Little attention has been given to the efficiency and validity of performing routine endoscopic biopsies in normal areas in children. This study aimed to investigate the need to perform routine biopsies in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UDE) and colonoscopy in normal areas by comparing macroscopy and histology. It was a 10-year retrospective analysis with the inclusion of 761 UDEs and 177 colonoscopies. Considering all segments, UDEs showed false-positive result rates of 73.11% and false-negative result rates of 14.34%. The histological results modified the initial management in 53.95% of patients. Considering all segments, colonoscopies showed false-positive result rates of 63.64% and false-negative result rates of 30.97%. The histological results modified the initial management in 34.45% of patients. Conclusion: If biopsies were obtained only in abnormal areas, the diagnosis would be lost in 53.95% of the patients in upper endoscopies and 85.7% of the colonoscopies, which justifies routine maintenance of biopsies in macroscopically normal areas in children. What is Known: • Little attention has been given to the efficiency and validity of endoscopic biopsies of normal areas during pediatric exams. • Only a few pediatric studies have correlated macroscopic and histological findings from endoscopic biopsies, and low sensitivity and specificity, as well as poor agreement, were reported. What is New: • Our study confirms the evidence that routine biopsies from macroscopically normal areas during upper and lower digestive endoscopies can lead to histopathological diagnoses and different medical management. • This is the first research on this topic in a Latin population, from a developing country, reassuring the results obtained in previous papers from other countries.
Little attention has been given to the efficiency and validity of performing routine endoscopic biopsies in normal areas in children. This study aimed to investigate the need to perform routine biopsies in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UDE) and colonoscopy in normal areas by comparing macroscopy and histology. It was a 10-year retrospective analysis with the inclusion of 761 UDEs and 177 colonoscopies. Considering all segments, UDEs showed false-positive result rates of 73.11% and false-negative result rates of 14.34%. The histological results modified the initial management in 53.95% of patients. Considering all segments, colonoscopies showed false-positive result rates of 63.64% and false-negative result rates of 30.97%. The histological results modified the initial management in 34.45% of patients. Conclusion: If biopsies were obtained only in abnormal areas, the diagnosis would be lost in 53.95% of the patients in upper endoscopies and 85.7% of the colonoscopies, which justifies routine maintenance of biopsies in macroscopically normal areas in children. What is Known: • Little attention has been given to the efficiency and validity of endoscopic biopsies of normal areas during pediatric exams. • Only a few pediatric studies have correlated macroscopic and histological findings from endoscopic biopsies, and low sensitivity and specificity, as well as poor agreement, were reported. What is New: • Our study confirms the evidence that routine biopsies from macroscopically normal areas during upper and lower digestive endoscopies can lead to histopathological diagnoses and different medical management. • This is the first research on this topic in a Latin population, from a developing country, reassuring the results obtained in previous papers from other countries.
Authors: Alfredo J Lucendo; Javier Molina-Infante; Ángel Arias; Ulrike von Arnim; Albert J Bredenoord; Christian Bussmann; Jorge Amil Dias; Mogens Bove; Jesús González-Cervera; Helen Larsson; Stephan Miehlke; Alexandra Papadopoulou; Joaquín Rodríguez-Sánchez; Alberto Ravelli; Jukka Ronkainen; Cecilio Santander; Alain M Schoepfer; Martin A Storr; Ingrid Terreehorst; Alex Straumann; Stephen E Attwood Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2017-01-23 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Roger Chou; Christina Bougatsos; Ian Blazina; Katherine Mackey; Sara Grusing; Shelley Selph Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-03-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Giacomo Caio; Umberto Volta; Anna Sapone; Daniel A Leffler; Roberto De Giorgio; Carlo Catassi; Alessio Fasano Journal: BMC Med Date: 2019-07-23 Impact factor: 8.775