Literature DB >> 11522967

Methylene blue chromoendoscopy for detection of short-segment Barrett's esophagus.

P Sharma1, M Topalovski, M S Mayo, A P Weston.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The yield of intestinal metaplasia (IM) with randomly obtained biopsy specimens in patients with short lengths of columnar-appearing mucosa in the distal esophagus is low (30%-50%). Vital staining would be beneficial if it identified more patients with short-segment Barrett's esophagus (SSBE). Our aim was to compare the confirmation of IM in patients with suspected SSBE (columnar-appearing mucosa <3 cm in length) by using methylene blue (MB)-directed versus random biopsies.
METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing EGD in whom columnar-appearing mucosa less than 3 cm in length was visualized underwent MB staining. Stained areas within suspected SSBE segments were targeted for biopsies. All biopsy specimens were stained with H &amp; E with alcian blue at pH 2.5 and evaluated by a single pathologist. A historical control group (different from patients undergoing MB staining) consisted of patients with less than 3 cm of columnar-appearing mucosa in whom biopsy specimens were obtained randomly without MB staining.
RESULTS: The MB group included 75 patients (mean age 63.8 +/- 10.9 years) with a mean length of columnar-appearing mucosa of 1.2 cm (range 0.5-2.5 cm). The control group included 83 patients (mean age 60.5 +/- 12.9 years) with a mean length of columnar-appearing mucosa of 1.16 cm (range 0.5-2.5 cm). IM (i.e., confirmed SSBE) was detected in 61% of the MB group versus 42% of the control group (p = 0.0237). Patients in the MB group required significantly fewer biopsies (4.3 +/- 1.5 vs. 5.1 +/- 12.3, p = 0.0162). Confirmation of IM by length was as follows: less than 1 cm (irregular Z line), MB 17.4% versus control 25% (p = 0.73); 1 to less than 2 cm, MB 77% versus control 45% (p = 0.03); 2 to less than 3 cm, MB 90% versus control 58% (p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS: MB chromoendoscopy significantly increases the detection of IM and requires fewer biopsies in patients with suspected SSBE with greater than 1 cm of columnar-appearing mucosa. It does not appear to be beneficial in patients with irregular Z lines (<1 cm).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11522967     DOI: 10.1067/mge.2001.115728

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  22 in total

1.  Magnification chromoendoscopy for the detection of intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia in Barrett's oesophagus.

Authors:  P Sharma; A P Weston; M Topalovski; R Cherian; A Bhattacharyya; R E Sampliner
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 2.  Magnification endoscopy, high resolution endoscopy, and chromoscopy; towards a better optical diagnosis.

Authors:  M J Bruno
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 3.  Advanced endoscopic imaging in Barrett's oesophagus: a review on current practice.

Authors:  Rajvinder Singh; SweeLin Chen Yi Mei; Sandeep Sethi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-10-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 4.  American Gastroenterological Association technical review on the management of Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  Stuart J Spechler; Prateek Sharma; Rhonda F Souza; John M Inadomi; Nicholas J Shaheen
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 5.  Molecular markers and imaging tools to identify malignant potential in Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  Michael Bennett; Hiroshi Mashimo
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol       Date:  2014-11-15

Review 6.  Endoscopic modalities for the diagnosis of Barrett's oesophagus.

Authors:  Neel Sharma; Supriya Srivastava; Florian Kern; Wa Xian; Teh Ming; Frank McKeon; Khek Yu Ho
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2015-12-15       Impact factor: 4.623

7.  Barrett's Esophagus: Diagnosis, Screening, Surveillance, and Controversies.

Authors:  Rajvinder Singh; Krish Ragunath; Janusz Jankowski
Journal:  Gut Liver       Date:  2007-12-31       Impact factor: 4.519

Review 8.  Barrett's esophagus in 2016: From pathophysiology to treatment.

Authors:  Irene Martinucci; Nicola de Bortoli; Salvatore Russo; Lorenzo Bertani; Manuele Furnari; Anna Mokrowiecka; Ewa Malecka-Panas; Vincenzo Savarino; Edoardo Savarino; Santino Marchi
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2016-05-06

9.  Accuracy and interrater reliability for the diagnosis of Barrett's neoplasia among users of a novel, portable high-resolution microendoscope.

Authors:  P M Vila; M J Kingsley; A D Polydorides; M-A Protano; M C Pierce; J Sauk; M K Kim; K Patel; J H Godbold; J D Waye; R Richards-Kortum; S Anandasabapathy
Journal:  Dis Esophagus       Date:  2013-02-26       Impact factor: 3.429

Review 10.  Endoscopic mucosal imaging of gastrointestinal neoplasia in 2013.

Authors:  P Urquhart; R DaCosta; N Marcon
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2013-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.