Chronic acid-suppressant use and risk of Oesophageal cancer: protocol for a longitudinal study using a large population based cohort

Epidemiology of oesophagealcancers

Oesophageal cancer is the 8^th most common cancer and one of the deadliest cancers in the world². Although oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is the predominant histological type worldwide, oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) is more common in developed countries such as United States, Australia, United Kingdom, and Western Europe ².

Incidence of the cancer type OAC has increased 6-fold since the 1990s and carries a dismal prognosis. The UK has some of the worst outcomes from this disease in Europe. Clinical guidelines have focussed on minimising endoscopy referrals unless patients have “alarm symptoms” suggestive of cancer. Nevertheless, General Practice referral rates vary widely, and low endoscopy referral rates have been linked with poor outcomes from oesophageal cancer.

A major risk factor for this cancer is chronic heartburn caused by reflux. Three to six percent of individuals with reflux predominant symptoms may have the precursor lesion called Barrett’s oesophagus, but only around 20% of patients with Barrett’s are diagnosed. It is estimated that the burden of OAC could be reduced by up to 50% as a result of increasing the proportion of individuals with reflux symptoms who are investigated. This is a formidable task since heartburn symptoms affect between 5%-20% of the population and account for up to 10% of GP consultations. GPs therefore focus on controlling reflux symptoms with acid-suppressant medication, particularly proton pump inhibitor therapy (PPI). PPIs are highly effective, but patients often continue taking them life-long and there are increasing concerns about long-term side effects including osteoporosis, pneumonia^3,4 and recently allergy³.

Introduction to DELTA

In 2008 the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, raised oesophageal cancer as a public health concern and identified an urgent need to develop a need for a safe, minimally invasive, affordable test applicable to the office setting to diagnose Barrett’s oesophagus. Cambridge University have developed a new minimally invasive test for patients with reflux that can be performed in the GP surgery. This test is called Cytosponge™ - TFF3 which has been tested in over 4,000 individuals across 3 continents.

Our vision is to re-design the clinical pathway for reflux. In primary care a new algorithm applied to NHS prescribing databases will flag symptomatic individuals at risk for oesophageal cancer to their GP. Individuals most at risk will be offered a Cytosponge™ test in a nurse led clinic. The sample will be sent to a centralised laboratory for processing. The H&E and TFF3 stained cells collected by the Cytosponge™ will be assessed using Artificial Intelligence to increase the throughput and reduce the cost. For cases with atypia detected by the pathologist a p53 stain will be added. Individuals at high risk for cancer will be referred for endoscopy and PPI use will be rationalised.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

These changes could result in more efficient triage to endoscopy, an economic benefit to the NHS, a social benefit for early detection of a lethal cancer and a reduction in over-use of PPI medication.

Enhancing the primary care clinical pathway

Currently the clinical pathway for reflux in primary care relies on excluding alarm symptoms (e.g. dysphagia, weight loss) and managing reflux symptoms with acid-suppressant medication. The NICE guidelines recommend endoscopy via the 2 Week Wait pathway if alarm symptoms are present, and routine referral if the symptoms are persistent and occur in the context of other risks factors such as family history (CG27). If a patient is referred to secondary care via the routine pathway the vast majority of patients will be triaged straight to endoscopy. Clinic appointments in secondary care may be led by a dyspepsia nurse or a Gastroenterologist depending on the local policy and resources.

The current, conventional care pathway has a strong focus on triggering endoscopies which results in high costs for the NHS. Additionally, around 70% of these endoscopies are normal with no clinically significant finding (Endoscopy Service Report). The proposed, enhanced care pathway in this project implements a nurse/pharmacist-led clinic for patients with reflux predominant symptoms whereby a Cytosponge procedure is performed in a one-stop visit. This serves as an intermediate step in which the Cytosponge results, together with the high specificity of the test, are used to avoid unnecessary endoscopies.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

The Cytosponge™ can be readily placed into this pathway (see Fig). We propose that primary care individuals at high risk including those undergoing repeat prescriptions for reflux symptoms are considered for a Cytosponge™ test, with more consideration given to their requirement for long term PPI medication as part of this process. The patients could be flagged electronically to a GP and the test performed by the practice nurse. Alternatively, with the expanding role of the community Pharmacist they would be ideally placed to perform this role. Thus, only patients deemed to be at risk for Barrett’s oesophagus (or another oesophageal condition, or gastric IM) ascertained by the Cytosponge™ test would be referred for endoscopy.

Introduction to cancer risk prediction tools

Over the last 10 years, Hippisley-Cox et al have developed, validated and implemented a novel set of risk prediction algorithms collectively known as the QCancer algorithms which predict the risk of different types of cancer using readily available information from routinely available electronic health records^5–12.

