INTRODUCTION: Different strategies have been developed to identify those refractory celiac disease (RCD) patients who are at risk to develop an enteropathy associated T-cell lymphoma (EATL). Flow cytometric analysis of intra-epithelial lymphocytes (IEL) with an aberrant phenotype is considered the golden standard but is not widely available. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and T-cell receptor (TCR) rearrangement studies are commonly available but may lack sensitivity and specificity. Here, we compared the three different methods in the workup of patients suspected for RCD. METHODS: Duodenal biopsies from control patient (n = 5), RCD patients with moderately increased aberrant IEL populations (20-50 %: n = 14), and RCD patients with high numbers of aberrant IEL (>50 %: n = 5) as determined by flow cytometry were analysed by IHC and TCR-γ chain rearrangement analysis. Three pathologists scored the slides independently. RESULTS: Sensitivity of IHC and TCR-γ rearrangement analysis in RCD patients with high numbers of aberrant IELs was 100 and 71 %, respectively. RCD patients with aberrant cells between 25 and 50 % however, were missed by IHC and TCR in 50 and 57 % of cases, respectively. In addition, inter-rater reliability analysis of the IHC scoring revealed coder-pair Kappa coefficients between 0.28 and 0.85. CONCLUSION: Immunohistochemistry and to a lesser extent TCR-γ clonality analysis are sensitive in identifying patients with high numbers of aberrant IEL populations, yet miss half of RCD patients with moderately increased numbers. In addition, IHC has a high inter-observer variability. Therefore, patients suspected for RCD should undergo flow cytometric analysis of the duodenum.
INTRODUCTION: Different strategies have been developed to identify those refractory celiac disease (RCD) patients who are at risk to develop an enteropathy associated T-cell lymphoma (EATL). Flow cytometric analysis of intra-epithelial lymphocytes (IEL) with an aberrant phenotype is considered the golden standard but is not widely available. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) and T-cell receptor (TCR) rearrangement studies are commonly available but may lack sensitivity and specificity. Here, we compared the three different methods in the workup of patients suspected for RCD. METHODS: Duodenal biopsies from control patient (n = 5), RCD patients with moderately increased aberrant IEL populations (20-50 %: n = 14), and RCD patients with high numbers of aberrant IEL (>50 %: n = 5) as determined by flow cytometry were analysed by IHC and TCR-γ chain rearrangement analysis. Three pathologists scored the slides independently. RESULTS: Sensitivity of IHC and TCR-γ rearrangement analysis in RCD patients with high numbers of aberrant IELs was 100 and 71 %, respectively. RCD patients with aberrant cells between 25 and 50 % however, were missed by IHC and TCR in 50 and 57 % of cases, respectively. In addition, inter-rater reliability analysis of the IHC scoring revealed coder-pair Kappa coefficients between 0.28 and 0.85. CONCLUSION: Immunohistochemistry and to a lesser extent TCR-γ clonality analysis are sensitive in identifying patients with high numbers of aberrant IEL populations, yet miss half of RCD patients with moderately increased numbers. In addition, IHC has a high inter-observer variability. Therefore, patients suspected for RCD should undergo flow cytometric analysis of the duodenum.
Authors: N Patey-Mariaud De Serre; C Cellier; B Jabri; E Delabesse; V Verkarre; B Roche; A Lavergne; J Brière; L Mauvieux; M Leborgne; J P Barbier; R Modigliani; C Matuchansky; E MacIntyre; N Cerf-Bensussan; N Brousse Journal: Histopathology Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: K Pallav; D A Leffler; S Tariq; T Kabbani; J Hansen; A Peer; A Bhansali; R Najarian; C P Kelly Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Greetje J Tack; Wieke H M Verbeek; Abdul Al-Toma; Dirk J Kuik; Marco W J Schreurs; Otto Visser; Chris J J Mulder Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-01-28 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: H Liu; R Brais; A Lavergne-Slove; Q Jeng; K Payne; H Ye; Z Liu; J Carreras; Y Huang; C M Bacon; R A Hamoudi; V Save; L Venkatraman; P G Isaacson; J Woodward; M-Q Du Journal: Gut Date: 2009-12-08 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Wieke H M Verbeek; Marije S Goerres; B Mary E von Blomberg; Joost J Oudejans; Petra E T Scholten; Muhammed Hadithi; Abdul Al-Toma; Marco W J Schreurs; Chris J J Mulder Journal: Clin Immunol Date: 2007-11-26 Impact factor: 3.969
Authors: Annalisa Schiepatti; Anupam Rej; Stiliano Maimaris; Simon S Cross; Petra Porta; Imran Aziz; Tim Key; John Goodwin; Amelie Therrien; Shakira Yoosuf; Daniel A Leffler; Jocelyn A Silvester; Catherine Klersy; Federico Biagi; David S Sanders Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2021-09-08 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Tom van Gils; Petula Nijeboer; Roy L van Wanrooij; Gerd Bouma; Chris J J Mulder Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2015-09-08 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: R L J van Wanrooij; G Bouma; H J Bontkes; A Neefjes-Borst; N C van Grieken; B M E von Blomberg; C J J Mulder Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 4.488
Authors: Rachele Ciccocioppo; Peter Kruzliak; Giuseppina C Cangemi; Miroslav Pohanka; Elena Betti; Eugenia Lauret; Luis Rodrigo Journal: Nutrients Date: 2015-10-22 Impact factor: 5.717