» Articles » PMID: 34998796

External Validation of a Model Determining Risk of Neoplastic Progression of Barrett's Esophagus in a Cohort of U.S. Veterans

Overview
Date 2022 Jan 9
PMID 34998796
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background And Aims: Risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in those with Barrett's esophagus (BE) is 11-fold greater than the general population. It remains unclear which BE patients are at highest risk of progression to EAC. We aimed to validate a predictive model risk-stratifying BE patients.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at the Houston Veteran Affairs Medical Center of consecutive patients with a new diagnosis of BE from November 1990 to January 2019. Study follow-up was through February 2020. Patients were excluded if they had no follow-up EGD with esophageal biopsy sampling after the initial BE-diagnosing EGD or evidence of high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or EAC on initial EGD. We performed an external validation study of a risk model containing sex, smoking, BE length, and low-grade dysplasia (LGD) status and assessed discriminatory ability using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC).

Results: Among 608 BE patients, 24 progressed to HGD/EAC. The points-based model discriminated well with an AUROC of .72 (95% confidence interval [CI], .63-.82). When categorized into low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups according to published cutoffs, the AUROC was poor at .57. Restructured into low-risk versus high-risk groups, the AUROC was .72 (95% CI, .64-.80). Excluding baseline LGD did not reduce discriminatory ability (AUROC, .73; 95% CI, .64-.82).

Conclusions: This external validation provides further evidence that the model including sex, LGD status, smoking status, and BE length may help to risk stratify BE patients. A simplified version excluding LGD status and/or reducing the number of risk groups has increased utility in clinical practice without loss of discriminatory ability.

Citing Articles

Categorizing Risks within Barrett's Esophagus To Guide Surveillance and Interception; Suggesting a New Framework.

Honing J, Fitzgerald R Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2023; 16(6):313-320.

PMID: 37259801 PMC: 10234311. DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-22-0447.

References
1.
El-Serag H, Naik A, Duan Z, Shakhatreh M, Helm A, Pathak A . Surveillance endoscopy is associated with improved outcomes of oesophageal adenocarcinoma detected in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. Gut. 2015; 65(8):1252-60. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308865. View

2.
Saxena N, Inadomi J . Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Endoscopic Screening and Surveillance. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2017; 27(3):397-421. DOI: 10.1016/j.giec.2017.02.005. View

3.
Shaheen N, Falk G, Iyer P, Gerson L . ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015; 111(1):30-50. PMC: 10245082. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2015.322. View

4.
Crockett S, Lipkus I, Bright S, Sampliner R, Wang K, Boolchand V . Overutilization of endoscopic surveillance in nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus: a multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011; 75(1):23-31.e2. PMC: 3961007. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.08.042. View

5.
Fitzgerald R, di Pietro M, Ragunath K, Ang Y, Kang J, Watson P . British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on the diagnosis and management of Barrett's oesophagus. Gut. 2013; 63(1):7-42. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-305372. View