Article Text

PDF

OC-020 Comparative Effectiveness Of Novel Techniques For Barrett’s Oesophagus (bo) Screening In The Community: A Prospective Randomised Trial
  1. SS Sami1,
  2. KT Dunagan2,
  3. ML Johnson2,
  4. CD Schlek3,
  5. AR Zinsmeister3,
  6. LM Wong Kee Song2,
  7. KK Wang2,
  8. DA Katzka2,
  9. K Ragunath1,
  10. PG Iyer2
  1. 1Digestive Diseases Centre and NIHR Biomedical Research Unit, University of Nottingham, UK, Nottingham, UK
  2. 2Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA
  3. 3Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA

Abstract

Introduction BO is the strongest precursor of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Participation patterns and effectiveness of BO community screening using unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) is unknown. Feasibility of mobile van screening closer to home is also unknown. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of this technique compared to sedated endoscopy (SE).

Methods A population cohort ≥50 years of age, with no history of endoscopic evaluation, was identified from a group of subjects who previously completed a validated symptom questionnaire. Patients were randomised (stratified by age, sex and reflux symptoms) and invited to undergo either uTNE in a mobile research van (muTNE), uTNE in outpatient endoscopy suite (huTNE) or SE. uTNE was performed using a portable oesophagoscope with a disposable sheath. Procedure performance characteristics and validated tolerability scales (0 = none and 10 = severe) were recorded.

Results 459 subjects were contacted and 209 (46%) agreed to undergo study procedures (muTNE n = 76, huTNE n = 72, SE n = 61). Baseline characteristics were comparable among the three groups.

Participation rates were numerically higher in the unsedated arms (muTNE 47.5%, huTNE 45.7%) than in the SE arm (40.7%) (p = 0.27). Patients with acid reflux symptoms ≥1/week were more likely to participate (odds ratio 2.94, 95% confidence interval 1.47, 5.88).

Complete evaluation of the oesophagus was comparable using muTNE (99%), huTNE (96%) and SE (100%) techniques. Successful biopsy acquisition was lower in the muTNE (79%) and huTNE (83%) groups compared to SE (100%) (p = 0.001).

Mean duration (minutes) of examination was shorter in the SE arm (4.7) than in muTNE (8.0) and huTNE (8.5) groups (p < 0.001). However, recovery time was much longer for SE (67.3) compared to muTNE (15.5) and huTNE (18.5) techniques (p < 0.001).

While overall tolerability for SE was better than muTNE and huTNE (mean score 0.4 vs. 1.9 and 2.2 respectively, p < 0.001), the majority of patients who underwent muTNE and huTNE were willing to undergo the same procedure again in future (79% and 83%, respectively). No serious adverse events were reported. 16 subjects (7.6%) were diagnosed with BO.

Conclusion In this first large randomised trial evaluating novel approaches for community screening for BO, unsedated mobile van and clinic screening with TNE was feasible and effective. The patients’ visit was significantly shorter with adequate tolerability, acceptability and safety profiles. Mobile and outpatient techniques may provide a cost-effective alternative to SE for BO screening.

Disclosure of Interest S. Sami: None Declared, K. Dunagan: None Declared, M. Johnson: None Declared, C. Schlek: None Declared, A. Zinsmeister: None Declared, L. M. Wong Kee Song: None Declared, K. Wang: None Declared, D. Katzka: None Declared, K. Ragunath Grant/research support from: Olympus (keymed, UK) and Intromed Ltd. (Seoul, South Korea), P. Iyer: None Declared.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.