PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Greer, Katarina B.
AU  - Blum, Andrew E.
AU  - Faulx, Ashley L.
AU  - Deming, Erica M.
AU  - Hricik, Lauren L.
AU  - Siddiqui, Hinnah
AU  - Wilson, Brigid M.
AU  - Chak, Amitabh
TI  - Non-endoscopic screening for Barrett’s esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma in at risk Veterans
AID  - 10.1101/2024.03.15.24304354
DP  - 2024 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2024.03.15.24304354
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/16/2024.03.15.24304354.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/16/2024.03.15.24304354.full
AB  - Background While rates of Esophageal Adenocarcinoma (EAC) in the US continue to rise, many patients at risk of disease are not screened. EsoCheck (EC), a non-endoscopic esophageal balloon sampling device coupled with EsoGuard (EG), a DNA based screening assay, is an FDA-approved minimally invasive alternative to the traditional screening method of upper endoscopy.Aim Aim To prospectively determine the diagnostic accuracy, tolerance, and acceptability of the EC/EG test in a screening population.Methods We recruited Veterans who met the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) Guideline criteria for endoscopic Barrett’s Esophagus (BE) and EAC screening at Louis Stokes Cleveland Veteran Affairs Medical Center. All study participants completed unsedated EC guided distal esophageal sampling followed by a sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Diagnostic yield of the EG assay and EGD was recorded and used in calculation of sensitivity and specificity of EC/EG in prospective screening. The abbreviated Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6) questionnaire was administered before and after completion of EC. Overall tolerance of EC sampling was evaluated on a 10-point Likert scale.Results Results Esophageal cancer screening was accepted by 130/782 (16.6%) eligible veterans and we analyzed results of those who completed both screening tests (N = 124). Prevalence of BE/EAC among studied veterans was 12.9% (16/124), based on EGD. Sensitivity and specificity of EC/EG for EGD-detected BE/EAC were 92.9% (95% CI 66.1, 99.8) and 72.2% (95% CI 62.1, 80.8), respectively. Positive and negative predictive values were 32.5% (95% CI 18.6, 49.1) and 98.6% (95% CI 92.4, 100), respectively. Baseline STAI-6 scores were reflective of notable levels of anxiety among veterans in the peri-procedural setting. Mean post-procedure acceptability score for Esocheck test was 7.23 (SD 2.45).Conclusions Conclusions Our data suggest excellent sensitivity and negative predictive value of EC/EG in a screening population of veterans, making this modality a powerful screening tool for BE and EAC.Competing Interest StatementDr Amitabh Chak has a patent on use of methylated vimentin for detection of GI cancers and a patent on Esocheck/Esoguard device. The contents presented here do not represent the views of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government. Funding StatementThis study was funded by DOD Award W81XWH2110586. Study is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05210049. 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:Ethics committee/IRB at the Louis Stokes VA Medical Center and USA MRDC Office of Human and Animal Research Oversight gave ethical approval for this work.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.