PWE-186 Use of dna ploidy in routine pathology practice as a biomarker for barrett’s oesophagus with high risk clinical features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Barrett’s oesophagus (BE) is considered to be associated with an increased risk of esophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC), but the risk of progression is low and unpredictable. Previous studies have demonstrated a higher risk of progression in BE patients with: low grade dysplasia; segment length >8 cm; a family history of OAC and residual BE post treatment for OAC (surgery, chemoradiotherapy or endoscopic therapy). We and others have previously demonstrated that DNA ploidy abnormalities can act as prognostic biomarkers for the risk of progression to OAC. The aim of this study was to assess DNA ploidy in high risk groups using routine biopsy samples taken at surveillance endoscopy in a clinical setting. Method Prospective study of patients undergoing routine BE surveillance at three centres. All biopsy samples were dual reported by two expert pathologists. DNA ploidy analysis was undertaken using Image cytometry (ICM) on Formalin Fixed Paraffin Embedded tissue, as previously described.1All samples were analysed to the same protocol. Results A total of 51 patients underwent DNA ploidy analysis over a 2 year period. Mean age was 63 years (range 22–86 years), 82% male. Results are shown in Table 1. There was high prevalence of DNA ploidy abnormalities (aneuploidy) in the LGD group at 33%. DNA ploidy abnormalities were not identified in other groups on this study. Conclusion This study demonstrates the presence of aneuploidy is significantly higher in low grade dysplasia than other high risk clinical groups, with a third of patients displaying genomic instability. DNA ploidy ICM may be useful in routine pathology practice to risk stratify patients with LGD. The role of DNA ploidy in non dysplastic BE with high clinical risk cannot be concluded from this small cohort. Disclosure of interest None Declared. References Dunn JM, Mackenzie GD, Oukrif D, et al.Image cytometry accurately detects DNA ploidy abnormalities and predicts late relapse to high grade dysplasia and adenocarcinoma in Barrett–s oesophagus following photodynamic therapy. Br J Cancer2010;102:1608–1617
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".