Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio and risk of neoplastic progression in patients with Barrett's esophagus

Feasibility Study Utilizing NanoString's Digital Spatial Profiling (DSP) Technology for Characterizing the Immune Microenvironment in Barrett's Esophagus Formalin-Fixed Paraffin-Embedded Tissues

Characterization of the Barrett's esophagus (BE) microenvironment in patients with a known progression status, to determine how it may influence BE progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), has been understudied, hindering both the biological understanding of the progression and the development of novel diagnostics and therapies. This study's aim was to determine if a highly multiplex interrogation of the microenvironment can be performed on endoscopic formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples, utilizing the NanoString GeoMx digital spatial profiling (GeoMx DSP) platform and if it can begin to identify the types of immune cells and pathways that may mediate the progression of BE. We performed a spatial proteomic analysis of 49 proteins expressed in the microenvironment and epithelial cells of FFPE endoscopic biopsies from patients with non-dysplastic BE (NDBE) who later progressed to high-grade dysplasia or EAC (n = 7) or from patients who, after at least 5 years follow-up, did not (n = 8). We then performed an RNA analysis of 1812 cancer-related transcripts on three endoscopic mucosal resections containing regions of BE, dysplasia, and EAC. Profiling with GeoMx DSP showed reasonable quality metrics and detected expected differences between epithelium and stroma. Several proteins were found to have an increased expression within NDBE biopsies from progressors compared to non-progressors, suggesting further studies are warranted.

Diagnosis and management of Barrett esophagus: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

MR1 : ESGE recommends the following standards for Barrett esophagus (BE) surveillance:- a minimum of 1-minute inspection time per cm of BE length during a surveillance endoscopy- photodocumentation of landmarks, the BE segment including one picture per cm of BE length, and the esophagogastric junction in retroflexed position, and any visible lesions- use of the Prague and (for visible lesions) Paris classification- collection of biopsies from all visible abnormalities (if present), followed by random four-quadrant biopsies for every 2-cm BE length.Strong recommendation, weak quality of evidence. MR2:  ESGE suggests varying surveillance intervals for different BE lengths. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 1 cm and < 3 cm, BE surveillance should be repeated every 5 years. For BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 3 cm and < 10 cm, the interval for endoscopic surveillance should be 3 years. Patients with BE with a maximum extent of ≥ 10 cm should be referred to a BE expert center for surveillance endoscopies. For patients with an irregular Z-line/columnar-lined esophagus of < 1 cm, no routine biopsies or endoscopic surveillance are advised.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR3:  ESGE suggests that, if a patient has reached 75 years of age at the time of the last surveillance endoscopy and/or the patient's life expectancy is less than 5 years, the discontinuation of further surveillance endoscopies can be considered. Weak recommendation, very low quality of evidence. MR4:  ESGE recommends offering endoscopic eradication therapy using ablation to patients with BE and low grade dysplasia (LGD) on at least two separate endoscopies, both confirmed by a second experienced pathologist.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR5:  ESGE recommends endoscopic ablation treatment for BE with confirmed high grade dysplasia (HGD) without visible lesions, to prevent progression to invasive cancer.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR6:  ESGE recommends offering complete eradication of all remaining Barrett epithelium by ablation after endoscopic resection of visible abnormalities containing any degree of dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).Strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence. MR7:  ESGE recommends endoscopic resection as curative treatment for T1a Barrett's cancer with well/moderate differentiation and no signs of lymphovascular invasion.Strong recommendation, high level of evidence. MR8:  ESGE suggests that low risk submucosal (T1b) EAC (i. e. submucosal invasion depth ≤ 500 µm AND no [lympho]vascular invasion AND no poor tumor differentiation) can be treated by endoscopic resection, provided that adequate follow-up with gastroscopy, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and computed tomography (CT)/positrion emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is performed in expert centers.Weak recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR9:  ESGE suggests that submucosal (T1b) esophageal adenocarcinoma with deep submucosal invasion (tumor invasion > 500 µm into the submucosa), and/or (lympho)vascular invasion, and/or a poor tumor differentiation should be considered high risk. Complete staging and consideration of additional treatments (chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy and/or surgery) or strict endoscopic follow-up should be undertaken on an individual basis in a multidisciplinary discussion.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. MR10 A: ESGE recommends that the first endoscopic follow-up after successful endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) of BE is performed in an expert center.Strong recommendation, very low quality of evidence. B:  ESGE recommends careful inspection of the neo-squamocolumnar junction and neo-squamous epithelium with high definition white-light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy during post-EET surveillance, to detect recurrent dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. C:  ESGE recommends against routine four-quadrant biopsies of neo-squamous epithelium after successful EET of BE.Strong recommendation, low level of evidence. D:  ESGE suggests, after successful EET, obtaining four-quadrant random biopsies just distal to a normal-appearing neo-squamocolumnar junction to detect dysplasia in the absence of visible lesions.Weak recommendation, low level of evidence. E:  ESGE recommends targeted biopsies are obtained where there is a suspicion of recurrent BE in the tubular esophagus, or where there are visible lesions suspicious for dysplasia.Strong recommendation, very low level of evidence. MR11:  After successful EET, ESGE recommends the following surveillance intervals:- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of HGD or EAC:at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 10 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.- For patients with a baseline diagnosis of LGD:at 1, 3, and 5 years after last treatment, after which surveillance may be stopped.Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence.

