Wide-area transepithelial sampling with computer-assisted 3-dimensional analysis (WATS) markedly improves detection of esophageal dysplasia and Barrett's esophagus: analysis from a prospective multicenter community-based study

M S Smith, E Ikonomi, R Bhuta, N Iorio, R D Kataria, V Kaul, S A Gross, US Collaborative WATS Study Group, M S Smith, E Ikonomi, R Bhuta, N Iorio, R D Kataria, V Kaul, S A Gross, US Collaborative WATS Study Group

Abstract

The 4-quadrant forceps biopsy (FB) protocol for identifying Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal dysplasia (ED) suffers from poor sensitivity due to significant sampling error. We investigated the benefit of wide-area transepithelial sampling with 3-dimensional computer-assisted analysis (WATS) used adjunctively to the combination of random and targeted FB in the detection of ED, and as a secondary outcome, BE. In this multicenter prospective trial, community endoscopists at 21 sites utilized WATS as an adjunct to both targeted and random FB in patients undergoing BE screening and surveillance. Investigators alternated taking FB and WATS samples first. WATS specimens were analyzed at CDx Diagnostics (Suffern, NY) while FB samples were analyzed by each site's regular pathologists. Data were de-identified and then aggregated for analysis. Of 12,899 patients enrolled, FB identified 88 cases of ED, and WATS detected an additional 213 cases missed by FB. These 213 cases represented an absolute increase of 1.65%, raising the yield from 0.68% to 2.33%. Adding WATS to FB increased the overall detection of ED by 242% (95% CI: 191%-315%). Fewer than 61 patients needed to be tested with WATS to identify an additional case of ED. The combination of random and targeted FB identified 1,684 cases of BE, and WATS detected an additional 2,570 BE cases. The absolute incremental yield of adding WATS to FB is 19.9%, increasing the rate of detection from 13.1% to 33%. Adding WATS to FB increased the overall detection of BE by 153% (95% CI: 144-162%). The number needed to test with WATS in order to detect an additional case of BE was 5. Whether FB or WATS was done first did not impact the results. In this study, comprised of the largest series of patients evaluated with WATS, adjunctive use of the technique with targeted and random FB markedly improved the detection of both ED and BE. These results underscore the shortcomings of FB in detecting BE-associated neoplasia, which can potentially impact the management and clinical outcomes of these patients.

Keywords: Barrett's esophagus; dysplasia; screening; surveillance.

© International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus 2018.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Comparison of pathology results for: (a) nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus with WATS (b) nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus with forceps biopsy (c) low grade dysplasia with WATS (d) low grade dysplasia with forceps biopsy (e) high grade dysplasia with WATS and (f) high grade dysplasia with forceps biopsy.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
WATS detected high grade dysplasia in a patient whose forceps biopsy results were reported as nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus. Computer-synthesized WATS 3-dimensional image stained with modified Papanicolaou. Note marked nuclear enlargement, hyperchromasia, pleomorphism, cell crowding, and complete effacement of the normal honeycomb pattern characteristic of the en face view of the nondysplastic intestinal gland.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
In a second patient, WATS detected high grade dysplasia in a patient reported with nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus on forceps biopsy. WATS cell block stained with H&E. Note marked nuclear enlargement, hyperchromasia, pleomorphism, and cell crowding.

References

    1. Reid B J, Weinstein W M. Barrett's esophagus and adenocarcinoma. Annu Rev Med 1987; 38: 477–92.
    1. Pohl H, Welch H G. The role of overdiagnosis and reclassification in the marked increase of esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 142–6.
    1. Napier K J, Scheerer M, Misra S. Esophageal cancer: a review of epidemiology, pathogenesis, staging workup and treatment modalities. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2014; 6: 112–20.
    1. Hvid-Jensen F, Pedersen L, Drewes A M, Sorensen H T, Funch-Jensen P. Incidence of adenocarcinoma among patients with Barrett's esophagus. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 1375–83.
    1. Abrams J A, Kapel R C, Lindberg G M et al. .. Adherence to biopsy guidelines for Barrett's esophagus surveillance in the community setting in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 736–42; quiz 10.
    1. Sharma P. Review article: emerging techniques for screening and surveillance in Barrett's oesophagus. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004; 20: 63–70; discussion 95–6.
    1. Spechler S J. Clinical practice. Barrett's esophagus. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 836–42.
    1. Johanson J F, Frakes J, Eisen D. Computer-assisted analysis of abrasive transepithelial brush biopsies increases the effectiveness of esophageal screening: a multicenter prospective clinical trial by the EndoCDx Collaborative Group. Dig Dis Sci 2011; 56: 767–72.
    1. Anandasabapathy S, Sontag S, Graham D Y et al. .. Computer-assisted brush-biopsy analysis for the detection of dysplasia in a high-risk Barrett's esophagus surveillance population. Dig Dis Sci 2011; 56: 761–6.
    1. Vennalaganti P R, Kaul V, Wang K K et al. .. Increased detection of Barrett's esophagus-associated neoplasia using wide-area trans-epithelial sampling: a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 348–55.
    1. Vennalaganti P R, Naag Kanakadandi V, Gross S A et al. .. Interobserver agreement among pathologists using wide-area transepithelial sampling with computer-assisted analysis in patients with Barrett's esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 1257–60.
    1. Menke-Pluymers M B, Schoute N W, Mulder A H, Hop W C, van Blankenstein M, Tilanus H W. Outcome of surgical treatment of adenocarcinoma in Barrett's oesophagus. Gut 1992; 33: 1454–8.
    1. Corley D A, Mehtani K, Quesenberry C, Zhao W, de Boer J, Weiss N S. Impact of endoscopic surveillance on mortality from Barrett's esophagus-associated esophageal adenocarcinomas. Gastroenterology 2013; 145: 312–9e1.
    1. Rubenstein J H, Sonnenberg A, Davis J, McMahon L, Inadomi J M. Effect of a prior endoscopy on outcomes of esophageal adenocarcinoma among United States veterans. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: 849–55.
    1. Fountoulakis A, Zafirellis K D, Dolan K, Dexter S P, Martin I G, Sue-Ling H M. Effect of surveillance of Barrett's oesophagus on the clinical outcome of oesophageal cancer. Br J Surg 2004; 91: 997–1003.
    1. Bhardwaj A, McGarrity T J, Stairs D B, Mani H. Barrett's esophagus: emerging knowledge and management strategies. Pathol Res Int 2012; 2012: 814146.
    1. Dekel R, Wakelin D E, Wendel C et al. .. Progression or regression of Barrett's esophagus—is it all in the eye of the beholder? Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 2612–5.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren