Introduction

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, progressive, esophageal disease driven by type 2 inflammation.

Aims & Methods

The aim of this analysis was to determine the histopathologic effect of dupilumab on esophageal inflammation in patients aged 1–11 years with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) from the phase 3 EoE KIDS trial. In Part A, patients were randomized to receive weight-tiered dupilumab or placebo for 16 weeks. In Part B, all patients received weight-tiered dupilumab for 36 weeks. Biopsies from proximal, mid, and distal esophageal regions were analyzed. Peak eosinophil count (PEC) and EoE Histologic Scoring System (HSS) grade/stage scores were assessed at baseline, Week 16, and Week 52.

Results

At Week 16, dupilumab vs placebo treatment resulted in significantly greater improvements in PEC (least squares mean percent change -86.09% vs 20.98%, respectively; P<0.0001) and improvements from baseline were observed in EoE-HSS grade and stage total scores, and inflammatory and architectural sub-scores (Table). Improvements were maintained at Week 52 with continued dupilumab. For those who switched from placebo at Week 16, improvements were observed at Week 52. Improvements in individual component scores were also observed.

Table. Mean percent change from Part A baseline in EoE-HSS scores at Weeks 16 and 52.

	Week 16a			Week 52
	Placebo (N=34)	Dupilumab (N=37)	LS mean difference	Placebo (N=18)	Dupilumab (N=37)
EoE-HSS grade
Total score	5.0%	-64.4%	-69.4****	-63.6%	-68.5%
Inflammatory sub-score	5.7%	-77.4%	-83.1****	-79.4%	-83.7%
Architectural sub-score	1.0%	-50.5%	-51.5****	-45.3%	-55.5%
EoE-HSS stage
Total score	5.8%	-62.3%	-68.1****	-58.2%	-63.5%
Inflammatory sub-score	7.9%	-96.3%	-104.3****	-89.6%	-96.6%
Architectural sub-score	9.0%	-41.0%	-50.0****	-32.4%	-51.0%

****P<0.0001. ^aLS mean percent change.
EoE-HSS, Eosinophilic Esophagitis Histologic Scoring System; LS, least squares.

Conclusion

Dupilumab treatment improved a range of histopathologic aspects of EoE through 52 weeks versus placebo in children aged 1–11 years with EoE.

Disclosure

Collins MH: Arena, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Calypso Biotech, EsoCap Biotech, GSK, Receptos, Celgene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Robarts Clinical Trials Inc. Alimentiv, Inc., Sanofi, Shire, a Takeda company – advisory board/consultancy fees.
Lerner D: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. – educational board fees.
Pesek RD: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. – advisory board/consultancy fees.
Zevit N: AstraZeneca, Rafa Inc., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi, Takeda – advisory board/consultancy fees. Adare Pharmaceuticals, Dr. Falk Pharma – advisory board/consultancy fees. Dr. Falk Pharma, Rafa Inc., Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc., Sanofi – speaker fees. Rome Foundation – honoraria.
Xia C, Raphael BP, Radwan A: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. – employees and shareholders.
Zaghloul S, Angello JT: Sanofi – employees, may hold stock and/or stock options in the company.

Introduction

Corpus atrophic gastritis (CAG) requires endoscopic-histological surveillance due to the risk of developing gastric neoplastic lesions (GNL). This study aimed to identify variables associated with GNL development at long-term follow-up using a feature ranking method based on a novel One-Class Support Vector Machine (SVM) model.

Aims & Methods

A dataset containing clinical, endoscopic, and histological variables from consecutive CAG patients (2001-2023) adhering to a surveillance program was considered. GNL presence at the longest available follow-up was recorded. Gastric biopsies and histological evaluations were conducted according to the updated Sydney system. CAG patients with any missing data or a GNL diagnosis at the baseline gastroscopy were excluded from the final analysis. A Fisher score-based feature ranking method and One-Class SVM were used to select the optimal subset of baseline variables associated with GNL development, aiming to achieve average sensitivity (Se) and specificity (Sp) above 80%.

Results

Overall, 355 CAG patients were initially considered. Of these, 36 were excluded due to the presence of GNL at baseline gastroscopy, and 216 for missing data. Thus, a total of 103 patients were considered and grouped into: CAG patients with [22 patients (F 68.1%), median age 68 (35-83) years] and without GNL at follow-up [81 patients (F 72.8%), median age 59(26-84) years]. After a median follow-up of 60 (12-192) months, 13 epithelial GNL (gastric adenocarcinoma or high/low-grade dysplasia) and nine type-1 gastric-neuroendocrine-tumors (T1gNET) were recorded. Parietal-cell-antibodies and pepsinogen-I < 30 μg/l were associated with both epithelial GNL and T1gNET. Antral inflammation and age > 60 were linked to epithelial GNL, while anti-thyroperoxidase-antibodies, smoking, and dyspeptic symptoms at CAG diagnosis were linked to T1gNET. Low-dose aspirin and H. pylori eradication therapy showed inverse associations with epithelial GNL and T1gNET, respectively.

