Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Novel Screening Tests for Barrett’s Esophagus

  • Esophagus (J Clarke and N Ahuja, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Gastroenterology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

There has been an exponential increase in the incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) over the last half century. Barrett’s esophagus (BE) is the only known precursor lesion of EAC. Screening for BE in high-risk populations has been advocated with the aim of identifying BE, followed by endoscopic surveillance to detect dysplasia and early stage cancer, with the intent that treatment can improve outcomes. We aimed to review BE screening methodologies currently recommended and in development.

Recent Findings

Unsedated transnasal endoscopy allows for visualization of the distal esophagus, with potential for biopsy acquisition, and can be done in the office setting. Non-endoscopic screening methods being developed couple the use of swallowable esophageal cell sampling devices with BE specific biomarkers, as well as trefoil factor 3, methylated DNA markers, and microRNAs. This approach has promising accuracy. Circulating and exhaled volatile organic compounds and the foregut microbiome are also being explored as means of detecting EAC and BE in a non-invasive manner.

Summary

Non-invasive diagnostic techniques have shown promise in the detection of BE and may be effective methods of screening high-risk patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: •• Of major importance

  1. Arnold M, Soerjomataram I, Ferlay J, Forman D. Global incidence of oesophageal cancer by histological subtype in 2012. Gut. 2015;64(3):381–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308124.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Malhotra GK, Yanala U, Ravipati A, Follet M, Vijayakumar M, Are C. Global trends in esophageal cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2017;115(5):564–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24592.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Siegel Rebecca L, Miller Kimberly D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(1):7–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21387.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hur C, Miller M, Kong CY, Dowling EC, Nattinger KJ, Dunn M, et al. Trends in esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence and mortality. Cancer. 2013;119(6):1149–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.27834.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Njei B, McCarty TR, Birk JW. Trends in Esophageal Cancer Survival in United States Adults from 1973 to 2009: A SEER Database Analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;31(6):1141–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.13289.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Hvid-Jensen F, Pedersen L, Drewes AM, Sorensen HT, Funch-Jensen P. Incidence of adenocarcinoma among patients with Barrett’s esophagus. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(15):1375–83. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1103042.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Prasad GA, Wu TT, Wigle DA, Buttar NS, Wongkeesong LM, Dunagan KT, et al. Endoscopic and surgical treatment of mucosal (T1a) esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2009;137(3):815–23. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2009.05.059.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Shaheen NJ, Sharma P, Overholt BF, Wolfsen HC, Sampliner RE, Wang KK, et al. Radiofrequency ablation in Barrett’s esophagus with dysplasia. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(22):2277–88. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0808145.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Qumseya BJ, Wani S, Gendy S, Harnke B, Bergman JJ, Wolfsen H. Disease progression in Barrett’s low-grade dysplasia with radiofrequency ablation compared with surveillance: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(6):849–65. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2017.70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Phoa KN, van Vilsteren FG, Weusten BL, Bisschops R, Schoon EJ, Ragunath K, et al. Radiofrequency ablation vs endoscopic surveillance for patients with Barrett esophagus and low-grade dysplasia: a randomized clinical trial. Jama. 2014;311(12):1209–17. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.2511.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chadwick G, Groene O, Markar SR, Hoare J, Cromwell D, Hanna GB. Systematic review comparing radiofrequency ablation and complete endoscopic resection in treating dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus: a critical assessment of histologic outcomes and adverse events. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79(5):718–31.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2013.11.030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tramontano AC, Sheehan DF, Yeh JM, Chung YK, Dowling EC, Rubenstein JH, et al. The impact of a prior diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus on esophageal adenocarcinoma survival. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(8):1256–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Bhat SK, McManus DT, Coleman HG, Johnston BT, Cardwell CR, McMenamin U, et al. Oesophageal adenocarcinoma and prior diagnosis of Barrett’s oesophagus: a population-based study. Gut. 2015;64(1):20–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Andermann A, Blancquaert I, Beauchamp S, Dery V. Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years. Bull World Health Organ. 2008;86(4):317–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Fitzgerald RC, di Pietro M, Ragunath K, Ang Y, Kang JY, Watson P, et al. British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut. 2014;63(1):7–42. