Nicholas Shaheen, Mohamed Othman, Jawar Taunk, Kenneth J Chang, Sathya Jaganmohan, Patrick S Yachimski, John C Fang, Joseph S Spataro, Suman Verma, Victoria T Lee, Brian J deGuzman, Lishan Aklog
{"title":"Use of the EsoGuard® Molecular Biomarker Test in Non-Endoscopic Detection of Barrett's Esophagus among High-Risk Individuals in a Screening Population","authors":"Nicholas Shaheen, Mohamed Othman, Jawar Taunk, Kenneth J Chang, Sathya Jaganmohan, Patrick S Yachimski, John C Fang, Joseph S Spataro, Suman Verma, Victoria T Lee, Brian J deGuzman, Lishan Aklog","doi":"10.1101/2024.06.24.24309401","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and Aims: Barrett's Esophagus (BE) is the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We aimed to assess performance, safety, and tolerability of the EsoGuard (EG) assay on samples collected non-endoscopically with the EsoCheck (EC) device (EG/EC) for BE detection in the intended-use population, meeting American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) guideline criteria (chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and 3+ additional risk factors).\nMethods: We performed a prospective, multicenter study (NCT04293458) to assess EG performance (primary endpoint) on cells collected with EC, for detection of BE and EAC using esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and biopsies as the comparator. Twenty-four sites across the U.S. and Spain participated. EC safety and usability were assessed as secondary endpoints.\nResults: 180 male subjects aged >50 years with chronic GERD met eligibility criteria, of which 163 (90.6%) had EGD and successful EC administration. Mean age was 60.5yrs, 34.4% were obese, 56.7% had tobacco history, and 3.9% had a 1st degree relative with BE or EAC. Of 122 samples analyzed, 93 contributed to the primary endpoint analysis. About 9% of subjects in the Primary Analysis Population had BE on EGD, none with dysplasia. Sensitivity of EG for BE was 87.5% (95% CI 47.4-99.7), specificity was 81.2% (95% CI 71.2-88.8), positive predictive value was 30.4% (95% CI 13.2-52.9), and negative predictive value was 98.6% (95% CI 92.3-99.96). Mild esophageal abrasions were observed in 1.5%; no serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: EG/EC appears effective for BE screening. This approach provides a safe, accurate, and well-tolerated non-endoscopic alternative in high-risk patients.","PeriodicalId":501258,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Gastroenterology","volume":"25 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.06.24.24309401","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and Aims: Barrett's Esophagus (BE) is the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We aimed to assess performance, safety, and tolerability of the EsoGuard (EG) assay on samples collected non-endoscopically with the EsoCheck (EC) device (EG/EC) for BE detection in the intended-use population, meeting American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) guideline criteria (chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and 3+ additional risk factors).
Methods: We performed a prospective, multicenter study (NCT04293458) to assess EG performance (primary endpoint) on cells collected with EC, for detection of BE and EAC using esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and biopsies as the comparator. Twenty-four sites across the U.S. and Spain participated. EC safety and usability were assessed as secondary endpoints.
Results: 180 male subjects aged >50 years with chronic GERD met eligibility criteria, of which 163 (90.6%) had EGD and successful EC administration. Mean age was 60.5yrs, 34.4% were obese, 56.7% had tobacco history, and 3.9% had a 1st degree relative with BE or EAC. Of 122 samples analyzed, 93 contributed to the primary endpoint analysis. About 9% of subjects in the Primary Analysis Population had BE on EGD, none with dysplasia. Sensitivity of EG for BE was 87.5% (95% CI 47.4-99.7), specificity was 81.2% (95% CI 71.2-88.8), positive predictive value was 30.4% (95% CI 13.2-52.9), and negative predictive value was 98.6% (95% CI 92.3-99.96). Mild esophageal abrasions were observed in 1.5%; no serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: EG/EC appears effective for BE screening. This approach provides a safe, accurate, and well-tolerated non-endoscopic alternative in high-risk patients.