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.
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.
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
39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- Guideline
- Advances in the Diagnosis of Barrett's Esophagus.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- THE CAPSULE SPONGE: A NOVEL TEST FOR EARLY DETECTION AND RISK STRATIFICATION IN BARRETT'S OESOPHAGUS.The Ulster medical journal · 2026Article
- The evolving role of OMICS in gastrointestinal tumor biology and clinical practice.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
- A Practical Guide to Incorporating Novel Barrett's Screening/Surveillance Tools into Clinical Practice.Current gastroenterology reports · 2026Review
- Harnessing genomics for early cancer detection, risk stratification and prevention.Nature genetics · 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
- The biology and therapeutic implications of heterogeneity in Barrett oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2026Review
- 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
- Emerging Biomarkers for Managing Barrett's Esophagus.Gastrointestinal endoscopy clinics of North America · 2026Review
- Swallowable expandable fibrous capsules for nonendoscopic sampling of esophageal cells.Science advances · 2025Article
- 'This has given me the peace of mind I needed': ethnographic insights into Barrett's oesophagus screening using the capsule sponge test.Journal of medical ethics · 2025Article
- Current status and perspectives of esophageal cancer: a comprehensive review.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2025Review
- Use of a Non-Endoscopic Capsule-Sponge Triage Test for Reflux Symptoms: Results From the NHS England Prospective Real-World Evaluation.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2025Article
- Clinical application of capsule sponge testing in symptomatic reflux disease: a national prospective cohort study.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Multi-Omic Analysis of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Uncovers Candidate Therapeutic Targets and Cancer-Selective Posttranscriptional Regulation.Molecular & cellular proteomics : MCP · 2024Article
- Oesophageal cell collection device and biomarker testing to identify high-risk Barrett's patients requiring endoscopic investigation.The British journal of surgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
19 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.