415 External Validation of the Progression in Barrett’s Score in a Prospective Multicenter BE Cohort

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic surveillance guidelines in Barrett’s esophagus (BE) to detect progression to high grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) are based solely on dysplasia grade. Given low rates of progression, identification of predictors (and scores) of progression may help to focus surveillance or intervention in those at higher risk. We aimed to assess predictors of progression and externally validate the Progression in Barrett’s (PIB) score in an independent multicenter prospective BE and EAC cohort. METHODS: The EA and Barrett’s esophagus (EABE) registry is a prospective cohort of patients recruited from three medical centers. Progressors were defined as those with the development of HGD or EAC more than 12 months after initial diagnosis. Demographic and clinical variables were abstracted. The annual incidence rate and predictors of progression were assessed using univariate and multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis. The ability of the PIB score (incorporating weighted scores for male gender, smoking (ever versus never), BE length and confirmed LGD) to risk stratify the cohort into low (0-10 points), intermediate (11-20 points) and high risk (> 20 points) groups was assessed. RESULTS: 429 patients were included. 84% were men, with a mean (SD) age of 61.5 (9.9) years. 65% were ever smokers and most (76.7%), had NDBE at diagnosis. Mean (SD) maximal BE segment length was 5.9 (3.2) cm. Eighty-two patients (19.1%) progressed to HGD (n = 65) or EAC (n = 17) over a median (IQR) follow up of 7.5 (3.7, 12.5) years. Annual incidence rates of progression to EAC and EAC/HGD were 0.5% and 2.0% respectively. Univariate and multivariable predictors of progression are displayed in Table 1. The PIB score divided patients into three groups (Table 2) with progressively increasing rates of progression. The risk in the high risk group was three fold higher than the low risk group (P = 0.024). The risk in the intermediate group was twofold higher but not statistically significantly higher (P = 0.13). The PIB score had a c-statistic score of 0.76 in the original cohort. In this cohort the c-statistic value was lower at 0.64, suggesting moderate performance. CONCLUSION: Male sex and BE length predicted progression in this independent multicenter cohort. The PIB score was also able to risk-stratify patients in this validation cohort with the high risk cohort being 3x more likely to progress compared to the low risk cohort.