Acceptability and accuracy of a non-endoscopic screening test for Barrett's oesophagus in primary care: cohort study - PubMed (original) (raw)

Comparative Study

doi: 10.1136/bmj.c4372.

Pierre Lao-Sirieix, Maria O'Donovan, Irene Debiram, Madhumita Das, Jane M Blazeby, Jon Emery, Alex Boussioutas, Helen Morris, Fiona M Walter, Paul Pharoah, Richard H Hardwick, Rebecca C Fitzgerald

Affiliations

Comparative Study

Acceptability and accuracy of a non-endoscopic screening test for Barrett's oesophagus in primary care: cohort study

Sudarshan R Kadri et al. BMJ. 2010.

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the accuracy and acceptability to patients of non-endoscopic screening for Barrett's oesophagus, using an ingestible oesophageal sampling device (Cytosponge) coupled with immunocytochemisty for trefoil factor 3.

Design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: 12 UK general practices, with gastroscopies carried out in one hospital endoscopy unit.

Participants: 504 of 2696 eligible patients (18.7%) aged 50 to 70 years with a previous prescription for an acid suppressant (H(2) receptor antagonist or proton pump inhibitor) for more than three months in the past five years.

Main outcome measures: Sensitivity and specificity estimates for detecting Barrett's oesophagus compared with gastroscopy as the ideal method, and patient anxiety (short form Spielberger state trait anxiety inventory, impact of events scale) and acceptability (visual analogue scale) of the test.

Results: 501 of 504 (99%) participants (median age 62, male to female ratio 1:1.2) successfully swallowed the Cytosponge. No serious adverse events occurred. In total, 3.0% (15/501) had an endoscopic diagnosis of Barrett's oesophagus (≥1 cm circumferential length, median circumferential and maximal length of 2 cm and 5 cm, respectively) with intestinal metaplasia. Compared with gastroscopy the sensitivity and specificity of the test was 73.3% (95% confidence interval 44.9% to 92.2%) and 93.8% (91.3% to 95.8%) for 1 cm or more circumferential length and 90.0% (55.5% to 99.7%) and 93.5% (90.9% to 95.5%) for clinically relevant segments of 2 cm or more. Most participants (355/496, 82%, 95% confidence interval 78.9% to 85.1%) reported low levels of anxiety before the test, and scores remained within normal limits at follow-up. Less than 4.5% (2.8% to 6.1%) of participants reported psychological distress a week after the procedure.

Conclusions: The performance of the Cytosponge test was promising and the procedure was well tolerated. These data bring screening for Barrett's oesophagus into the realm of possibility. Further evaluation is recommended.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at www.icmje.org/coi\_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare that SRK, PLS, MO’D, ID, MD, JMB, JE, AB, HM, FWM, RHH, and RCF have no relationships with companies that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; their spouses, partners, or children have no financial relationships that may be relevant to the submitted work; and SRK, PLS, MO’D, ID, MD, JMB, JE, AB, HM, FWM, RHH, and RCF have no non-financial interests that may be relevant to the submitted work.

Figures

None

Fig 1 Cytosponge in gelatine capsule (right) and expanded (left)

None

Fig 2 Flow of patients through trial

None

Fig 3 Endoscopic view of a patient with C2M4 segment length Barrett’s oesophagus (panel A). Haematoxylin and eosin (panel B ×100, panel C ×400) and trefoil factor 3 (panel D ×100, panel E ×400) staining from representative patient with Barrett’s oesophagus

None

Fig 4 Participants’ experience, anxiety, and distress related to Cytosponge test. Anxiety measured at day 0, 7, and 90 using six item short form short form Spielberger state trait anxiety inventory (values >40 denote clinically significant anxiety). Distress associated with Cytosponge test measured using impact of events scale. Intrusion and avoidance scores >19 denote high impact of test and >38 for total score. Participants rated their experience of Cytosponge using a visual analogue scale, with 0 representing the “worst experience” and 10 the “best experience”

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Shaheen NJ, Richter JE. Barrett’s oesophagus. Lancet 2009;373:850-61. - PubMed
    1. Yousef F, Cardwell C, Cantwell MM, Galway K, Johnston BT, Murray L. The incidence of esophageal cancer and high-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Epidemiol 2008;168:237-49. - PubMed
    1. Medical Research Council Oesophageal Cancer Working Group. Surgical resection with or without preoperative chemotherapy in oesophageal cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002;359:1727-33. - PubMed
    1. Shaheen NJ, Sharma P, Overholt BF, Lightdale CJ, Wolfsen HC, Sampliner RE, et al. A randomized, multicenter, sham-controlled trial of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for subjects with Barrett’s esophagus (BE) containing dysplasia: interim results of the AIM Dysplasia Trial. Gastroenterology 2008;134:750-8.
    1. Inadomi JM, Somsouk M, Madanick RD, Thomas JP, Shaheen NJ. A cost-utility analysis of ablative therapy for Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2009;136:2101-14. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources