BACKGROUND: The optimal ulcerative colitis biopsy protocol is unclear. AIM: To evaluate the number of biopsies required to accurately assess microscopic disease activity in ulcerative colitis METHODS: Biopsies from patients with ≥4 rectosigmoid samples, and clinical and endoscopic data, were retrospectively obtained from a prospective biobank. Histology and endoscopic videos were read blindly. A 4-biopsy Robarts Histopathology Index (RHI) reference score, consisting of the worst item-level ratings from four biopsies, was compared to 1-, 2- and 3-biopsy estimates. Agreement was determined using bivariate errors-in-variable regression analysis (acceptance interval: ±8.25). Endoscopic activity and disease location subgroup analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Forty-six patients had ≥4 rectosigmoid biopsies available (N = 287). The 2-biopsy (tolerance interval: -7.66, 4.79) and 3-biopsy (tolerance interval: -4.86, 3.46) RHI scores demonstrated acceptable agreement with 4-biopsy scores. One-biopsy scores demonstrated unacceptable agreement (tolerance interval: -13.99, 7.78). Mean RHI scores using the 2-, 3- and 4-biopsy approaches were similar (6.1 ± 9.6 P = 0.36; 6.8 ± 10.5, P = 0.7; 7.5 ± 11.2), whereas the 1-biopsy estimate was lower (4.4 ± 8.1, P = 0.06). Histological remission rates were identical for the 2-, 3- and 4-biopsy methods (65.2%, P = 1.0). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that three biopsies were required in patients with endoscopically active disease. Sampling additional colonic locations yielded lower histological remission rates compared to rectosigmoid sampling alone (33.3% vs 61.9%, P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: A minimum of two - conservatively, three - biopsies are required to reliably assess disease activity in a single colonic segment using the RHI. Further studies are needed of endoscopically active patients and sampling locations. These results have implications for biopsy strategies in clinical trials and practice.
BACKGROUND: The optimal ulcerative colitis biopsy protocol is unclear. AIM: To evaluate the number of biopsies required to accurately assess microscopic disease activity in ulcerative colitis METHODS: Biopsies from patients with ≥4 rectosigmoid samples, and clinical and endoscopic data, were retrospectively obtained from a prospective biobank. Histology and endoscopic videos were read blindly. A 4-biopsy Robarts Histopathology Index (RHI) reference score, consisting of the worst item-level ratings from four biopsies, was compared to 1-, 2- and 3-biopsy estimates. Agreement was determined using bivariate errors-in-variable regression analysis (acceptance interval: ±8.25). Endoscopic activity and disease location subgroup analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Forty-six patients had ≥4 rectosigmoid biopsies available (N = 287). The 2-biopsy (tolerance interval: -7.66, 4.79) and 3-biopsy (tolerance interval: -4.86, 3.46) RHI scores demonstrated acceptable agreement with 4-biopsy scores. One-biopsy scores demonstrated unacceptable agreement (tolerance interval: -13.99, 7.78). Mean RHI scores using the 2-, 3- and 4-biopsy approaches were similar (6.1 ± 9.6 P = 0.36; 6.8 ± 10.5, P = 0.7; 7.5 ± 11.2), whereas the 1-biopsy estimate was lower (4.4 ± 8.1, P = 0.06). Histological remission rates were identical for the 2-, 3- and 4-biopsy methods (65.2%, P = 1.0). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that three biopsies were required in patients with endoscopically active disease. Sampling additional colonic locations yielded lower histological remission rates compared to rectosigmoid sampling alone (33.3% vs 61.9%, P = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: A minimum of two - conservatively, three - biopsies are required to reliably assess disease activity in a single colonic segment using the RHI. Further studies are needed of endoscopically active patients and sampling locations. These results have implications for biopsy strategies in clinical trials and practice.
Authors: Jennifer Jones; Edward V Loftus; Remo Panaccione; Li-Sheng Chen; Sandra Peterson; Joseph McConnell; Linnea Baudhuin; Karen Hanson; Brian G Feagan; Scott W Harmsen; Alan R Zinsmeister; Emelie Helou; William J Sandborn Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Mahmoud H Mosli; Brian G Feagan; Guangyong Zou; William J Sandborn; Geert D'Haens; Reena Khanna; Cynthia Behling; Keith Kaplan; David K Driman; Lisa M Shackelton; Kenneth A Baker; John K MacDonald; Margaret K Vandervoort; Mark A Samaan; Karel Geboes; Mark A Valasek; Rish Pai; Cord Langner; Robert Riddell; Noam Harpaz; Maida Sewitch; Michael Peterson; Larry W Stitt; Barrett G Levesque Journal: Gut Date: 2014-10-30 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: A Bitton; M A Peppercorn; D A Antonioli; J L Niles; S Shah; A Bousvaros; B Ransil; G Wild; A Cohen; M D Edwardes; A C Stevens Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Britt Christensen; Stephen B Hanauer; Jonathan Erlich; Olufemi Kassim; Peter R Gibson; Jerrold R Turner; John Hart; David T Rubin Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: William J Sandborn; Brian G Feagan; Douglas C Wolf; Geert D'Haens; Severine Vermeire; Stephen B Hanauer; Subrata Ghosh; Heather Smith; Matthew Cravets; Paul A Frohna; Richard Aranda; Sheila Gujrathi; Allan Olson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jean-Frédéric Colombel; Mary E Keir; Alexis Scherl; Rui Zhao; Gert de Hertogh; William A Faubion; Timothy T Lu Journal: Gut Date: 2016-09-02 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Christopher Ma; Rocio Sedano; Ahmed Almradi; Niels Vande Casteele; Claire E Parker; Leonardo Guizzetti; David F Schaeffer; Robert H Riddell; Reetesh K Pai; Robert Battat; Bruce E Sands; Christophe Rosty; Marla C Dubinsky; Florian Rieder; Noam Harpaz; Maria T Abreu; Robert V Bryant; Gregory Y Lauwers; Richard Kirsch; Mark A Valasek; Eileen Crowley; William J Sandborn; Brian G Feagan; Rish K Pai; Vipul Jairath Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Olga Maria Nardone; Alina Bazarova; Pradeep Bhandari; Rosanna Cannatelli; Marco Daperno; Jose Ferraz; Martin Goetz; Xianyong Gui; Bu Hayee; Gert De Hertogh; Mark Lazarev; Ji Li; Adolfo Parra-Blanco; Luca Pastorelli; Remo Panaccione; Vincenzo Occhipinti; Timo Rath; Samuel C L Smith; Uday N Shivaji; Gian Eugenio Tontini; Michael Vieth; Vincenzo Villanacci; Davide Zardo; Raf Bisschops; Ralf Kiesslich; Subrata Ghosh; Marietta Iacucci Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 4.623