The first set of algorithms are designed to improve early diagnosis of an existing cancer on the basis of a combination of symptoms and readily available risk factors in order to identify those patients needing urgent investigation and referral⁵.

The second set of algorithms are designed to estimate longer term cancer risks in order to identify high risk asymptomatic patients with combinations of risk factors who might benefit from systematic screening or interventions to reduce their risk¹³.

This project provides the opportunity to introduce improvements to both sets of QCancer algorithms which are now possible due to the increased size of the QResearch database (which will enable us to distinguish between gastric and oesophageal cancer). It also provides an opportunity to explore risks associated with long-term medication use. For example, we can explore risks associated with proton pump inhibitors which are used to treat chronic reflux symptoms which could also potentially mask development of oesophageal cancer; use of NSAIDs which tend to increase reflux symptoms and use of medications such as aspirin^14,15 or statins¹⁵ which may lower risk of oesophageal cancer on their own or in combination with PPI¹⁶ or cyclo-oxygenase inhibitors^15,17

Study design

We will undertake a cohort study in a large population of primary care patients using the latest version of the QResearch^® database (currently version 45).

Data Sources

QResearch is a high-quality research database established in 2002 which has been used extensively for the development of risk prediction tools which are widely used across the NHS ^18–23 as well as a wide range of high impact epidemiological research^24–26. QResearch is a large, representative, validated GP practice research database nationally²⁷. The database is linked at an individual patient level to hospital admissions data (including intensive care unit data), cancer registrations and mortality records obtained from the Office for National Statistics. The records are linked using a project-specific pseudonymized NHS number. The recording of NHS numbers is valid and complete for 99.8% of QResearch patients, 99.9% for ONS mortality records and 98% for hospital admissions records^28,29.

This project will use all four linked data sources (GP, hospital, mortality and cancer registry)

Study Population

Predictor variables

We will examine the following candidate predictor variables based on 12 risk factors already in the QCancer tool¹³ (marked with an asterix) as well as risk factors identified in the literature. The predictor list can be amended by future updates as new knowledge on emerging risk factors becomes available.

Descriptive analysis

We will produce the following descriptive analyses for comparison with the literature and national statistics from the CRUK website.

• Crude incidence of oesophageal cancer by age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation and calendar time.

• Age standardised incidence of oesophageal cancer overall and by type.

• Characteristics of cases diagnosed with oesophageal cancer - age at diagnosis, stage, grade, histology, treatment (surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, other).

34. Development of the models

35. Model development overview

We will use the following steps:

1. Development of prognostic models for each outcome within the derivation data.

2. Evaluation of predictive performance in the validation data.

Separate models will be developed and evaluated for males and females.

Development of the models using the derivation data

For all analyses, the time origin is entry to the study cohort and the risk period of interest is from the time origin up to the first date of diagnosis of oesophageal cancer. We will develop and evaluate the risk prediction equations using established methods^19,32–35 We will use second degree fractional polynomials (i.e. with up to two powers)³¹ to model non-linear relationships for continuous variables (age, body mass index and Townsend score). Models will include interactions between age and predictor variables focussing on predictor variables which apply across the age range where numbers allow.

Handling of missing data

For all predictor variables, we will use the most recently available value at the time origin. For indicators of co-morbidities and medication use, the absence of information being recorded is assumed to mean absence of the factor in question. There may be missing data in some variables due to never being recorded: ethnicity, Townsend score, body mass index, smoking status and alcohol intake. We will use multiple imputation with chained equations to replace missing values for these variables ^36–39.

Prior to the imputation, a complete-case analysis will be fitted using a model containing only the continuous covariates within the derivation data to derive the fractional polynomial order and corresponding powers. Then a multiple imputation model using chained equations will be fitted in the derivation data and will include all predictor variables along with age interaction terms, the Nelson–Aalen estimators of the baseline cumulative hazard, and the outcome indicators (namely, oesophageal cancer). Separate imputation models will be fitted for men and women. We will carry out 5 imputations as this has a relatively high efficiency²⁹ and is a pragmatic approach accounting for the size of the datasets and capacity of the available servers and software.

Each analysis model will be fitted in each imputed data set. We will use Rubin’s rules to combine the model parameter estimates across the imputed datasets⁴⁰.

Variable selection

We will fit models that include all predictor variables initially and retain variables if they have a hazard ratio of < 0.90 or > 1.10 (for binary variables) and are statistically significant at the 0.01 level. For previous diagnoses of other cancers, we will retain variables which were significant at the 0.05 level since some of the cancers are rare. In order to simplify the models, we will focus on variables for the most common conditions and medications and combine similar variables with comparable hazard ratios where possible. If some predictor variables result in very sparse cells (i.e. with not enough participants or events to obtain point estimates and standard errors), we will combine some of these if clinically similar in nature.