Development and validation of a prediction model for histologic progression in patients with nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus

OBJECTIVES

Patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE) are at risk of progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). We developed a model to predict histologic progression in patients with nondysplastic BE (NDBE).

METHODS

A longitudinal study in three referral centers was performed between January 2010 and December 2019. As progression to low-grade dysplasia (LGD) can be considered an indication for ablative therapy, the study end-point was histopathologic progression to LGD, high-grade dysplasia, or EAC at 3 years after diagnosis. We used logistic regression to create the model. Seventy percent of the cohort were used to stem the model and the remaining 30% for internal validation.

RESULTS

A total of 542 patients were included, 69.4% of whom were male, mean age 62.2 years. Long-segment BE at index endoscopy was diagnosed in 20.8% of the patients. After a mean follow-up of 6.7 years, 133 patients (24.5%) had histologic progression. Our model identified a neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (odds ratio [OR] 2.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.77-2.32, P < 0.001), BE length (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09-1.36, P < 0.001), age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.05, P = 0.02), smoking (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.09-2.75, P = 0.04), and renal failure (OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.93-2.43, P = 0.07) as predictors of histologic progression at 3 years. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of this model were 0.88 and 0.76 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This novel, internally validated model may predict histologic progression, even in patients with NDBE who generally have low rates of progression over time, and may contribute to enhanced patient selection for more intense surveillance programs.

In the SARS-CoV-2 Pandora Pandemic: Can the Stance of Premorbid Intestinal Innate Immune System as Measured by Fecal Adnab-9 Binding of p87:Blood Ferritin, Yielding the FERAD Ratio, Predict COVID-19 Susceptibility and Survival in a Prospective Population Database?

SARS-CoV-2 severity predictions are feasible, though individual susceptibility is not. The latter prediction allows for planning vaccination strategies and the quarantine of vulnerable targets. Ironically, the innate immune response (InImS) is both an antiviral defense and the potential cause of adverse immune outcomes. The competition for iron has been recognized between both the immune system and invading pathogens and expressed in a ratio of ferritin divided by p87 (as defined by the Adnab-9 ELISA stool-binding optical density, minus the background), known as the FERAD ratio. Associations with the FERAD ratio may allow predictive modeling for the susceptibility and severity of disease. We evaluated other potential COVID-19 biomarkers prospectively. Patients with PCR+ COVID-19 tests (Group 1; n = 28) were compared to three other groups. In Group 2 (n = 36), and 13 patients displayed COVID-19-like symptoms but had negative PCR or negative antibody tests. Group 3 (n = 90) had no symptoms and were negative when routinely PCR-tested before medical procedures. Group 4 (n = 2129) comprised a pool of patients who had stool tests and symptoms, but their COVID-19 diagnoses were unknown; therefore, they were chosen to represent the general population. Twenty percent of the Group 4 patients (n = 432) had sufficient data to calculate their FERAD ratios, which were inversely correlated with the risk of COVID-19 in the future. In a case report of a neonate, we studied three biomarkers implicated in COVID-19, including p87, Src (cellular-p60-sarcoma antigen), and Abl (ABL-proto-oncogene 2). The InImS of the first two were positively correlated. An inverse correlation was found between ferritin and lysozyme in serum (p < 0.05), suggesting that iron could have impaired an important innate immune system anti-viral effector and could partially explain future COVID-19 susceptibility.

Construction of the Interaction Network of Hub Genes in the Progression of Barrett's Esophagus to Esophageal Adenocarcinoma

Introduction

Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is one of the histologic types of esophageal cancer with a poor prognosis. The majority of EAC originate from Barrett's esophagus (BE). There are few studies focusing on the dynamic progression of BE to EAC.

Methods

R software was used to analyze differentially expressed genes (DEGs) based on RNA-seq data of 94 normal esophageal squamous epithelial (NE) tissues, 113 BE tissues and 147 EAC tissues. The overlapping genes of DEGs between BE and EAC were analyzed by Venn diagram tool. The hub genes were selected by Cytoscape software based on the protein-protein interaction network of the overlapping genes using STRING database. The functional analysis of hub genes was performed by R software and the protein expression was identified by immunohistochemistry.

Results

In the present study, we found a large degree of genetic similarity between BE and EAC, and further identified seven hub genes (including COL1A1, TGFBI, MMP1, COL4A1, NID2, MMP12, CXCL1) which were all progressively upregulated in the progression of NE-BE-EAC. We have preliminarily uncovered the probable molecular mechanisms of these hub genes in disease development and constructed the ceRNA regulatory network of hub genes. More importantly, we explored the possibility of hub genes as biomarkers in the disease progression of NE-BE-EAC. For example, TGFBI can be used as biomarkers to predict the prognosis of EAC patients. COL1A1, NID2 and COL4A1 can be used as biomarkers to predict the response to immune checkpoint blockade (ICB) therapy. We also constructed a disease progression risk model for NE-BE-EAC based on CXCL1, MMP1 and TGFBI. Finally, the results of drug sensitivity analysis based on hub genes showed that drugs such as PI3K inhibitor TGX221, bleomycin, PKC inhibitor Midostaurin, Bcr-Abl inhibitor Dasatinib, HSP90 inhibitor 17-AAG, and Docetaxel may be potential candidates to inhibit the progression of BE to EAC.

Conclusion

This study is based on a large number of clinical samples with high credibility, which is useful for revealing the probable carcinogenic mechanism of BE to EAC and developing new clinical treatment strategies.