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305372.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Committee ASoP, Evans JA, Early DS, Fukami N, Ben-Menachem T, Chandrasekhara V, et al. The role of endoscopy in Barrett’s esophagus and other premalignant conditions of the esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76(6):1087–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2012.08.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG, Gerson LB. American College of G. ACG clinical guideline: diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(1):30–50; quiz 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2015.322.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. American Gastroenterological A, Spechler SJ, Sharma P, Souza RF, Inadomi JM, Shaheen NJ. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on the management of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2011;140(3):1084–91. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2011.01.030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Spechler SJ, Sharma P, Souza RF, Inadomi JM, Shaheen NJ. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on the management of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2011;140(3):1084–91. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2011.01.030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Bell GD. Review article: premedication and intravenous sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1990;4(2):103–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2036.1990.tb00455.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sharma VK, Nguyen CC, Crowell MD, Lieberman DA, de Garmo P, Fleischer DE. A national study of cardiopulmonary unplanned events after GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;66(1):27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2006.12.040.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Quine MA, Bell GD, McCloy RF, Matthews HR. Prospective audit of perforation rates following upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in two regions of England. Br J Surg. 1995;82(4):530–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800820430.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sami SS, Ragunath K, Iyer PG. Screening for Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma: rationale, recent progress, challenges, and future directions. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13(4):623–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2014.03.036.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Rubenstein JH, Inadomi JM, Brill JV, Eisen GM. Cost utility of screening for Barrett’s esophagus with esophageal capsule endoscopy versus conventional upper endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5(3):312–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Eloubeidi MA, Provenzale D. Does this patient have Barrett’s esophagus? The utility of predicting Barrett’s esophagus at the index endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94(4):937–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.990_m.x.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Visrodia K, Singh S, Krishnamoorthi R, Ahlquist DA, Wang KK, Iyer PG, et al. Magnitude of missed esophageal adenocarcinoma after Barrett’s esophagus diagnosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2016;150(3):599–607e7. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2015.11.040.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Visrodia K, Iyer PG, Schleck CD, Zinsmeister AR, Katzka DA. Yield of repeat endoscopy in Barrett’s esophagus with no dysplasia and low-grade dysplasia: a population-based study. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61(1):158–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-015-3697-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Peery AF, Hoppo T, Garman KS, Dellon ES, Daugherty N, Bream S, et al. Feasibility, safety, acceptability, and yield of office-based, screening transnasal esophagoscopy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75(5):945–53.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2012.01.021.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. •• Sami SS, Subramanian V, Ortiz-Fernández-Sordo J, Saeed A, Singh S, Guha IN, et al. Performance characteristics of unsedated ultrathin video endoscopy in the assessment of the upper GI tract: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82(5):782–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2015.07.016. In this article, Sami et al. conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on performance outcomes in unsedated ultrathin video endoscopy (uTNE). Technical success (defined as reaching the intended extent of reach) with uTNE of caliber less than 5.9 mm was similar to that or traditional per oral endoscopy. Patient acceptability of the procedure was 85.2%, compared to 88.7% for traditional endoscopy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sami SS, Dunagan KT, Johnson ML, Schleck CD, Shah ND, Zinsmeister AR, et al. A randomized comparative effectiveness trial of novel endoscopic techniques and approaches for Barrett’s esophagus screening in the community. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(1):148–58. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2014.362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Blevins CH, Egginton JS, Shah ND, Johnson ML, Iyer PG. Comparative assessment of patient preferences and tolerability in Barrett esophagus screening: results from a randomized trial. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018;52(10):880–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/mcg.0000000000000991.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Shariff MK, Varghese S, O’Donovan M, Abdullahi Z, Liu X, Fitzgerald RC, et al. Pilot randomized crossover study comparing the efficacy of transnasal disposable endosheath with standard endoscopy to detect Barrett’s esophagus. Endoscopy. 