RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Clinical Utility Study of EsoGuard® on Samples Collected with EsoCheck® as a Triage Test for Endoscopy to Identify Barrett’s Esophagus – Interim Data of the First 275 Subjects
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.08.31.23294916
DO 10.1101/2023.08.31.23294916
A1 Lister, Dan
A1 Fine, Andy
A1 Maheshwari, Shail
A1 Bradley, Paul S.
A1 Lee, Victoria T.
A1 deGuzman, Brian J.
A1 Verma, Suman
A1 Aklog, Lishan
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/02/2023.08.31.23294916.abstract
AB Background Barrett’s Esophagus (BE) is the only known precursor for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), a highly lethal malignancy which has had increasing incidence in Western populations over the last 40 years. Recommendations are for endoscopic screening of patients with multiple risk factors for BE, however most eligible patients are not undergoing such evaluation, or failing to be referred, leading to most patients with EAC being diagnosed without an existing BE diagnosis. EsoGuard® (EG) is a commercially available biomarker test for detection of BE, and when used to analyze cells collected non-endoscopically with EsoCheck® (EC), may serve as an easily accessible and well-tolerated diagnostic tool that has been recognized by the ACG and AGA as a reasonable alternative to screening endoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical utility of EG as a triage test for upper endoscopy in the diagnose BE in real world use.Methods We present the first data snapshot from a multi-center, observational trial evaluating the CLinical Utility of EsoGuard (CLUE) among physicians who have adopted the technology into their clinical practice. At the time of data snapshot, four centers had contributed to enrollment of 275 subjects between February 23, 2023, to July 28, 2023. Participating centers followed their own standard practices for determining whom to test with EG on cells collected with EC and subsequent management of the patient following results. Demographics, risk factors, test results, and subsequent management decisions were collected and analyzed. The clinical utility of the technology was evaluated based on the impact of the EG test results on the ordering physician’s decision to refer or not refer a patient for further endoscopic evaluation.Results Among 275 subjects contributing data for analysis, the average age was 61.9 years, and there was a similar distribution among males and females. Eighty-nine-point seven percent (89.7%) reported a history of chronic GERD, and 73.8% had GERD plus an additional 3 BE risk factors (i.e., ACG screening cohort). 232 subjects had EG results documented at the time of data analysis, among which 229 also had a physician decision on endoscopy referral. Total EG positivity rate was 29.3% (68/232) and 65.5% (152/232) were negative; the positive agreement between positive EG results and referral for endoscopy was 100%. The negative agreement between a negative EG result and non-referral for endoscopy was 99.3%. The overall concordance between EG result and endoscopy referral was 98.8%. This did not substantially differ between the ACG screening cohort compared to others.Conclusions Data from the first snapshot of the CLUE study demonstrates physicians ordering EC/EG in the commercial setting are reliably utilizing EG results as a triage tool to guide referrals for endoscopic evaluation of BE. Physicians always refer EG(+) individual for additional endoscopic evaluation, whereas EG(-) subjects are consistently being spared an invasive test.Competing Interest StatementV.T.L., B.J.D., and L.A., are executive members of PAVmed Inc., of which Lucid Diagnostics Inc. is a subsidiary, and owns stock and/or options in the parent company. S.V. is an executive member of Lucid Diagnostics Inc. and owns stock and/or options in the company. All other authors have no competing interests to declare.Funding StatementThis study was funded by Lucid Diagnostics Inc.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:WCG Institutional Review Board gave ethical approval for this study (IRB tracking number 20222402)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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript