Wide-area transepithelial sampling with computer-assisted analysis to detect high grade dysplasia and cancer in Barrettʼs esophagus: a multicenter randomized study

Abstract

Background Current surveillance for Barrett’s esophagus (BE), consisting of four-quadrant random forceps biopsies (FBs), has an inherent risk of sampling error. Wide-area transepithelial sampling (WATS) may increase detection of high grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). In this multicenter randomized trial, we aimed to evaluate WATS as a substitute for FB.

Methods Patients with known BE and a recent history of dysplasia, without visible lesions, at 17 hospitals were randomized to receive either WATS followed by FB or vice versa. All WATS samples were examined, with computer assistance, by at least two experienced pathologists at the CDx Diagnostics laboratory. Similarly, all FBs were examined by two expert pathologists. The primary end point was concordance/discordance for detection of HGD/EAC between the two techniques.

Results 172 patients were included, of whom 21 had HGD/EAC detected by both modalities, 18 had HGD/EAC detected by WATS but missed by FB, and 12 were detected by FB but missed by WATS. The detection rate of HGD/EAC did not differ between WATS and FB (P = 0.36). Using WATS as an adjunct to FB significantly increased the detection of HGD/EAC vs. FB alone (absolute increase 10 % [95 %CI 6 % to 16 %]). Mean procedural times in minutes for FB alone, WATS alone, and the combination were 6.6 (95 %CI 5.9 to 7.1), 4.9 (95 %CI 4.1 to 5.4), and 11.2 (95 %CI 10.5 to 14.0), respectively.

Conclusions Although the combination of WATS and FB increases dysplasia detection in a population of BE patients enriched for dysplasia, we did not find a statistically significant difference between WATS and FB for the detection of HGD/EAC as single modality.

^* Joint first authors.

^** Joint last authors.

Publication History

Received: 26 May 2022

Accepted after revision: 23 September 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
23 September 2022

Article published online:
13 December 2022

• References

• 1 Abrams JA, Kapel RC, Lindberg GM. et al. Adherence to biopsy guidelines for Barrett's esophagus surveillance in the community setting in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 736-742 quiz 710
• 2 Anandasabapathy S, Sontag S, Graham DY. 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: 761-766
• 3 Johanson JF, Frakes J, Eisen D. et al. 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: 767-772
• 4 Vennalaganti PR, Kaul V, Wang KK. 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: 348-355
• 5 Gross SA, Smith MS, Kaul V. et al. Increased detection of Barrett's esophagus and esophageal dysplasia with adjunctive use of wide-area transepithelial sample with three-dimensional computer-assisted analysis (WATS). United European Gastroenterol J 2018; 6: 529-535
• 6 Codipilly DC, Krishna Chandar A, Wang KK. et al. Wide-area transepithelial sampling for dysplasia detection in Barrett's esophagus: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 95: 51-59 e57
• 7 Schlemper RJ, Riddell RH, Kato Y. et al. The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. Gut 2000; 47: 251-255
• 8 Connor RJ. Sample size for testing differences in proportions for the paired-sample design. Biometrics 1987; 43: 207-211
• 9 Liu JP, Hsueh HM, Hsieh E. et al. Tests for equivalence or non-inferiority for paired binary data. Stat Med 2002; 21: 231-245
• 10 Shaheen NJ, Smith MS, Odze RD. Progression of Barrett's esophagus, crypt dysplasia, and low-grade dysplasia diagnosed by WATS3D: a retrospective analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 95: 410-418.e1
• 11 Montgomery E, Bronner MP, Goldblum JR. et al. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus: a reaffirmation. Human pathology 2001; 32: 368-378
• 12 Wani S, Mathur SC, Curvers WL. et al. Greater interobserver agreement by endoscopic mucosal resection than biopsy samples in Barrett's dysplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 783-788
• 13 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