Nanoscale markers of esophageal field carcinogenesis: potential implications for esophageal cancer screening

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Background and study aims: Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) has a dismal prognosis unless treated early or prevented at the precursor stage of Barrett’s esophagus-associated dysplasia. However, some patients with cancer or dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (DBE) may not be captured by current screening and surveillance programs. Additional screening techniques are needed to determine who would benefit from endoscopic screening or surveillance. Partial wave spectroscopy (PWS) microscopy (also known as nanocytology) measures the disorder strength (L_d ), a statistic that characterizes the spatial distribution of the intracellular mass at the nanoscale level and thus provides insights into the cell nanoscale architecture beyond that which is revealed by conventional microscopy. The aim of the present study was to compare the disorder strength measured by PWS in normal squamous epithelium in the proximal esophagus to determine whether nanoscale architectural differences are detectable in the field area of EAC and Barrett’s esophagus.

Methods: During endoscopy, proximal esophageal squamous cells were obtained by brushings and were fixed in alcohol and stained with standard hematoxylin and Cyto-Stain. The disorder strength of these sampled squamous cells was determined by PWS.

Results: A total of 75 patient samples were analyzed, 15 of which were pathologically confirmed as EAC, 13 were DBE, and 15 were non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus; 32 of the patients, most of whom had reflux symptoms, acted as controls. The mean disorder strength per patient in cytologically normal squamous cells in the proximal esophagus of patients with EAC was 1.79-times higher than that of controls (P < 0.01). Patients with DBE also had a disorder strength 1.63-times higher than controls (P < 0.01).

Conclusion: Intracellular nanoarchitectural changes were found in the proximal squamous epithelium in patients harboring distal EAC and DBE using PWS. Advances in this technology and the biological phenomenon of the field effect of carcinogenesis revealed in this study may lead to a useful tool in non-invasive screening practices in DBE and EAC.

• References

• 1 Konda VJ, Dalal K. Optimal management of Barrett’s esophagus: pharmacologic, endoscopic, and surgical interventions. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2011; 7: 447-458
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Gerson LB, Shetler K, Triadafilopoulos G. Prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus in asymptomatic individuals. Gastroenterology 2002; 123: 461-467
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Sharma P, Sidorenko EI. Are screening and surveillance for Barrett’s oesophagus really worthwhile?. Gut 2005; 54 Suppl 1: i27-32
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Hvid-Jensen F, Pedersen L, Drewes AM et al. Incidence of adenocarcinoma among patients with Barrett’s esophagus. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 1375-1383
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Wani S, Falk G, Hall M et al. Patients with nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus have low risks for developing dysplasia or esophageal adenocarcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 9: 220-227
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Hirst NG, Gordon LG, Whiteman DC et al. Is endoscopic surveillance for non-dysplastic Barrett’s esophagus cost-effective?. Review of economic evaluations. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 26: 247-254
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Wallace MB, Perelman LT, Backman V et al. Endoscopic detection of dysplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus using light-scattering spectroscopy. Gastroenterology 2000; 119: 677-682
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Georgakoudi I, Jacobson BC, Van Dam J et al. Fluorescence, reflectance, and light-scattering spectroscopy for evaluating dysplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2001; 120: 1620-1629
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Qiu L, Pleskow DK, Chuttani R et al. Multispectral scanning during endoscopy guides biopsy of dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. Nat Med 2010; 16: 603-606
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Pyhtila JW, Chalut KJ, Boyer JD et al. In situ detection of nuclear atypia in Barrett’s esophagus by using angle-resolved low-coherence interferometry. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 487-491
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Brabender J, Marjoram P, Lord RV et al. The molecular signature of normal squamous esophageal epithelium identifies the presence of a field effect and can discriminate between patients with Barrett’s esophagus and patients with Barrett’s-associated adenocarcinoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005; 14: 2113-2117
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Yakoub D, Keun HC, Goldin R et al. Metabolic profiling detects field effects in nondysplastic tissue from esophageal cancer patients. Cancer Res 2010; 70: 9129-9136
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Slaughter DP, Southwick HW, Smejkal W. Field cancerization in oral stratified squamous epithelium; clinical implications of multicentric origin. Cancer 1953; 6: 963-968
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Roy HK, Backman V, Goldberg MJ. Colon cancer screening: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166: 2177-2179
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Kopelovich L, Henson DE, Gazdar AF et al. Surrogate anatomic/functional sites for evaluating cancer risk: an extension of the field effect. Clin Cancer Res 1999; 5: 3899-3905
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Subramanian H, Roy HK, Pradhan P et al. Nanoscale cellular changes in field carcinogenesis detected by partial wave spectroscopy. Cancer Res 2009; 69: 5357-5363
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Damania D, Subramanian H, Tiwari AK et al. Role of cytoskeleton in controlling the disorder strength of cellular nanoscale architecture. Biophys J 2010; 99: 989-996
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Kim JS, Pradhan P, Backman V et al. The influence of chromosome density variations on the increase in nuclear disorder strength in carcinogenesis. Phys Biol 2011; 8: 015004
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Barer R, Tkaczyk S. Refractive index of concentrated protein solutions. Nature 1954; 173: 821-822
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Davies HG, Wilkins MHF, Chayen J et al. The use of the interference microscope to determine dry mass in living cells and as a quantitative cytochemical method. Q J Microsc Sci 1954; 95: 271-304
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Wang JS, Canto MI. Predicting neoplastic progression in Barrett’s esophagus. Ann Gastroentol Hepatol 2010; 1: 1-10
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Pepe MS, Etzioni R, Feng Z et al. Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001; 93: 1054-1061
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Sridhar S, Schembri F, Zeskind J et al. Smoking-induced gene expression changes in the bronchial airway are reflected in nasal and buccal epithelium. BMC Genomics 2008; 9: 259
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Kemp R, Turic B. Can early lung cancer be detected from buccal mucosal scrapings?. Chest 2005; 128: 154S
  PubMedGoogle Scholar