Conclusion

This is the first study in which an AI model simultaneously considers clinical, endoscopic, and histological characteristics from a dataset of CAG patients, showing good sensitivity and specificity in identifying those variables associated with developing GNL. Nonetheless, we acknowledge the need for improved variable standardization and data balancing between groups to enhance model performance further.

Introduction

Gastric mucosal visibility is essential for high-quality upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. While simethicone and N-acetylcysteine (NAC) have been shown to improve mucosal visibility, the optimal time interval between preparation and endoscopy remains undefined.

Aims & Methods

This randomized controlled trial evaluated the effect of timing on mucosal visibility and explored the upper limit beyond which visibility begins to decline.
In this single-center, randomized controlled trial, adult patients undergoing elective upper GI endoscopy were randomized into four groups: placebo, simethicone + NAC with endoscopy performed after 10–20 minutes, 20–30 minutes, and >30 minutes. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving adequate gastric mucosal visibility (GMV), defined as a score of <7 on a validated visibility scale. A pre-specified subgroup analysis of the >30 minute group was performed by stratifying patients into 20-minute intervals (31–50, 51–70, and 71–90 minutes) to assess the durability of mucosal clarity over time.

Results

Comparison	Adequate gastric mucosal visibility (%)	P
10–20 min vs 20–30 min	27% vs 62%	0.001
10–20 min vs >30 min	27% vs 67%	0.001
10–20 min vs Placebo	27% vs 2.6%	0.001
20–30 min vs >30 min	62% vs 67%	0.174
20–30 min vs Placebo	62% vs 2.6%	0.001

1,140 patients (median age 42years, 63.2% males) were included in the study. Adequate GMV was significantly higher in all preparation groups compared to placebo (p < 0.001). The 20–30 minute and >30 minute groups demonstrated the highest rates of adequate visibility (61.5% and 73.5%, respectively), both significantly superior to the 10–20 minute group (26.9%) and placebo (2.6%). In the >30 minute subgroup analysis, the 31–50 minute interval demonstrated the highest adequacy (73.5%). The 51–70 minute group showed moderate adequacy (52.1%), which was not significantly different from the 20–30 minute group (p = 0.207). However, the 71–90 minute group had reduced adequacy (43.8%) and did not differ significantly from the 10–20 minute group (p = 0.145). No adverse events were reported across study arms.

Conclusion

Endoscopy performed between 20 and 50 minutes after mucosal preparation yields optimal gastric mucosal visibility. A decline in visibility beyond 50 minutes suggests a practical upper limit for endoscopy timing following preparation. These findings support structured, time-sensitive scheduling following mucosal cleansing to enhance procedural quality.

Disclosure

None

Introduction

Pathological esophageal acid exposure may persist in patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE) despite standard proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy and symptom control, although current guidelines recommend at least standard-dose PPI for all patients with BE.¹

Aims & Methods

Aim was to evaluate the role of esophageal function testing in assessing acid exposure in BE patients on PPI therapy and in predicting neoplastic progression. We conducted a multicenter retrospective study including asymptomatic BE patients (defined by GerdQ total score <8 and a score of 0 on the first GerdQ item) who underwent high-resolution manometry and 24-hour pH impedance monitoring while on various PPI regimens. Maximal PPI therapy included esomeprazole 40 mg, pantoprazole 40 mg, rabeprazole 20 mg, or lansoprazole 30 mg, all administered twice daily. All other regimens were considered standard dosing. Index upper endoscopy with biopsies was performed under the same therapeutic regimen. Histologically, presence and degree of neoplasia (all confirmed by a second pathologist) was recorded. Acid exposure time (AET) <4% was defined as adequate acid control; AET >6% as pathological reflux. Predictors of pathological reflux and neoplasia were assessed using logistic regression analysis.

Results

A total of 135 patients (2016-2025) were included (mean age 58 ± 15 years; 73% male). Median BE length was C1 (range 0–3 cm) and M2 (range 1–5 cm), with 41% (n=56) classified as having long-segment BE. Sixty-seven patients (50%) were on standard-dose PPI. Pathological reflux was identified in 37 patients (27%), of whom 25 (67%) were on standard-dose therapy. Fourteen patients (10%) had borderline AET values (4–6%). Among the 84 patients (62%) with adequate acid control, 33 (39%) were taking standard-dose PPI. On multivariable analysis, standard-dose PPI (OR 3.04; 95% CI 1.34–6.89; p=0.008) and type III esophagogastric junction morphology (OR 2.52; 95% CI 1.01–5.01; p=0.047), consistent with manometric hiatal hernia, were independently associated with pathological reflux. Non-dysplastic BE was found in 112 patients, while 13 (10%) had neoplasia at index endoscopy (8 low-grade dysplasia, 3 high-grade dysplasia, 2 intramucosal adenocarcinoma). Pathological reflux was the only independent predictor of neoplasia (OR 10.41; 95% CI 2.65–41.26; p<0.001).

