Acetic acid-guided biopsies in Barrett’s surveillance for neoplasia detection versus non-targeted biopsies (Seattle protocol): A feasibility study for a randomized tandem endoscopy trial. The ABBA study

Abstract

Background and study aims Barrett’s esophagus is a potentially pre-cancerous condition, affecting 375,000 people in the UK. Patients receive a 2-yearly endoscopy to detect cancerous changes, as early detection and treatment results in better outcomes. Current treatment requires random mapping biopsies along the length of Barrett’s, in addition to biopsy of visible abnormalities. As only 13 % of pre-cancerous changes appear as visible nodules or abnormalities, areas of dysplasia are often missed. Acetic acid chromoendoscopy (AAC) has been shown to improve detection of pre-cancerous and cancerous tissue in observational studies, but no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed to date.

Patients and methods A “tandem” endoscopy cross-over design. Participants will be randomized to endoscopy using mapping biopsies or AAC, in which dilute acetic acid is sprayed onto the surface of the esophagus, highlighting tissue through an whitening reaction and enhancing visibility of areas with cellular changes for biopsy. After 4 to 10 weeks, participants will undergo a repeat endoscopy, using the second method. Rates of recruitment and retention will be assessed, in addition to the estimated dysplasia detection rate, effectiveness of the endoscopist training program, and rates of adverse events (AEs). Qualitative interviews will explore participant and endoscopist acceptability of study design and delivery, and the acceptability of switching endoscopic techniques for Barrett's surveillance.

Results Endoscopists’ ability to diagnose dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus can be improved. AAC may offer a simple, universally applicable, easily-acquired technique to improve detection, affording patients earlier diagnosis and treatment, reducing endoscopy time and pathology costs. The ABBA study will determine whether a crossover “tandem” endoscopy design is feasible and acceptable to patients and clinicians and gather outcome data to power a definitive trial.

• References

• 1 Bhat S, Coleman HG, Yousef F. et al. Risk of malignant progression in Barrettʼs oesophagus: results from a large population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103: 1049-1057
• 2 Jankowski JA. Progression to cancer and risk factors. In: Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s columnar-lined oesophagus. A Report of the Working Party of the British Society of Gastroenterology. 2005: 21-23 (www.bsg.org.uk/pdf_word_docs/Barretts_Oes.pdf)
• 3 Office for National Statistics. Cancer Statistics registrations. Registrations of cancer diagnosed in 2008.. England: Series MB1 2010 Dec: ISSN 0143– 4829
• 4 Office for National Statistics (ONS). Statistical Bulletin Cancer survival in England: Patients diagnosed 2005 – 2009 and followed up to 2010 – 2011.
• 5 Fitzgerald RC, Di Pietro M, Ragunath K. et al. Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Management of Barrett’s Esophagus. Gut 2014; 63: 7-42
• 6 Nilsson J, Skobe V, Johansson J. et al. Screening for esophageal adenocarcinoma: an evaluation of a surveillance program for columnar metaplasia of the esophagus. Scand J Gastroenterol 2000; 35: 10-16
• 7 Peters JH Clark GWB, Ireland AP. et al. Outcome of adenocarcinoma arising in Barrett’s esophagus in endoscopically surveyed and nonsurveyed patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1994; 108: 813-822
• 8 Pech O, Gossner L, Manner H. et al. Prospective evaluation of the macroscopic types and location of early Barrett’s neoplasia in 380 lesions. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 588-593
• 9 Kariv R, Plesec TP, Goldblum JR. et al. The Seattle protocol does not more reliably predict the detection of cancer at the time of esophagectomy than less-invasive surveillance protocol. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 653-658
• 10 Peters FP, Curvers WL, Rosmolen WD. et al. Surveillance history of endoscopically treated patients with early Barrettʼs neoplasia: nonadherence to the Seattle biopsy protocol leads to sampling error. Dis Esophagus 2008; 21: 475-479
• 11 Garside R, Pitt M, Somerville M. et al. Surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus: exploring the uncertainty through systematic review, expert workshop and economic modelling. Health Tech Assess 2006; 10: No. 8
• 12 Sharma P, Weston A, Topalovski M. et al. Magnification chromoendoscopy for the detection of intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. Gut 2003; 52: 24-27
• 13 Gossner L, May A, Pech O. et al. Chromoendoscopy for detection of dysplasia or mucosal cancer in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; A3537
• 14 Fortun PJ, Anagnostopoulos GK, Kaye P. et al. Acetic acid enhanced magnification endoscopy in the diagnosis of specialized intestinal metaplasia, dysplasia and early cancer in Barrett’s esophagus. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006; 23: 735-742
• 15 Wolfsen HC, Crook JE, Krishna M. et al. Prospective, controlled tandem endoscopy study of narrow band imaging for dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 24-31
• 16 Georgakoudi I, Jacobson BC, Van Dam J. et al. Fluorescence, reflectance, and light-scattering spectroscopy for evaluating dysplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2001; 120: 1620-1629
• 17 Curvers WL, Alvarez HerreroL, Wallace MB. et al. Endoscopic tri-modal imaging is more effective than standard endoscopy in identifying early-stage neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2010; 139: 1106-1114
• 18 Chedgy FJQ, Kandiah K, Barr H. et al. Development and validation of a training module on the use of acetic acid for the detection of Barrett’s neoplasia. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 121-129
• 19 Longcroft-Wheaton G, Brown J, Basford P. et al. Duration of acetowhitening as a novel objective tool for diagnosing high risk neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: a prospective cohort trial. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 426-432
• 20 Longcroft-Wheaton G, Duku M, Mead R. et al. Acetic acid spray is an effective tool for the endoscopic detection of neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 843-847
• 21 Pohl J, Pech O, May A. et al. Incidence of macroscopically occult neoplasias in Barrett’s esophagus: are random biopsies dispensable in the era of advanced endoscopic imaging?. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 2350-2356
• 22 Bhandari P, Kandaswamy P, Cowlishaw D. et al. Acetic acid-enhanced chromoendoscopy is more cost-effective than protocol-guided biopsies in a high-risk Barrett’s population. Dis Esophagus 2012; 25: 386-392
• 23 Tholoor S, Bhattacharyya R, Tsagkournis O. et al. Acetic acid chromoendoscopy in Barrettʼs esophagus surveillance is superior to the standardized random biopsy protocol: results from a large cohort study (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 417-424
• 24 Kandiah K, Chedgy FJQ, Subramaniam S. et al. International development and validation of a classification system for the identification of Barrett's neoplasia using acetic acid chromoendoscopy: the Portsmouth acetic acid classification (PREDICT). Gut 2017; DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314512.
• 25 Sharma P, Dent J, Armstrong D. et al. The development and validation of an endoscopic grading system for Barrett’s esophagus: the Prague C & M criteria. Gastroenterol 2006; 131: 1392-1399
• 26 Participants in the Paris Workshop. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 58: S3-S43
• 27 Good clinical practice. National Institute for Health Research. Available at https://www.nihr.ac.uk/our-faculty/clinical-research-staff/learning-and-development/national-directory/good-clinical-practice/ (Accessed September 28, 2017)
• 28 Subramanian V, Mannath J, Ragunath K. et al. Meta-analysis: the diagnostic yield of chromoendoscopy for detecting dysplasia in patients with colonic inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011; 33: 304-312
• 29 Lieberman D, Brill J, Canto M. et al. Management of diminutive colon polyps based on endoluminal imaging. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 13: 1860-1866
• 30 Schachschal G, Mayr M, Treszl A. et al. Endoscopic versus histological characterisation of polyps during screening colonoscopy. Gut 2014; 63: 458-65