Literature DB >> 11151865

The diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus and its implications for disease progression.

M Skacel1, R E Petras, T L Gramlich, J E Sigel, J E Richter, J R Goldblum.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The reported risk of progression from low-grade dysplasia (LGD) to high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or carcinoma (CA) in Barrett's esophagus varies. However, the validity of a diagnosis of LGD may be questioned because of interobserver variability.
METHODS: A search of the Cleveland Clinic Foundation surgical pathology files between 1986 and 1997 yielded biopsy specimens from 43 patients with Barrett's esophagus diagnosed and coded as LGD. Patients with concurrent or prior diagnoses of HGD or carcinoma were excluded. The LGD cases were randomized and blindly reviewed by three gastrointestinal (GI) pathologists along with cases originally diagnosed as Barrett's esophagus without dysplasia (ND; n = 28), indefinite for dysplasia (IND; n = 14), or HGD (n = 15). Each pathologist classified every biopsy specimen as ND, IND, LGD, or HGD, and interobserver agreements were determined by kappa statistics (K). Follow-up data were available on 25 patients originally diagnosed with LGD. Progression was defined as a subsequent diagnosis of HGD or CA on esophageal biopsy or resection specimens.
RESULTS: Agreement between two GI pathologists for a diagnosis of LGD was fair (K = 0.28) and poor (K = 0.21 and -0.04). Individual GI pathologists agreed with the original diagnosis of LGD in 70%, 56%, and 16% of cases. The 25 patients with follow-up included 21 men and four women (mean age, 67 yr) with a mean follow-up of 26 months (range: 2-84 months). Seven patients (28%) with follow-up developed HGD (five patients) or CA (two patients), 2-43 months (median: 11 months) after a diagnosis of LGD. The individual GI pathologists' diagnosis did not correlate with progression. However, when at least two GI pathologists agreed on LGD, there was a significant association with progression (seven of 17 patients, 41%, p = 0.04). When all three GI pathologists agreed on a diagnosis of LGD, four of five patients progressed (p = 0.012). In contrast, of the eight patients with follow-up and no agreement among GI pathologists for a diagnosis of LGD, none progressed.
CONCLUSIONS: A high degree of interobserver variability is seen in the histological diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus-related LGD. Although the number of observations is low, a consensus diagnosis of LGD among GI pathologists suggests an increased risk of progression from LGD to HGD or carcinoma.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11151865     DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2000.03348.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  86 in total

1.  [Barrett esophagus: epidemiology, incidence of carcinoma, need for screening].

Authors:  R Arnold; M Wied
Journal:  Internist (Berl)       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 0.743

2.  Observer variation in the diagnosis of superficial oesophageal adenocarcinoma: another spanner in the works?

Authors:  D Alderson
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  Time gated fluorescence spectroscopy in Barrett's oesophagus.

Authors:  M-A E J Ortner; B Ebert; E Hein; K Zumbusch; D Nolte; U Sukowski; J Weber-Eibel; B Fleige; M Dietel; M Stolte; G Oberhuber; R Porschen; B Klump; H Hörtnagl; H Lochs; H Rinneberg
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 4.  [Barrett's esophagus. An update].

Authors:  G B Baretton; D E Aust
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.011

5.  Barrett's Esophagus: A Review of Biology and Therapeutic Approaches.

Authors:  Panteleimon Kountourakis; Jaffer A Ajani; Marta Davila; Jeffrey H Lee; Manoop S Bhutani; Julie G Izzo
Journal:  Gastrointest Cancer Res       Date:  2012-03

Review 6.  Guidelines for surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Authors:  Dimitrios Stefanidis; William W Hope; Geoffrey P Kohn; Patrick R Reardon; William S Richardson; Robert D Fanelli
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-08-20       Impact factor: 4.584

7.  Radiofrequency ablation of Barrett's esophagus: let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Authors:  Gary W Falk
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  Barrett's esophagus and the increasing role of endoluminal therapy.

Authors:  Michael S Smith; Charles J Lightdale
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 4.409

9.  Feasibility of a simplified narrow-band imaging classification system for Barrett's esophagus for novice endoscopists.

Authors:  Hiroto Furuhashi; Kenichi Goda; Yuichi Shimizu; Masayuki Kato; Masakazu Takahashi; Akira Dobashi; Koji Hirata; Ayane Oba; Taku Shigesawa; Masaki Inoue; Hiroaki Matsui; Chika Kinoshita; Yoshitaka Ando; Masahiro Ikegami; Tadakazu Shimoda; Mototsugu Kato
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-01-02       Impact factor: 7.527

10.  Usefulness of Non-magnifying Narrow Band Imaging in EVIS EXERA III Video Systems and High-Definition Endoscopes to Diagnose Dysplasia in Barrett's Esophagus Using the Barrett International NBI Group (BING) Classification.

Authors:  Oscar Nogales; Arancha Caballero-Marcos; Ana Clemente-Sánchez; Javier García-Lledó; Leticia Pérez-Carazo; Beatriz Merino; Carlos Carbonell; María López-Ibáñez; Cecilia González-Asanza
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2017-04-21       Impact factor: 3.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.