Table 1. Logistic regression analysis for factors associated with neoplasia on index endoscopy.

	Univariable analysis		Multivariable analysis
	OR (95% CI)	p-value	OR (95% CI)	p-value
Age, years	1.01 (0.96-1.05)	0.695	-	-
BMI, kg/m2	0.95 (0.83-1-10)	0.957	-	-
Male gender	0.71 (0.19-2.54)	0.783	-	-
PPI standard dose vs maximal	0.85 (0.27-2.69)	0.792	-	-
Long-segment BE vs short	1.70 (0.53-5.52)	0.371	-	-
Ineffective/absent contractility vs normal	0.96 (0.30-3.03)	0.939	-	-
EGJ type III morphology vs I/II	3.98 (1.16-13.71)	0.028	3.18 (0.86-11.78)	0.082
AET >6% vs <6%	11.72 (3.01-45.65)	0.001	10.41 (2.65-41.26)	<0.001

Conclusion

Nearly one-third of asymptomatic BE patients exhibit pathological reflux on pH-monitoring despite PPI treatment, predominantly among those on standard-dose and with manometric hiatal hernia. Nonetheless, adequate acid control is achieved in over one-third of patients on standard PPI therapy. Pathological reflux is associated with a 10-fold increased risk of neoplasia.

References

1. Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG, et al. Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus: An Updated ACG Guideline. Am J Gastroenterol. 2022;117(4):559-587.

Introduction

Acetic acid chromoendoscopy (AAC) is frequently used in Barrett esophagus (BE) surveillance endoscopies. AAC is believed to be useful as a ‘red flag’ technique, thereby improving the overall neoplasia detection and the diagnostic yield of targeted biopsies. Accurate targeted neoplasia detection with AAC therefore holds the promise of abandoning random four-quadrant biopsies at 2cm intervals of the BE segment. Although some data exist on the use of AAC in expert centers, the added value in a non-dysplastic surveillance population in routine clinical practice is currently unclear.

Aims & Methods

A prospective stepped wedge cluster randomized trial was conducted in 18 Dutch community hospitals. BE patients undergoing surveillance endoscopies were eligible, while those with known or previously treated dysplasia were excluded. Participating hospitals shifted from usual care (no AAC; control group) to the incorporation of AAC (AAC; intervention group) in randomized order. Endoscopists were trained in the use and assessment of AAC immediately prior to its implementation. In both study groups, targeted biopsies were obtained in the presence of visible lesions before the acquisition of random four-quadrant biopsies. Primary endpoint was the overall neoplasia detection rate, defined as the percentage of patients with low-grade dysplasia (LGD), high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) in both targeted and random biopsies, confirmed by an experienced GI pathologist. Secondary endpoint was the neoplasia detection rate of targeted biopsies. Data were analyzed using an as-treated approach, employing mixed effects regression analyses with a random intercept per hospital and correction for calendar time and BE length.

Results

We included 2,267 patients (1570 males; mean age 66) between June 2020 and November 2023. A total of 1,438/2,267 (63%) patients were allocated to usual care and 829/2,267 (37%) to AAC. In patients allocated to AAC, AAC was applied in 679/829 patients (82%). Overall, 163/2,267 patients (7.2%) were diagnosed with neoplasia, which encompassed LGD in 111/2,267 patients (4.9%), HGD in 30/2,267 patients (1.3%), and EAC in 22/2,267 patients (1.0%). The use of AAC did not result in a significantly higher overall neoplasia detection rate (7.4% with AAC [50/679 patients] versus 7.1% without AAC [113/1,588 patients]; OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.65-1.44). Visible lesions were detected in 95/679 (14.0%) patients receiving AAC versus 101/1,588 (6.4%) patients receiving usual care (p<0.001), yet the targeted neoplasia detection rate was not significantly higher (2.1% [14/679 patients] versus 1.8% [29/1,588 patients]; OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.49-2.24). Neoplasia was detected by random four-quadrant biopsies in the majority of patients: 39/50 patients (78%) receiving AAC and 81/113 patients (72%) receiving usual care.

Conclusion

The use of AAC does not improve the overall or targeted neoplasia detection rate in BE patients undergoing endoscopic surveillance in routine clinical practice. Endoscopic surveillance with AAC-guided targeted biopsies cannot replace the random biopsy protocol.

