Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Innovations in Screening Tools for Barrett’s Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

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

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is a lethal disease with rapidly rising incidence. Screening for EAC and its metaplastic precursor, Barrett’s esophagus (BE), followed by endoscopic surveillance and endoscopic treatment of dysplasia or early EAC are promising approaches to decreasing EAC incidence and EAC mortality. Historically, screening for EAC has been completed with a traditional per-oral esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD); however, this method has limitations including cost, tolerability, and accessibility. For this reason, much effort has been put forward to develop more effective, minimally invasive, and accessible BE and EAC screening tools. The purpose of this review is to describe recent developments of these novel tools.

Recent Findings

While endoscopic alternatives such as transnasal endoscopy are cheaper and well tolerated, they have not gained acceptance. Non-endoscopic modalities namely, swallowable cell collection devices coupled with biomarker analysis have been found to have excellent performance characteristics, tolerability, and cost effectiveness.

Summary

In this article, we provide an update on innovative developments in EAC/BE screening modalities including transnasal endoscopy, capsule endomicroscopy, swallowable cell collection devices, and exhaled volatile organic compound analyses.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Not Applicable.

References

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

  1. Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(1):7–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. American Cancer Society Cancer Statistics 2021 Report. J Nucl Med. 2021;62(3):12N.

  5. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Codipilly DC, Chandar AK, Singh S, Wani S, Shaheen NJ, Inadomi JM, et al. The Effect of Endoscopic Surveillance in Patients With Barrett's Esophagus: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2018;154(8):2068–86 e5.

  7. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Sami SS, Subramanian V, Ortiz-Fernandez-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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

  12. Park J, Cho YK, Kim JH. Current and Future Use of Esophageal Capsule Endoscopy. Clin Endosc. 2018;51(4):317–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen WS, Zhu LH, Li DZ, Chen L, Wu YL, Wang W. String esophageal capsule endoscopy with real-time viewing improves visualization of the distal esophageal Z-line: a prospective, comparative study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;26(3):309–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Beg S, Card T, Warburton S, Rahman I, Wilkes E, White J, et al. Diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus and esophageal varices using a magnetically assisted capsule endoscopy system. Gastrointest Endosc. 2020;91(4):773–81 e1.

  16. 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 

  17. Gora MJ, Sauk JS, Carruth RW, Gallagher KA, Suter MJ, Nishioka NS, et al. Tethered capsule endomicroscopy enables less invasive imaging of gastrointestinal tract microstructure. Nat Med. 2013;19(2):238–40.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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;88(5):830–40 e3.

  19. Gora MJ, Simmons LH, Queneherve L, Grant CN, Carruth RW, Lu W, et al. Tethered capsule endomicroscopy: from bench to bedside at a primary care practice. J Biomed Opt. 2016;21(10):104001.

  20. Dong J, Grant C, Vuong B, Nishioka N, Gao AH, Beatty M, et al. Feasibility and Safety of Tethered Capsule Endomicroscopy in Patients With Barrett's Esophagus in a Multi-Center Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021.

  21. Liang CP, Dong J, Ford T, Reddy R, Hosseiny H, Farrokhi H, et al. Optical coherence tomography-guided laser marking with tethered capsule endomicroscopy in unsedated patients. Biomed Opt Express. 2019;10(3):1207–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Fitzgerald RC, di Pietro M, O'Donovan M, Maroni R, Muldrew B, Debiram-Beecham I, et al. Cytosponge-trefoil factor 3 versus usual care to identify Barrett's oesophagus in a primary care setting: a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2020;396(10247):333–44. This multicenter study utilized the Cytosponge swallowable device coupled with TFF3 analysis specifically in the primary care setting in patients with a diagnosis of GERD. This novel screening modality displayed improved detection of BE in comparison to standard of care. Cytosponge/TFF3 utilization also showed potential for earlier stage diagnosis of both dysplasia and EAC that were more amenable to intervention.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 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):1156–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Kaz AM, Grady WM, Stachler MD, Bass AJ. Genetic and Epigenetic Alterations in Barrett’s Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2015;44(2):473–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zou H, Molina JR, Harrington JJ, Osborn NK, Klatt KK, Romero Y, et al. Aberrant methylation of secreted frizzled-related protein genes in esophageal adenocarcinoma and Barrett’s esophagus. Int J Cancer. 2005;116(4):584–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. 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):2127–35.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Iyer PG, Taylor WR, Slettedahl SW, Lansing RL, Hemminger LL, Cayer FK, et al. Validation of a methylated DNA marker panel for the nonendoscopic detection of Barrett's esophagus in a multi-site case-control study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021. This multicenter case-control analysis of the EsophaCap swallowable device coupled with a 5-MDM analysis displayed BE diagnosis sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 90%. This study shows promising accuracy for utilization of EsophaCap and panel-based MDM analyses for BE detection.

  35. Iyer PG, Taylor WR, Johnson ML, Lansing RL, Maixner KA, Hemminger LL, et al. Accurate Nonendoscopic Detection of Barrett’s Esophagus by Methylated DNA Markers: A Multisite Case Control Study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020;115(8):1201–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 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).

  37. 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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Peters Y, Schrauwen RWM, Tan AC, Bogers SK, de Jong B, Siersema PD. Detection of Barrett's oesophagus through exhaled breath using an electronic nose device. Gut. 2020;69(7):1169–72. This proof of concept study utilized a E-nose device to analyze exhaled volatile organic compounds (VOC) of 402 patients (129 with BE, 141 with GERD, and 132 healthy controls). Overall, VOC analysis displayed a BE diagnosis sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 74% and did not show variation based on PPI use, GERD history, or presence/absence of a hiatal hernia.

  39. Zhou Z, Kalatskaya I, Russell D, Marcon N, Cirocco M, Krzyzanowski PM, et al. Combined EsophaCap cytology and MUC2 immunohistochemistry for screening of intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia and carcinoma. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. 2019;12:219–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

    Matthew G. Bell

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

    Prasad G. Iyer

Authors
  1. Matthew G. Bell
    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

Ethics Approval

Not applicable.

Consent to Participate

Not applicable.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

Matthew Bell: None.

Prasad Iyer: Research funding from Exact Sciences, Pentax Medical. Consultant : Medtronic, Ambu, Symple Surgical.

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

Bell, M.G., Iyer, P.G. Innovations in Screening Tools for Barrett’s Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 23, 22 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-021-00821-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-021-00821-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation