The purpose of this study is to determine if the intervention of a 510(k)-cleared endoscopically-guided (Halo Ablation systems), ablation system plus anti-secretory therapy is better than anti-secretory therapy alone in clearing Barrett's Esophagus.
Barrett's esophagus or intestinal metaplasia (IM) is a change in the epithelial lining of the esophagus. Barrett's esophagus develops as a result of chronic exposure of the esophagus to refluxed stomach acid and enzymes, as well as bile, resulting in recurrent mucosal injury. Injury is accompanied by inflammation and, ultimately, a cellular change (metaplasia) to a specialized columnar epithelium (Spechler SJ. Barrett's Esophagus. N Engl J Med 2002;346(11):836-842.) Patients who have a diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus typically undergo surveillance endoscopy every 1-3 years with multiple biopsy specimens obtained to facilitate early detection of progression of IM to dysplasia (more severe precancerous changes) and adenocarcinoma. (Sampliner RE. Updated guidelines for the diagnosis, surveillance, and therapy of Barrett's esophagus. Am J Gastro 2002;97:1888-1895.) Progression of IM to low-grade dysplasia (LGD) indicates that cells exhibit more "cancer-like" architecture, thus warranting an accelerated surveillance endoscopy and biopsy program every 6 months rather than every 1-3 years as indicated for non-dysplastic IM. Progression to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) indicates that the cells are even more "cancer-like", thus warranting an even higher frequency surveillance endoscopy and biopsy program (every 3 months). Many HGD patients may undergo photodynamic therapy (PDT) or surgical esophagectomy, rather than remain in a frequent surveillance program. This more aggressive therapy is warranted because of the high rate of progression of HGD to adenocarcinoma. Esophageal adenocarcinoma most commonly occurs after an insidious progression from IM to LGD to HGD. Therefore, surveillance is increased upon diagnosis of worsening grades of dysplasia. The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma is rapidly increasing as middle-aged and elderly demographic sub-groups expand (Peters JH, Hagen JA, DeMeester SR. Barrett's Esophagus. J Gastrointest Surg 2004;8(1):1-17.) In 2004, the American Cancer Society reported that there were 14,250 new cases of esophageal cancer, and 13,300 deaths attributable to esophageal cancer (www.cancer.org). The U.S. National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program reported that the increasing incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma was greater than for any other cancer in the United States (www.cancer.gov). Elimination of the diseased epithelium containing IM with dysplasia is an intuitively favorable step for patients with this diagnosis. In other disease states, such as colon polyps or premalignant skin lesions, removal of the premalignant tissue results in a reduction in the risk of ultimately developing cancer. This is a logical conclusion when considering the premalignant lesion of Barrett's esophagus (particularly Barrett's esophagus with dysplasia), as the "tissue at risk" can be completely removed by ablation. This premise has been tested in the Barrett's dysplasia population in photoablative trials using PDT for patients with HGD, where PDT imparted a 50% reduction in risk over controls for the development of adenocarcinoma (Overholt BF, Panjehpour M, Haydek JM. Photodynamic therapy for Barrett's esophagus: follow-up. Gastrointest Endosc 1999;49(1):1-7.) The AIM Dysplasia Trial primary endpoints are removal of all dysplasia and IM, rather than detection of a difference in progression to adenocarcinoma or higher grades of dysplasia.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE
Enrollment
127
Treatment group subjects undergo up to 4 ablation procedures (circumferential or focal) plus standard anti-secretory drug therapy (proton pump inhibitor, PPI).
The Sham Control group undergo an upper endoscopy procedure with sizing of the esophageal diameter (a component of the ablation procedure steps, deemed the sham procedure) plus standard anti-secretory drug therapy (Proton pump inhibitor, PPI)
Mayo Clinic Scottsdale
Scottsdale, Arizona, United States
University of Arizona, VAMC
The % of Patients With Complete Eradication of Intestinal Metaplasia (IM) at 12 Month
% of patients with complete eradication of IM out of the number of participants analyzed at 12 month was calculated.
Time frame: 12 month
The % of Patients With Complete Eradication of Dysplasia at 12 Month
% of patients with complete eradication of Dysplasia out of the number of participants analyzed at 12 month was calculated.