For PPI and H2 blockers medication usage, we will determine the association between risk of oesophageal cancer and type of medication (omeprazole etc), dose and duration of exposure (e.g. < 6 months; 6-11 months; 12-23 months; 24-47 months; 48 months or more). We will examine both usage at baseline and also as a time varying exposure during study follow-up.

Risk equations

We will use the regression coefficients for each variable from the final model as weights which we will combine with the baseline survivor function evaluated for each yearup to 10 years to derive risk equations over a period of 10 years of follow-up⁴¹. This will enable us to derive risk estimates for each year of follow-up, with a specific focus on 10-year risk estimates. We will estimate the baseline survivor function based on zero values of centred continuous variables, with all binary predictor values set to zero.

Validation of the models

In the validation data, we will fit an imputation model to enable imputation of missing values for ethnicity, body mass index, alcohol and smoking status. We will carry out 5 imputations. We will apply the risk equations for males and females obtained from the derivation datato of medication (omeprazole etc), dose and the validation dataand calculate measures of performance.

As in previous studies⁴², we will calculate R² values (explained variation where higher values indicate a greater proportion of variation in survival time explained by the model ⁴³), D statistics⁴⁴ (a measure of discrimination which quantifies the separation in survival between patients with different levels of predicted risk where higher values indicate better discrimination), Brier scores, and Harrell’s C statistics at 1, 2, 5 and 10 years and combine these across datasets using Rubin’s rules. Harrell’s C statistic⁴⁵ is a measure of discrimination (separation) which quantifies the extent to which those with earlier events have higher risk scores. Higher values of Harrell’s C indicate better performance of the model for predicting the relevant outcome. A value of 1 indicates that the model has perfect discrimination. A value of 0.5 indicates that the model discrimination is no better than chance.

We will calculate 95% confidence intervals for the performance statistics to allow comparisons with alternative models for the same outcome and across different subgroups.⁴⁶

We will assess calibration of the risk scores by comparing the mean predicted risks with the observed risks by tenth of predicted risk. The observed risks will be obtained using Kaplan-Meier estimates evaluated at 10 years, obtained for men and women.

We will also evaluate these performance measures in 6 pre-specified age groups (25-49; 50-59; 60-69; 70-79; 80+), and in people on long term PPIs.

We will also compare the risk prediction model with a simple algorithm based only on criteria such as age and number of electronic prescriptions of PPI/H2 blockers and consider the use of decision curve analysies.

Updating of the model using new data

We will update the models to ensure the model remains up to date. The baseline survivor function may change after the widespread introduction of the Cytosponge (for example), so will be updated in future models where possible³². Even though it may not be possible to fully account for changes in baseline survival over time the risk scores will give a rank ordering of patients that can be used for risk stratification/identification of high-risk groups.

Development of risk categories

Since there is no currently accepted threshold for classifying high risk of oesophageal cancer, we will examine the distribution of predicted risks and calculate a series of centile values. For each centile threshold, we will calculate the sensitivity of the risk scores.

Sample size

Sample size calculations for a risk prediction model aim to ensure precise estimation of model parameters whilst minimising potential overfitting. We have used the criteria of Riley et al.⁴⁷ o derive a minimum sample size of 312,616 men corresponding to 543,952 person-years of follow-up. The number of outcome events needed are 349 assuming up to 70 predictors, an event rate of 0.00064, mean follow up of 1.74 years; timepoint 10 years, a R² value of 0.002013. Similarly, a minimum sample size of 665,050 women corresponding to 1,157,1871 person-years of follow-up. The number of outcome events needed are 359 assuming up to 70 predictors, an event rate of 0.00031; mean follow up of 1.74 years; a R² value of 0.0009468. Hence a minimum sample of just over 1 million men and women would be needed in the derivation dataset.

Collins, et al⁴⁸ suggests externally validating a prognostic model requires at least 100 events and ideally, at least 200.

With over 35 million patients and at least 18,000 incident cases of oesophageal cancer on QResearch, we can confirm we have more than ample data both in the training and validation datasets. We will use all the relevant patients on the database to maximise the power and generalisability of the results. We will use STATA (version 16) for analyses. We will adhere to the TRIPOD statement for reporting⁴⁹.

Public and patient involvement

Patients will be involved in setting the research question, the outcome measures, the design, implementation and dissemination of the study findings. Patient representatives will also advise on dissemination including the use of culturally appropriate lay summaries describing the research and its results.

Methodological considerations