Disclosure

Pentax Medical, C2 Therapeutics

Introduction

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have marked a breakthrough in the management of a wide range of cancer types, leading to increased overall survival. However, this treatment is frequently associated with the onset of various immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including ICI-related diarrhea and colitis.¹ Current recommendations for patients with diarrhea or colitis grade 2 or higher (graded via CTCAE)² include the discontinuation of ICI and administration of immune suppressants (e.g. steroids or biologics), which may lead to worse outcomes in these patients.³ Therefore, alternative therapeutic strategies to manage irAEs are needed. The gut microbiota plays a pivotal role in the onset of gastrointestinal irAEs, but the role of its therapeutic modulation on these disorders is mostly unknown. ^4,5

Aims & Methods

Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of therapeutic microbiome modulation for gastrointestinal irAEs in cancer patients. We enrolled cancer patients affected by ICI-related diarrhea/colitis referred to our Microbiome Clinic from January 2023 to March 2025. After clinical evaluation, patients were stratified according to severity of diarrhea (graded via CTCAE)² and then received a microbiome-modulating therapy. Patients were followed-up for at least 8 week after the initiation of therapy. We collected data about patient demographics (age and gender), patient’s overall health status as assessed by the the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)⁶, type of cancer, oncological therapy and its suspension, time in weeks from initiation of cancer therapy to onset of diarrhea, severity of diarrhea (graded via CTCAE)², time in weeks until resolution of diarrhea and resumption of oncological therapy

Results

We enrolled 42 patients in the study period (8 males, 34 females, mean age 58,3 years-old, mean CCI-index 5.8). All patients were treated with ICI (Pembrolizumab: n=25 , Dostarlimab: n=4, Nivolumab: n=4; Atezolizumab: n=3; Novulumab and Ipilumab: n=2, Cemiplimab: n=2; Mogamulizumab: n=1; Pertuzumab: n=1). Ten patients experienced G1 diarrhea (23,8%), 16 (38,1) G2, 15 (35,7%) G3 and one G4 (2,4%). As indicated by current European Guidelines³, 30 patients (71,4%) had to interrupt ICI due to diarrhea. Multi-strain probiotics were administered to 27 (64.3% ) patients, rifaximin to 22 (52,4%). Overall, 21 patients (50%) needed therapy with systemic steroids. Seven patients who experienced ICI-related colitis refractory to steroids and biologics were successfully treated with FMT. Twenty-eight patients (66.7% ) had a resolution of the diarrhea (G0) and 11 patients (26.2%) had diarrhea G1 at a mean time of 8 weeks. Upon resolution of diarrhea, nine of the 30 patients who had interrupted ICI (30%) were able to resume the treatment. None of the patients experienced any adverse event related to gut microbiota modulation as defined by CTCAE².

Conclusion

Therapeutic modulation of gut microbiota appears to be a promising safe and effective approach for treating ICI-related diarrhea and colitis. However, these preliminary findings need confirmation through more consolidated and well-designed studies.

References

1. Dougan M, Wang Y, Rubio-Tapia A, Lim JK. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Diagnosis and Management of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Colitis and Hepatitis: Expert Review. Gastroenterology. 2021;160(4):1384-1393. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2020.08.063
2. Freites-Martinez A, Santana N, Arias-Santiago S, Viera A. Using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE - Version 5.0) to Evaluate the Severity of Adverse Events of Anticancer Therapies. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2021;112(1):90-92. doi:10.1016/j.ad.2019.05.009
3. Haanen J, Obeid M, Spain L, et al. Management of toxicities from immunotherapy: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2022;33(12):1217-1238. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2022.10.001
4. Wang Y, Wiesnoski DH, Helmink BA, et al. Fecal microbiota transplantation for refractory immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated colitis. Nat Med. 2018;24(12):1804-1808. doi:10.1038/s41591-018-0238-9
5. Wang T, Zheng N, Luo Q, et al. Probiotics Lactobacillus reuteri Abrogates Immune Checkpoint Blockade-Associated Colitis by Inhibiting Group 3 Innate Lymphoid Cells. Front Immunol. 2019;10. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2019.01235
6. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-383. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8

Disclosure

G.I. has received personal fees for acting as speaker for Biocodex, Danone, Sofar, Malesci, Metagenics and Tillotts Pharma, and for acting as consultant and/or advisor for Ferring Therapeutics, Giuliani, Malesci and Tillotts Pharma. A.G. reports personal fees for consultancy from Eisai Srl, 3PSolutions, Real Time Meeting, Fondazione Istituto Danone, SinergieSrl, Board MRGE and Sanofi SpA personal fees for acting as a speaker for Takeda SpA, AbbVie and Sandoz SpA and personal fees for acting on advisory boards for VSL3 and Eisai. G.C. has received personal fees for acting as advisor for Ferring Therapeutics. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.