Time frame: 12 month
The % of Patients With Complete Histological Clearance of Intestinal Metaplasia at 24 Months.
% of patients with complete eradication of IM out of the number of participants analyzed at 24 month was calculated.
Time frame: 24 Month
5 Year Extension: % of All Patients Enrolled in the Extension Protocol and Available for Analysis Demonstrating CR-IM at 5 Years
For patient who made it to the 5 year visit, % of patients demonstrating complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) was calculated.
Time frame: 5 years
Durability of Eradication With no Additional Treatments
Time frame: 5 year
5 Year Extension: % of All Patients Enrolled in the Extension Protocol and Available for Analysis Demonstrating CR-D at 5 Years
For patient who made it to the 5 year visit, % of patients demonstrating complete eradication of dysplasia was calculated and all were free of dysplasia
Time frame: 5 years
The % of Patients With Complete Histological Clearance of IM at 12 Months, Comparing Treatment Versus Sham Control Groups Within a Specific Dysplasia Subgroup
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Tucson, Arizona, United States
UC Irvine Medical Center
Orange, California, United States
Mayo Clinic - Jacksonville
Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Harvard, VA Boston Healthcare W Roxbury
West Roxbury, Massachusetts, United States
Mayo Clinic Rochester
Rochester, Minnesota, United States
University of Kansas School of Medicine - Veterans Affairs Medical Center
Kansas City, Missouri, United States
Washington University School of Medicine
St Louis, Missouri, United States
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center
Lebanon, New Hampshire, United States
Columbia University Medical Center
New York, New York, United States
...and 9 more locations
Time frame: 12 months
Within the HGD Subgroup, the % of Patients With Complete Histological Clearance of HGD (CR-D) at 12 Months, Comparing Treatment Versus Sham Control Groups.
Time frame: 12 Month
Histological Clearance of IM (% Biopsies)
% of patients with histological clearance of IM out of the number of participants analyzed at 12 month was calculated.
Time frame: 12 months
Progression of Dysplasia (i.e., HGD to Adenocarcinoma, or LGD to HGD or Adenocarcinoma)
Time frame: 5 year
Subject Discomfort : Chest Pain Score on Day 1
Chest pain score was measured on a visual analogue scale of 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating a greater severity of pain
Time frame: Day 1 , if ablated
Quality of Life Questionnaire (Baseline v. 12 and 24 Mos)
Time frame: 0, 12, and 24 months
Adverse Event Incidence
Data reported in the adverse event section
Time frame: 12 months for Treatment and Sham Comparison
For 5 Year Extension: Proportion (%) of All Patients Enrolled in This Extension and Available for Analysis at 5 Years Demonstrating Any Adenocarcinoma in Any Biopsy Obtained From the Esophageal Body Since Primary RFA (0-5 Years)
Time frame: 5 years
5 Year Extension: Proportion (%) of All Patients Enrolled in This Extension and Available for Analysis at 5 Years Demonstrating Any Adenocarcinoma in Any Biopsy Obtained From the Esophageal Body After 2 Years and Inclusive of the 5 Year Visit
Time frame: 5 years
5 Year Extension: Proportion (%) of All Patients Enrolled in This Extension Protocol and Available for Analysis Demonstrating CR-IM at 5 Year
Time frame: 5 years
5 Year Extension:Proportion (%) of All Patients Enrolled in This Extension Protocol and Available for Analysis Demonstrating CR-D at 5 Year
Time frame: 5 years
5 Year Extension: Proportion (%) of All Patients Enrolled in This Extension Protocol and Available for Analysis Demonstrating CR-IM at 4 Year
Time frame: 4 years
5 Year Extension: Proportion (%) of All Patients Enrolled in This Extension Protocol and Available for Analysis Demonstrating CR-IM at 3 Year
Time frame: 3 years
5 Year Extension: Proportion (%) of All Patients Enrolled in This Extension Protocol and Available for Analysis Demonstrating CR-D at 4 Year
Time frame: 4 years
5 Year Extension: Serious Adverse Event Incidence
Time frame: 5 years
5 Year Extension: All Cause Mortality of the Group From 2 to 5 Years.
Time frame: 5 years