RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Enhancing the Positive Predictive Value of EGD for Diagnosis of Barrett’s Esophagus Through EsoGuard® Triage
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.07.26.24311013
DO 10.1101/2024.07.26.24311013
A1 Kurland, Jayde E.
A1 Patel, Sheena B.
A1 Englehardt, Richard
A1 Dezfoli, Seper
A1 Tseng, Daniel M.
A1 Foutz, Michael W.
A1 Bradley, Paul S.
A1 Eghterafi, Badi
A1 Lee, Victoria T.
A1 Verma, Suman
A1 deGuzman, Brian J.
A1 Aklog, Lishan
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/27/2024.07.26.24311013.abstract
AB Background Guidelines support Barrett’s esophagus (BE) screening, but most eligible patients do not undergo endoscopic evaluation; non-endoscopic strategies are now supported as a reasonable alternative by U.S gastroenterology societies. EsoGuard (EG) is a DNA assay used with EsoCheck, a non-endoscopic cell collection device for detection of BE, which can be utilized as a triage to esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in patients meeting screening criteria. In doing so, EG may serve to enrich the population undergoing EGD, resulting in more BE diagnoses while potentially reducing utilization of already-limited endoscopy resources.Aim To test the hypothesis that BE detection in EGDs performed on EG positive patients will be significantly higher than the positive predictive value (PPV) of screening EGD alone.Methods Real-world data was retrospectively collected from EG positive patients for whom EGD diagnoses were available. Baseline patient characteristics, risk factors, and EGD results were obtained from the treating physicians. PPV of screening EGDs was the comparator and estimated by literature-established disease prevalence of BE, which in the U.S gastroesophageal reflux disease population is ∼10.6%. The hypothesis was tested using t-tests for single proportions at a one-sided 5% significance level.Results Data from 209 patients found 60 (28.7%) subjects with salmon-colored mucosa on EGD and specialized intestinal metaplasia on histopathology. However, 10 (4.8%) had < 1cm of disease on visual inspection, therefore, did not meet the American College of Gastroenterology definition of BE so was excluded from the analysis. Of the remaining 199 patients, 50 (25.1%) had BE on EGD. In the cohort of patients meeting ACG screening criteria, 28.9% (33/114) had BE. Overall, a 2.4-fold increase in BE detection was observed compared to the PPV of screening EGD, and in the ACG cohort this increase was 2.7-fold. Among ACG patients ≥65 years old, the increase was nearly 2.5-fold (25.9% detection rate).Conclusions Our data suggests EG and EC used as a triage test enriches the population undergoing EGD for BE, and compared to screening EGD alone, can help direct more efficient use of endoscopy resources to unburden the system without reducing the number of eligible patients screened and diagnosed.Competing Interest StatementJEK: No financial conflict of interests SBP: No financial conflict of interests RE: No financial conflict of interests SD: Consultant - Lucid Diagnostics; Speaker - Castle Biosciences, Phantom Pharmaceuticals, and Redhill Biopharma. DMT: Speaker - Castle Biosciences and Lucid Diagnostics. MWF: No financial conflict of interests PSB: No financial conflict of interests BE: Speaker - Lucid Diagnostics. VTL: Executive employee and shareholder - Lucid Diagnostics. SV: Executive employee and shareholder - Lucid Diagnostics. BJD: Executive employee and shareholder - Lucid Diagnostics. LA: Executive employee, Board member, and shareholder - Lucid Diagnostics.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:The study underwent review by the Central WCG IRB and the Board found that this research meets the requirements for a waiver of consent under 21 CFR 50.22. The study number is 1371531 and IRB tracking number is 20240954.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 study are available upon reasonable request to the authors