Abstract
Background and Aims Barrett’s Esophagus (BE) is the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We aimed to assess performance, safety, and tolerability of the EsoGuard (EG) assay on samples collected non-endoscopically with the EsoCheck (EC) device (EG/EC) for BE detection in the intended-use population, meeting American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) guideline criteria (chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and 3+ additional risk factors).
Methods We performed a prospective, multicenter study (NCT04293458) to assess EG performance (primary endpoint) on cells collected with EC, for detection of BE and EAC using esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and biopsies as the comparator. Twenty-four sites across the U.S. and Spain participated. EC safety and usability were assessed as secondary endpoints.
Results 180 male subjects aged >50 years with chronic GERD met eligibility criteria, of which 163 (90.6%) had EGD and successful EC administration. Mean age was 60.5yrs, 34.4% were obese, 56.7% had tobacco history, and 3.9% had a 1st degree relative with BE or EAC. Of 122 samples analyzed, 93 contributed to the primary endpoint analysis. About 9% of subjects in the Primary Analysis Population had BE on EGD, none with dysplasia. Sensitivity of EG for BE was 87.5% (95% CI 47.4-99.7), specificity was 81.2% (95% CI 71.2-88.8), positive predictive value was 30.4% (95% CI 13.2-52.9), and negative predictive value was 98.6% (95% CI 92.3-99.96). Mild esophageal abrasions were observed in 1.5%; no serious adverse events were reported.
Conclusions EG/EC appears effective for BE screening. This approach provides a safe, accurate, and well-tolerated non-endoscopic alternative in high-risk patients.
Competing Interest Statement
NJS: Grant support - Lucid Diagnostics, Interpace Diagnostics, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Steris, Pentax, and CDx Medical. Consultant - Exact Sciences, Phathom Pharmaceuticals, Cook Medical, Previse, and GIE Medical. MOO: Grant support - Lucid Diagnostics, AbbVie, Nestle, ConMed, Olympus and Boston Scientific; Consultant - Olympus, Boston Scientific Corporation, Abbvie, ConMed, Neptune Medical, Creo Medical, Lumendi, and Apollo. JT: No financial conflict of interest. KJC: Grant support: Lucid Diagnostics; Consultant: Cook Medical, EndoGastric Solutions, and Medtronic SJ: No financial conflict of interest. PSY: No financial conflict of interest. JCF: Consultant - Merit, Circa Scientific, and Aspero Medical. JSS: No financial conflict of interest. SV: Executive employee and shareholder - Lucid Diagnostics. VTL: Executive employee and shareholder - Lucid Diagnostics. BJD: Executive employee and shareholder - Lucid Diagnostics. LA: Executive employee, Board member, and shareholder - Lucid Diagnostics.
Clinical Trial
NCT04293458
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Lucid Diagnostics Inc.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Central WCG IRB gave ethical approval for this work. Sponsor Pr. No.: PR-0139 (EG-CL-101) IRB Pr. No: 20200065
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Upon discussion with our Statistician, it was determined that the p-values in Table 4 are not contributory, given the inclusion of confidence intervals. Additionally it is easily misinterpreted and not described in the Statistical Methods, this column was removed from Table 4
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