2016;48(2):110–6. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1393310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sami SSSV, Ortiz-Fernández-Sordó J, et al. The utility of ultrathin endoscopy as a diagnostic tool for Barrett’s oesophagus (BO). Systematic review and meta-analysis. United European Gastroenterol J. 2013;2013:1.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sami SS, Iyer PG, Pophali P, Halland M, di Pietro M, Ortiz-Fernandez-Sordo J, et al. Acceptability, accuracy, and safety of disposable transnasal capsule endoscopy for Barrett’s esophagus screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;17(4):638–46.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2018.07.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Crews NR, Gorospe EC, Johnson ML, Wong Kee Song LM, Katzka DA, Iyer PG. Comparative quality assessment of esophageal examination with transnasal and sedated endoscopy. Endosc Int Open. 2017;5(5):E340–e4. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-122008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Moriarty JP, Shah ND, Rubenstein JH, Blevins CH, Johnson M, Katzka DA, et al. Costs associated with Barrett’s esophagus screening in the community: an economic analysis of a prospective randomized controlled trial of sedated versus hospital unsedated versus mobile community unsedated endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87(1):88–94.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2017.04.019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Honing J, Kievit W, Bookelaar J, Peters Y, Iyer PG, Siersema PD. Endosheath ultrathin transnasal endoscopy is a cost-effective method for screening for Barrett’s esophagus in patients with GERD symptoms. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;89(4):712–22.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.10.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Faulx AL, Vela S, Das A, Cooper G, Sivak MV Jr, Isenberg G, et al. The changing landscape of practice patterns regarding unsedated endoscopy and propofol use: a national Web survey. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62(1):9–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(05)00518-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lin OS, Schembre DB, Mergener K, Spaulding W, Lomah N, Ayub K, et al. Blinded comparison of esophageal capsule endoscopy versus conventional endoscopy for a diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus in patients with chronic gastroesophageal reflux. Gastrointest Endosc. 2007;65(4):577–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2006.06.035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Galmiche JP, Sacher-Huvelin S, Coron E, Cholet F, Soussan EB, Sebille V, et al. Screening for esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus with wireless esophageal capsule endoscopy: a multicenter prospective trial in patients with reflux symptoms. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(3):538–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01731.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sharma P, Wani S, Rastogi A, Bansal A, Higbee A, Mathur S, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of esophageal capsule endoscopy in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease and Barrett’s esophagus: a blinded, prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(3):525–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01233.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Bhardwaj A, Hollenbeak CS, Pooran N, Mathew A. A meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of esophageal capsule endoscopy for Barrett’s esophagus in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(6):1533–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2009.86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Qureshi WA, Wu J, Demarco D, Abudayyeh S, Graham DY. Capsule endoscopy for screening for short-segment Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(3):533–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ramirez FC, Akins R, Shaukat M. Screening of Barrett’s esophagus with string-capsule endoscopy: a prospective blinded study of 100 consecutive patients using histology as the criterion standard. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68(1):25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2007.10.040.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Ramirez FC, Shaukat MS, Young MA, Johnson DA, Akins R. Feasibility and safety of string, wireless capsule endoscopy in the diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61(6):741–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Seibel EJ, Carroll RE, Dominitz JA, Johnston RS, Melville CD, Lee CM, et al. Tethered capsule endoscopy, a low-cost and high-performance alternative technology for the screening of esophageal cancer and Barrett’s esophagus. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2008;55(3):1032–42. https://doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2008.915680.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Gora MJ, Sauk JS, Carruth RW, Lu W, Carlton DT, Soomro A, et al. Imaging the upper gastrointestinal tract in unsedated patients using tethered capsule endomicroscopy. Gastroenterology. 2013;145(4):723–5. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2013.07.053.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Gora MJ, Queneherve L, Carruth RW, Lu W, Rosenberg M, Sauk JS, et al. Tethered capsule endomicroscopy for microscopic imaging of the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum without sedation in humans (with video). Gastrointest Endosc. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.07.