Literature DB >> 19997751

Benefit of baseline cytometry for surveillance of patients with Barrett's esophagus.

Nicole Vogt1, René Schönegg, Jürgen M Gschossmann, Jan Borovicka.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The current gold standard for the surveillance of Barrett's esophagus is the Seattle four-quadrant biopsies protocol (4-QB). Using endoscopic brush cytology, this study prospectively investigated whether digital image cytometry (DICM) is of additional benefit over regular histology as a predictor for progression to high-grade dysplasia or cancer during a surveillance of at least 3 years.
METHODS: The prospective cohort in this study included 93 patients (72% male) with Barrett's esophagus, baseline endoscopies, and at least one DICM in addition to 4-QB who had been followed up a minimum of 3 years at the time of analysis. High-grade dysplasia (HGD) and adenocarcinoma were defined as primary end points. The DICM was performed on Feulgen-restained cytology smears with a continuous collision detection (CCD) three-chip color video camera (Sony) and an AutoCyte QUIC DNA workstation.
RESULTS: Of the 93 patients, 11 presented with the diagnosis of HGD and adenocarcinoma at baseline endoscopy. The remaining 82 patients were analyzed after a median follow-up time of 44 months (range, 36-65 months). Of these 82 patients, 9 (11%) had low-grade dysplasia (LGD) at baseline histology: One of two patients with LGD and aneuploid DICM showed HGD at follow-up assessment, whereas none of seven patients with LGD and diploid DICM had development of HGD. Of the 82 patients, 73 (89%) had either specialized intestinal metaplasia (SIM) without dyplasia or indefinite findings for dysplasia at baseline histology. Of the eight patients with SIM and intermediate/aneuploid DICM, two had development of HGD. None of those with negative or indefinite findings for dysplasia and diploid DICM had HGD at the follow-up evaluation. In summary, the three patients who had development of HGD showed a pathologic DICM at baseline, and no patient with diploid DICM had HGD.
CONCLUSIONS: Cytometry from brush cytology as an add-on to histology appears to be of additional benefit during surveillance of Barrett's esophagus. Whereas an aneuploid/intermediate DICM warrants an early re-endoscopy, a diploid DICM underscores the low-risk status especially of patients with low-grade dysplasia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19997751     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-009-0741-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  13 in total

1.  Chromosome 4 hyperploidy represents an early genetic aberration in premalignant Barrett's oesophagus.

Authors:  S H Doak; G J S Jenkins; E M Parry; F R D'Souza; A P Griffiths; N Toffazal; V Shah; J N Baxter; J M Parry
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 2.  A critical review of the diagnosis and management of Barrett's esophagus: the AGA Chicago Workshop.

Authors:  Prateek Sharma; Kenneth McQuaid; John Dent; M Brian Fennerty; Richard Sampliner; Stuart Spechler; Alan Cameron; Douglas Corley; Gary Falk; John Goldblum; John Hunter; Janusz Jankowski; Lars Lundell; Brian Reid; Nicholas J Shaheen; Amnon Sonnenberg; Kenneth Wang; Wilfred Weinstein
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 22.682

3.  Genetic mechanisms of TP53 loss of heterozygosity in Barrett's esophagus: implications for biomarker validation.

Authors:  V Jon Wongsurawat; Jennifer C Finley; Patricia C Galipeau; Carissa A Sanchez; Carlo C Maley; Xiaohong Li; Patricia L Blount; Robert D Odze; Peter S Rabinovitch; Brian J Reid
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 4.  Barrett's oesophagus: from metaplasia to dysplasia and cancer.

Authors:  J-F Fléjou
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 23.059

5.  The incidence of adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus: a prospective study of 170 patients followed 4.8 years.

Authors:  D J Drewitz; R E Sampliner; H S Garewal
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 10.864

6.  Remote quantitation server for quality assurance in DNA ploidy analysis.

Authors:  G Haroske; W Meyer; F Theissig; K Schubert; K D Kunze
Journal:  Anal Quant Cytol Histol       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 0.302

7.  Autofluorescence endoscopy in surveillance of Barrett's esophagus: a multicenter randomized trial on diagnostic efficacy.

Authors:  J Borovicka; J Fischer; J Neuweiler; P Netzer; J Gschossmann; T Ehmann; P Bauerfeind; G Dorta; U Zürcher; J Binek; C Meyenberger
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 10.093

8.  Predictors of progression to cancer in Barrett's esophagus: baseline histology and flow cytometry identify low- and high-risk patient subsets.

Authors:  B J Reid; D S Levine; G Longton; P L Blount; P S Rabinovitch
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 9.  Barrett's esophagus, dysplasia, and adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  R C Haggitt
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  1994-10       Impact factor: 3.466

Review 10.  Fourth updated ESACP consensus report on diagnostic DNA image cytometry.

Authors:  G Haroske; J P Baak; H Danielsen; F Giroud; A Gschwendtner; M Oberholzer; A Reith; P Spieler; A Böcking
Journal:  Anal Cell Pathol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.916

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Magnitude of Missed Esophageal Adenocarcinoma After Barrett's Esophagus Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Kavel Visrodia; Siddharth Singh; Rajesh Krishnamoorthi; David A Ahlquist; Kenneth K Wang; Prasad G Iyer; David A Katzka
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2015-11-24       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 2.  Revisiting tumour aneuploidy - the place of ploidy assessment in the molecular era.

Authors:  Håvard E Danielsen; Manohar Pradhan; Marco Novelli
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-11-24       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 3.  Biomarkers in Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma: predictors of progression and prognosis.

Authors:  Chin-Ann J Ong; Pierre Lao-Sirieix; Rebecca C Fitzgerald
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-12-07       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Surveillance in Barrett esophagus.

Authors:  C Gindea; R Birla; P Hoara; A Caragui; S Constantinoiu
Journal:  J Med Life       Date:  2014

5.  GERD-Barrett-Adenocarcinoma: Do We Have Suitable Prognostic and Predictive Molecular Markers?

Authors:  Romana Illig; Eckhard Klieser; Tobias Kiesslich; Daniel Neureiter
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2013-03-20       Impact factor: 2.260

6.  Systematic review with meta-analysis: neoplasia detection rate and post-endoscopy Barrett's neoplasia in Barrett's oesophagus.

Authors:  Nour Hamade; Amrit K Kamboj; Rajesh Krishnamoorthi; Siddharth Singh; Leslie C Hassett; David A Katzka; Charles J Kahi; Hala Fatima; Prasad G Iyer
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2021-07-18       Impact factor: 9.524

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.