| Literature DB >> 28893865 |
Kamran Rostami1, Michael N Marsh2,3, Matt W Johnson2, Hamid Mohaghegh4, Calvin Heal5, Geoffrey Holmes6, Arzu Ensari7, David Aldulaimi8, Brigitte Bancel9, Gabrio Bassotti10, Adrian Bateman11, Gabriel Becheanu12, Anna Bozzola13, Antonio Carroccio14, Carlo Catassi15, Carolina Ciacci16, Alexandra Ciobanu12, Mihai Danciu17, Mohammad H Derakhshan18,19, Luca Elli20, Stefano Ferrero20, Michelangelo Fiorentino21, Marilena Fiorino14, Azita Ganji22, Kamran Ghaffarzadehgan23, James J Going24, Sauid Ishaq25, Alessandra Mandolesi15, Sherly Mathews1, Roxana Maxim17, Chris J Mulder26, Andra Neefjes-Borst26, Marie Robert27, Ilaria Russo16, Mohammad Rostami-Nejad4, Angelo Sidoni10, Masoud Sotoudeh19, Vincenzo Villanacci13, Umberto Volta21, Mohammad R Zali4, Amitabh Srivastava28.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Counting intraepithelial lymphocytes (IEL) is central to the histological diagnosis of coeliac disease (CD), but no definitive 'normal' IEL range has ever been published. In this multicentre study, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine the optimal cut-off between normal and CD (Marsh III lesion) duodenal mucosa, based on IEL counts on >400 mucosal biopsy specimens.Entities:
Keywords: ROC-curve analysis; coeliac disease; intraepithelial lymphocytes
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28893865 PMCID: PMC5749338 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314297
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gut ISSN: 0017-5749 Impact factor: 23.059
Frequency of symptoms/sign among patients with coeliac disease and disease control subjects
| Symptoms/signs | Patients with coeliac disease (n=198) | Disease control subjects (n=203) |
| Weight loss | 13 (6.57)* | 8 (3.94) |
| Diarrhoea/very loose stool | 68 (34.24) | 13 (6.40) |
| Iron deficiency anaemia | 54 (27.27) | 64 (31.53) |
| Abdominal pain | 26 (13.13) | 26 (12.81) |
| Reflux | 7 (3.53) | 43 (21.18) |
| Vomiting | 2 (1.01) | 5 (2.46) |
| Bloating | 16 (8.08) | 10 (4.93) |
| Constipation | 5 (2.53) | 0 |
| Thyroiditis | 5 (2.53) | 0 |
| short stature | 6 (3.03) | 2 (0.99) |
| Fatigue | 2 (1.01) | 2 (0.99) |
| Hypertransaminasaemia | 1 (0.51) | 0 |
| Short stature | 1 (0.51) | 0 |
| Epilepsy | 1 (0.51) | 0 |
| Osteoporosis | 1 (0.51) | 0 |
Note: A low ferritin was found in 27% of patients with CD; however, 15% of cases had anaemia as their main presenting symptoms.
*Number (%).
Figure 1The numerical IEL counts (non-transformed) for the entire series of 401 specimens are shown for coeliac and disease control intestinal mucosae. The overlap of 56 between IEL counts for each population is stressed. Although when the same data are accumulated, biopsy-on-biopsy (figure 3), a perfectly shaped dose–response curve is obtained. IEL, intraepithelial lymphocytes.
Figure 3The cumulative IEL count, biopsy-on-biopsy, is illustrated in this diagram. The curve does not reach 401 on account of the overlapping counts between CD and DC mucosae, the overlap between biopsies being indicated by the two vertical parallel lines. The shape of the curve resembles a dose–response (to luminal antigen) and clearly demonstrates the absence of any bimodality between the two IEL populations. CD, coeliac disease; DC, disease control; IEL, intraepithelial lymphocytes.