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Freeman M, Offman J, Walter FM, Sasieni P, Smith SG. Acceptability of the Cytosponge procedure for detecting Barrett’s oesophagus: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2017;7(3):e013901. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013901.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Ross-Innes CS, Chettouh H, Achilleos A, Galeano-Dalmau N, Debiram-Beecham I, MacRae S, et al. Risk stratification of Barrett’s oesophagus using a non-endoscopic sampling method coupled with a biomarker panel: a cohort study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;2(1):23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-1253(16)30118-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kadri SR, Lao-Sirieix P, O’Donovan M, Debiram I, Das M, Blazeby JM, et al. Acceptability and accuracy of a non-endoscopic screening test for Barrett’s oesophagus in primary care: cohort study. Bmj. 2010;341:c4372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4372.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. •• Ross-Innes CS, Debiram-Beecham I, O’Donovan M, Walker E, Varghese S, Lao-Sirieix P, et al. Evaluation of a minimally invasive cell sampling device coupled with assessment of trefoil factor 3 expression for diagnosing Barrett’s esophagus: a multi-center case-control study. PLoS Med. 2015;12(1):e1001780. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001780. In this case-control study, Ross-Innes et al. studied the Cytosponge, a device that non-invasively samples the mucosa of the esophagus, and was coupled to immunostaining for TFF-3 for the detection of BE. They found a sensitivity of 79.9% and a specificity of 92.4% in detecting BE compared to traditional per-oral endoscopy.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Chettouh H, Mowforth O, Galeano-Dalmau N, Bezawada N, Ross-Innes C, MacRae S, et al. Methylation panel is a diagnostic biomarker for Barrett’s oesophagus in endoscopic biopsies and non-endoscopic cytology specimens. Gut. 2018;67(11):1942–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314026.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. •• Iyer PG, Taylor WR, Johnson ML, Lansing RL, Maixner KA, Yab TC, et al. Highly discriminant methylated DNA markers for the non-endoscopic detection of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113(8). Iyer et al. described agnostic discovery, validation, and pilot testing of highly discriminant MDMs for the non-endoscopic diagnosis of BE. A two MDM panel (VAV3 and ZNF682) was able to identify those with BE with high accuracy (AUC 1.0).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Moinova HR, LaFramboise T, Lutterbaugh JD, Chandar AK, Dumot J, Faulx A, et al. Identifying DNA methylation biomarkers for non-endoscopic detection of Barrett’s esophagus. Sci Transl Med. 2018;10(424).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Wang Z, Kambhampati S, Cheng Y, Ma K, Simsek C, Tieu AH, et al. Methylation biomarker panel performance in EsophaCap cytology samples for diagnosing Barrett’s esophagus: a prospective validation study. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(7):2127. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-3696.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. •• Li X, Kleeman S, Coburn SB, Fumagalli C, Perner J, Jammula S, et al. Selection and application of tissue microRNAs for nonendoscopic diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2018;155(3):771–83.e3. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2018.05.050. Li et al. discovered a panel of 11 miRNA sequences (MIR215, MIR194, MIR 192, MIR196a, MIR199b, MIR10a, MIR145, MIR181a, MIR30a, MIR7, and MIR199a) that were upregulated in BE patients compared to controls without BE.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. •• Chan DK, Zakko L, Visrodia KH, Leggett CL, Lutzke LS, Clemens MA, et al. Breath testing for Barrett’s esophagus using exhaled volatile organic compound profiling with an electronic nose device. Gastroenterology. 2017;152(1):24–6. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2016.11.001. Chan et al. studied an “E-nose” device that captured breath samples from patients with BE undergoing surveillance and utilized an artificial neural network incorporating these volatile organic compound profiles that was able to identify BE with 82% sensitivity, 80% specificity, 81% accuracy, and an area under curve of 0.79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Snider EJ, Compres G, Freedberg DE, Giddins MJ, Khiabanian H, Lightdale CJ, et al. Barrett’s esophagus is associated with a distinct oral microbiome. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2018;9(3):135. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41424-018-0005-8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Dignass A, Lynch-Devaney K, Kindon H, Thim L, Podolsky DK. Trefoil peptides promote epithelial migration through a transforming growth factor beta-independent pathway. J Clin Invest. 1994;94(1):376–83. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci117332.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Iqbal U, Siddique O, Ovalle A, Anwar H, Moss SF. Safety and efficacy of a minimally invasive cell sampling device (‘Cytosponge’) in the diagnosis of esophageal pathology: a systematic review. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;30(11):1261–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/meg.0000000000001210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Januszewicz W, Tan WK, Lehovsky K, Debiram-Beecham I, Nuckcheddy T, Moist S, et al. Safety and acceptability of esophageal Cytosponge cell collection device in a pooled analysis of data from individual patients. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;17(4):647–56.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2018.07.043.