CONTEXT: For a confident diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett metaplasia, the epithelial atypia should also involve the surface epithelium. However, pathologists are often faced with biopsies where the crypts show dysplasia, but the surface epithelium is either uninvolved or unevaluable. We previously grouped these cases with indefinite for dysplasia (IND). OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical significance of IND grading in Barrett metaplasia. DESIGN: All biopsies from 276 prospectively followed patients with Barrett metaplasia, who did not have high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) on initial biopsy, were graded as negative for dysplasia, IND, low-grade dysplasia (LGD), HGD, and EAC. Biopsies with multifocal IND or LGD were graded as INDM or LGDM, respectively. RESULTS: Only 3 of 193 patients (2%) with an initial diagnosis of negative for dysplasia and only 1 of 48 patients (2%) diagnosed with IND progressed to HGD or EAC. By contrast, 1 of 7 patients (14%) with INDM, 2 of 21 (10%) with LGD, and 1 of 7 (14%) with LGDM progressed to HGD or EAC. There was no significant difference in progression rate between patients with an initial diagnosis of negative for dysplasia and those diagnosed IND nor were there significant differences among patients with initial diagnoses of INDM, LGD, or LGDM. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that patients with INDM, LGD, or LGDM on initial biopsy (group 1) were more likely to progress to HGD or EAC than were those patients who were diagnosed negative for dysplasia or IND (group 2; log-rank test, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Multifocal IND in an esophageal biopsy from a patient with Barrett metaplasia has the same clinical implication as LGD.
CONTEXT: For a confident diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett metaplasia, the epithelial atypia should also involve the surface epithelium. However, pathologists are often faced with biopsies where the crypts show dysplasia, but the surface epithelium is either uninvolved or unevaluable. We previously grouped these cases with indefinite for dysplasia (IND). OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical significance of IND grading in Barrett metaplasia. DESIGN: All biopsies from 276 prospectively followed patients with Barrett metaplasia, who did not have high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) on initial biopsy, were graded as negative for dysplasia, IND, low-grade dysplasia (LGD), HGD, and EAC. Biopsies with multifocal IND or LGD were graded as INDM or LGDM, respectively. RESULTS: Only 3 of 193 patients (2%) with an initial diagnosis of negative for dysplasia and only 1 of 48 patients (2%) diagnosed with IND progressed to HGD or EAC. By contrast, 1 of 7 patients (14%) with INDM, 2 of 21 (10%) with LGD, and 1 of 7 (14%) with LGDM progressed to HGD or EAC. There was no significant difference in progression rate between patients with an initial diagnosis of negative for dysplasia and those diagnosed IND nor were there significant differences among patients with initial diagnoses of INDM, LGD, or LGDM. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that patients with INDM, LGD, or LGDM on initial biopsy (group 1) were more likely to progress to HGD or EAC than were those patients who were diagnosed negative for dysplasia or IND (group 2; log-rank test, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Multifocal IND in an esophageal biopsy from a patient with Barrett metaplasia has the same clinical implication as LGD.
Authors: Cathy Bennett; Paul Moayyedi; Douglas A Corley; John DeCaestecker; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Gary Falk; Nimish Vakil; Scott Sanders; Michael Vieth; John Inadomi; David Aldulaimi; Khek-Yu Ho; Robert Odze; Stephen J Meltzer; Eamonn Quigley; Stuart Gittens; Peter Watson; Giovanni Zaninotto; Prasad G Iyer; Leo Alexandre; Yeng Ang; James Callaghan; Rebecca Harrison; Rajvinder Singh; Pradeep Bhandari; Raf Bisschops; Bita Geramizadeh; Philip Kaye; Sheila Krishnadath; M Brian Fennerty; Hendrik Manner; Katie S Nason; Oliver Pech; Vani Konda; Krish Ragunath; Imdadur Rahman; Yvonne Romero; Richard Sampliner; Peter D Siersema; Jan Tack; Tony C K Tham; Nigel Trudgill; David S Weinberg; Jean Wang; Kenneth Wang; Jennie Y Y Wong; Stephen Attwood; Peter Malfertheiner; David MacDonald; Hugh Barr; Mark K Ferguson; Janusz Jankowski Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-04-14 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Won-Tak Choi; Mary J Emond; Peter S Rabinovitch; Joseph Ahn; Melissa P Upton; Maria Westerhoff Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 4.488