Summary of literature on IEL counts
| Study | Methods | Number of biopsies | Upper range | Comments |
| Ferguson and Murray | H&E staining, IEL/100 enterocytes, 7 µm sections | 40 | 40 | Used controls, coeliac & autoimmune conditions, incorrect about normally distributed IEL, highest IEL count recorded: 155 |
| Batman | H&E staining, 5 µm sections | 8 | 33 | Study of HIV enteropathy |
| Hayat | H&E staining, | 20 | 25 | Counts made on uninterrupted length of epithelium >500 EC, controls defined only by a ‘normal’ sugar permeability |
| Mahadeva | H&E staining, 3 µm sections | 29 | 22 | Major interest in normal villi with IEL infiltrate. Really difficult to infer group numbers here |
| Kakar | H&E staining | 12 | 39 | Interest in normal villi with IEL infiltrates |
| Veress | H&E staining, 3 µm | 64 | H&E: 20 | In H&E sections, if IEL to EC ratio >5:1, do CD3 count |
| Biagi | H&E staining | 17 | 45 | Major interest in promoting villous tip counts |
| Lähdeaho | H&E staining | 76 | 26 | No reasons given for this cut-off value: referred to Ferguson and Murray |
| Nasseri-Moghaddam | H&E staining, | 46 | H&E: 46 | Establishing normal criteria by histology and immunocytology |
| Siriweera | H&E staining | 75 | 8 | Retrospective study on 38 control and 37 coeliac specimens. Inexplicably small upper ranges for both groups |
Notes: Here are tabulated some of the principal papers concerned with IEL counts in normal and diseased intestinal mucosae. Once identified in this way, it comes as a surprise that our perceptions of normality and of the accepted distinctions between normal and abnormal are so precariously based. Furthermore, the emphasis in some papers has been on the abnormal (HIV enteropathy), or with reference to a specific aspect (such as villus tip IEL), whereas in others, the actual numbers of patients are unclear, or a worked mean IEL±SD is not given. The very small size of some of the groups analysed should also be noted, since that has a major impact on the statistical ranges and confidence limits offered as diagnostic (with permission from Marsh & Heal.22
EC, epithelial cells; IEL, intraepithelial lymphocytes.
Figure 2The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for all 401 biopsies employed in this study is shown here. If there had been no relationship between the two samples, the curve would have followed the diagonal line. Our ROC graph shows considerable between-group homogeneity, the area under the curve being 99.5%. However, the sensitivity axis does not pass through the upper-left corner, indicative of the overlap which is further examined in detail elsewhere.
Figure 4This diagram illustrates the individual measurements from biopsies sampled across the Western hemisphere (USA, UK, France (FR), Netherlands (NL), Italy (ITAL), Romania (ROM), Turkey (TURK) and Iran). Bars reflect mean±SD for disease control (open circles) and coeliac disease (closed circles). The two sets of horizontal dotted lines indicate the overall mean±SD for the two groups of biopsies studied. IEL, intraepithelial lymphocytes.
Breakdown of Marsh III mucosal lesions
| Subgroup | Biopsies (n) | H&E IEL (mean±SD) | Biopsies (n) | CD3+ IEL (mean±SD) |
| IIIa | 36 | 54±14 | 10 | 60±11 |
| IIIb | 38 | 52±17 | 12 | 67±19 |
| IIIc | 63 | 55±21 | 14 | 62±31 |
| Total | 137 | 54±18 | 36 | 63±23 |
Statistics: H&E: IIIa vs IIIb, p=0.91; IIIa vs IIIc, p=0.96 IIIb vs IIIc, p=0.96. CD3+: IIIa vs IIIb, p=0.84; IIIa vs IIIc, p=0.92; IIIb vs IIIc, p=0.98.
Note: The subclassification of the Marsh III lesion has, to our knowledge, never been subject to critical analysis despite its widespread adoption, as almost a ‘matter of faith’. Here we show that the IEL counts across each of these subdivisions reveal no statistical differences. This is most worrying, since the subdivisions were supposed to represent specific, detectable and progressively deteriorating pathologies during the terminal phases of mucosal flattening. Moreover, despite smaller numbers, no detectable differences in CD3+ IEL were detected between the IIIa, b and c subdivisions of the specimens analysed, in parallel with other findings. 28
IEL, intraepithelial lymphocytes.