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Heberle CR, Omidvari AH, Ali A, Kroep S, Kong CY, Inadomi JM, et al. Cost effectiveness of screening patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease for Barrett’s esophagus with a minimally invasive cell sampling device. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15(9):1397–404.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2017.02.017.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Benaglia T, Sharples LD, Fitzgerald RC, Lyratzopoulos G. Health benefits and cost effectiveness of endoscopic and nonendoscopic cytosponge screening for Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(1):62–73.e6. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2012.09.060.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Offman J, Muldrew B, O’Donovan M, Debiram-Beecham I, Pesola F, Kaimi I, et al. Barrett’s oESophagus trial 3 (BEST3): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing the Cytosponge-TFF3 test with usual care to facilitate the diagnosis of oesophageal pre-cancer in primary care patients with chronic acid reflux. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):784. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4664-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Dickinson BT, Kisiel J, Ahlquist DA, Grady WM. Molecular markers for colorectal cancer screening. Gut. 2015;64(9):1485.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Imperiale TF, Ransohoff DF, Itzkowitz SH, Levin TR, Lavin P, Lidgard GP, et al. Multitarget stool DNA testing for colorectal-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(14):1287–97. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1311194.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Bhatt A, Parsi MA, Stevens T, Gabbard S, Kumaravel A, Jang S, et al. Volatile organic compounds in plasma for the diagnosis of esophageal adenocarcinoma: a pilot study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;84(4):597–603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2015.11.031.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Kumar S, Huang J, Abbassi-Ghadi N, Spanel P, Smith D, Hanna GB. Selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry analysis of exhaled breath for volatile organic compound profiling of esophago-gastric cancer. Anal Chem. 2013;85(12):6121–8. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac4010309.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Mallick R, Patnaik SK, Wani S, Bansal A. A systematic review of esophageal microRNA markers for diagnosis and monitoring of Barrett’s esophagus. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61(4):1039–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-015-3959-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Drahos J, Schwameis K, Orzolek LD, Hao H, Birner P, Taylor PR, et al. MicroRNA profiles of Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma: differences in glandular non-native epithelium. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2016;25(3):429–37. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.epi-15-0161.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Cabibi D, Caruso S, Bazan V, Castiglia M, Bronte G, Ingrao S, et al. Analysis of tissue and circulating microRNA expression during metaplastic transformation of the esophagus. Oncotarget. 2016;7(30):47821–30. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.10291.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Bus P, Kestens C, Ten Kate FJW, Peters W, Drenth JPH, Roodhart JML, et al. Profiling of circulating microRNAs in patients with Barrett’s esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma. J Gastroenterol. 2016;51(6):560–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-015-1133-5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Kumar S, Huang J, Abbassi-Ghadi N, Mackenzie HA, Veselkov KA, Hoare JM, et al. Mass spectrometric analysis of exhaled breath for the identification of volatile organic compound biomarkers in esophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma. Ann Surg. 2015;262(6):981–90. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000001101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Gall A, Fero J, McCoy C, Claywell BC, Sanchez CA, Blount PL, et al. Bacterial composition of the human upper gastrointestinal tract microbiome is dynamic and associated with genomic instability in a Barrett’s esophagus cohort. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0129055. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129055.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Elliott DRF, Walker AW, O’Donovan M, Parkhill J, Fitzgerald RC. A non-endoscopic device to sample the oesophageal microbiota: a case-control study. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;2(1):32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-1253(16)30086-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Don C. Codipilly & Prasad G. Iyer

  2. Barrett’s Esophagus Unit, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Prasad G. Iyer

Authors
  1. Don C. Codipilly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prasad G. Iyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Prasad G. Iyer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Prasad G. Iyer declares research funding from Exact Sciences, Medtronic, Pentax Medical, Nine Point Medical, Consulting: Pentax Medical, CSA Medical, and Medtronic.

Don C. Codipilly declares no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Esophagus

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Codipilly, D.C., Iyer, P.G. Novel Screening Tests for Barrett’s Esophagus. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 21, 42 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-019-0710-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-019-0710-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation