancer Research UK 27047Cancer Research UK 30316Medical Research Council MC_UU_12022/2Medical Research Council MR/W014122/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndoscopic surveillance is recommended for patients with Barrett's oesophagus because, although the progression risk is low, endoscopic intervention is highly effective for high-grade dysplasia and cancer. However, repeated endoscopy has associated harms and access has been limited during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the role of a non-endoscopic device (Cytosponge) coupled with laboratory biomarkers and clinical factors to prioritise endoscopy for Barrett's oesophagus.

methodsWe first conducted a retrospective, multicentre, cross-sectional study in patients older than 18 years who were having endoscopic surveillance for Barrett's oesophagus (with intestinal metaplasia confirmed by TFF3 and a minimum Barrett's segment length of 1 cm [circumferential or tongues by the Prague C and M criteria]). All patients had received the Cytosponge and confirmatory endoscopy during the BEST2 (ISRCTN12730505) and BEST3 (ISRCTN68382401) clinical trials, from July 7, 2011, to April 1, 2019 (UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio 9461). Participants were divided into training (n=557) and validation (n=334) cohorts to identify optimal risk groups. The biomarkers evaluated were overexpression of p53, cellular atypia, and 17 clinical demographic variables. Endoscopic biopsy diagnosis of high-grade dysplasia or cancer was the primary endpoint. Clinical feasibility of a decision tree for Cytosponge triage was evaluated in a real-world prospective cohort from Aug 27, 2020 (DELTA; ISRCTN91655550; n=223), in response to COVID-19 and the need to provide an alternative to endoscopic surveillance.

findingsThe prevalence of high-grade dysplasia or cancer determined by the current gold standard of endoscopic biopsy was 17% (92 of 557 patients) in the training cohort and 10% (35 of 344) in the validation cohort. From the new biomarker analysis, three risk groups were identified: high risk, defined as atypia or p53 overexpression or both on Cytosponge; moderate risk, defined by the presence of a clinical risk factor (age, sex, and segment length); and low risk, defined as Cytosponge-negative and no clinical risk factors. The risk of high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal cancer in the high-risk group was 52% (68 of 132 patients) in the training cohort and 41% (31 of 75) in the validation cohort, compared with 2% (five of 210) and 1% (two of 185) in the low-risk group, respectively. In the real-world setting, Cytosponge results prospectively identified 39 (17%) of 223 patients as high risk (atypia or p53 overexpression, or both) requiring endoscopy, among whom the positive predictive value was 31% (12 of 39 patients) for high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal cancer and 44% (17 of 39) for any grade of dysplasia.

interpretationCytosponge atypia, p53 overexpression, and clinical risk factors (age, sex, and segment length) could be used to prioritise patients for endoscopy. Further investigation could validate their use in clinical practice and lead to a substantial reduction in endoscopy procedures compared with current surveillance pathways.

fundingMedical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Innovate UK.

Indexed as

COVID-19Patient SelectionAdenocarcinomaAgedBarrett EsophagusBiomarkersClinical Decision-MakingClinical Trials as TopicCross-Sectional StudiesDecision TreesDisease ProgressionEsophageal NeoplasmsEsophagoscopyFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansBiomarkersTFF3 protein, humanTrefoil Factor-3Tumor Suppressor Protein p53

Identifiers

PMID35030332
PMCPMC8803607
OpenAlexW4205296046

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.