Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2021; 09(03): E348-E355
DOI: 10.1055/a-1326-1533
Original article

TissueCypher Barrett’s esophagus assay impacts clinical decisions in the management of patients with Barrett’s esophagus

David L. Diehl
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Harshit S. Khara
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Nasir Akhtar
1   Department of Gastroenterology, Geisinger Health System, Danville, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Rebecca J. Critchley-Thorne
2   Cernostics, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims The TissueCypher Barrett’s Esophagus Assay is a novel tissue biomarker test, and has been validated to predict progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE). The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of TissueCypher on clinical decision-making in the management of BE.

Patients and methods TissueCypher was ordered for 60 patients with non-dysplastic (ND, n = 18) BE, indefinite for dysplasia (IND, n = 25), and low-grade dysplasia (LGD, n = 17). TissueCypher reports a risk class (low, intermediate or high) for progression to HGD or EAC within 5 years. The impact of the test results on BE management decisions was assessed.

Results Fifty-two of 60 patients were male, mean age 65.2 ± 11.8, and 43 of 60 had long segment BE. TissueCypher results impacted 55.0 % of management decisions. In 21.7 % of patients, the test upstaged the management approach, resulting in endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) or shorter surveillance interval. The test downstaged the management approach in 33.4 % of patients, leading to surveillance rather than EET. In the subset of patients whose management plan was changed, upstaging was associated with a high-risk TissueCypher result, and downstaging was associated with a low-risk result (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions TissueCypher was used as an adjunct to support a surveillance-only approach in 33.4 % of patients. Upstaging occurred in 21.7 % of patients, leading to therapeutic intervention or increased surveillance. These results indicate that the TissueCypher test may enable physicians to target EET for TissueCypher high-risk BE patients, while reducing unnecessary procedures in TissueCypher low-risk patients.



Publication History

Received: 30 July 2020

Accepted: 21 October 2020

Article published online:
18 February 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Thrift AP. Barrettʼs Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: How Common Are They Really?. Dig Dis Sci 2018; 63: 1988-1996
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I. et al. Estimating the global cancer incidence and mortality in 2018: GLOBOCAN sources and methods. Int J Cancer 2018; 144: 1941-1953
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Spechler SJ, Sharma P, Souza RF. et al. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on the management of Barrettʼs esophagus. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 1084-1091
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG. et al. ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Barrettʼs Esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 111: 30-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Qumseya B, Sultan S, Bain P. et al. ASGE guideline on screening and surveillance of Barrettʼs esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 90: 335-359 e332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Montgomery E, Bronner MP, Goldblum JR. et al. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus: a reaffirmation. Hum Pathol 2001; 32: 368-378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Vennalaganti P, Kanakadandi V, Goldblum JR. et al. Discordance among pathologists in the United States and Europe in diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia for patients with Barrettʼs esophagus. Gastroenterology 2017; 152: 564-570 e564
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Qumseya BJ, Wani S, Desai M. et al. Adverse events after radiofrequency ablation in patients with Barrettʼs esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 14: 1086-1095 e1086
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Goldblum JR. Controversies in the diagnosis of Barrett esophagus and Barrett-related dysplasia: one pathologistʼs perspective. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2010; 134: 1479-1484
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Krishnamoorthi R, Singh S, Ragunathan K. et al. Factors associated with progression of Barrettʼs esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16: 1046-1055 e1048
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Davison JM, Shah MB, Deitrick C. et al. Low-grade dysplasia diagnosis ratio and progression metrics identify variable Barrettʼs esophagus risk stratification proficiency in independent pathology practices. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 807-815 e802
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Krishnamoorthi R, Mohan BP, Jayaraj M. et al. Risk of progression in Barrettʼs esophagus indefinite for dysplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 3-10 e13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Wani S, Falk G, Hall M. et al. Patients with nondysplastic Barrettʼs esophagus have low risks for developing dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 9: 220-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Desai TK, Krishnan K, Samala N. et al. The incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma in non-dysplastic Barrettʼs oesophagus: a meta-analysis. Gut 2012; 61: 970-976
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Anaparthy R, Gaddam S, Kanakadandi V. et al. Association between length of Barrettʼs esophagus and risk of high-grade dysplasia or adenocarcinoma in patients without dysplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 11: 1430-1436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kambhampati S, Tieu AH, Luber B. et al. Risk factors for grogression of Barrettʼs esophagus to high grade dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 4899
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Thrift AP, Kunzmann AT. Time to Tailor surveillance intervals of nondysplastic Barrettʼs esophagus according to segment length and persistence over multiple endoscopies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 17: 832-834
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Shaheen NJ, Green B, Medapalli RK. et al. The perception of cancer risk in patients with prevalent Barrettʼs esophagus enrolled in an endoscopic surveillance program. Gastroenterology 2005; 129: 429-436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Wani S, Williams JL, Komanduri S. et al. Over-utilization of repeat upper endoscopy in patients with non-dysplastic Barrettʼs esophagus: a quality registry study. Am J Gastroenterol 2019; 144: 1256-1264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Critchley-Thorne RJ, Duits LC, Prichard JW. et al. A Tissue Systems Pathology Assay for High-Risk Barrettʼs Esophagus. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2016; 25: 958-968
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Critchley-Thorne RJ, Davison JM, Prichard JW. et al. A tissue systems pathology test detects abnormalities associated with prevalent high-grade dysplasia and esophageal cancer in Barrettʼs esophagus. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2017; 26: 240-248
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Davison JM, Goldblum J, Grewal US. et al. Independent blinded validation of a tissue systems pathology test to predict progression in patients with Barrettʼs esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115: 843-852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Frei NF, Konte K, Bossart EA. et al. Independent Validation of tissuecypher to predict future progression in non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus: a spatial-temporal analysis. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 2020; 11: e00244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Frei NF, Khoshiwal AM, Konte K. et al. A Tissue systems pathology test objectively risk stratifies Barrett’s esophagus patients with low-grade dysplasia. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001037.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Prichard JW, Davison JM, Campbell BB. et al. TissueCypher: A systems biology approach to anatomic pathology. J Pathol Informat 2015; 6: 48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 DeWard A, Critchley-Thorne RJ. Systems Biology approaches in cancer pathology. Methods Mol Biol 2018; 1711: 261-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Hao J, Critchley-Thorne RJ, Diehl DL. et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of an adenocarcinoma risk prediction multi-biomarker assay for patients with Barrett’s esophagus. ClinicoEcon Outcomes Res 2019; 11: 623-635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Lash RH, Deas Jr TM , Wians Jr FH . Healthcare cost of over-diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia in Barrettʼs esophagus. Adv Ther 2016; 33: 684-697
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Carlson JJ, Roth JA. The impact of the Oncotype Dx breast cancer assay in clinical practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013; 141: 13-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Akerley WL, Arnaud AM, Reddy B. et al. Impact of a multivariate serum-based proteomic test on physician treatment recommendations for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Curr Med Res Opin 2017; 33: 1091-1097
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar