Shaina H Hasan1, Steve Taylor2, Shipra Garg2, Matthew R Buras3, Alfred D Doyle1, Cindy S Bauer4, Benjamin L Wright1,4, Shauna Schroeder5. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology, 23387Mayo Clinic Arizona, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, Arizona. 2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Phoenix Children's Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona. 3. Department of Health Sciences Research, Division of Biomedical Statistics and Biomedical Informatics, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Scottsdale, Arizona. 4. Department of Pulmonology, Section of Allergy and Immunology, Phoenix Children's Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona. 5. Department of Gastroenterology, Phoenix Children's Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of non-esophageal eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders requires quantification of tissue eosinophils. Our objective was to evaluate eosinophil peroxidase (EPX) immunohistochemistry (IHC) as a method for histologic diagnosis of eosinophilic gastritis (EG) and eosinophilic duodenitis (EoD). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of biopsies from pediatric EG/EoD cases and controls. Subjects with EG or EoD had ≥30 eosinophils per high power field (eos/hpf) in ≥5 hpf in the stomach and/or ≥3 hpf in the duodenum, respectively. Controls had no histopathologic diagnosis recorded. Tissue eosinophil counts were assessed by hematoxylin & eosin stains. EPX stains were assessed using a unique histopathologic scoring system. Slides were digitized and EPX+ staining area/mm2 was quantified by image analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-six EG/EoD cases and 40 controls were analyzed. EPX scores and EPX/mm2 levels were markedly elevated in EG/EoD (p ≤ 0.0001). Eosinophil density (eos/mm2) correlated strongly with EPX scores and EPX/mm2 levels in the stomach (r ≥ 0.77) and moderately with EPX scores and EPX/mm2 levels in the duodenum (r ≥ 0.52); (p < 0.0001). EPX quantification identified EG/EoD subjects with high diagnostic accuracy (EPX score: AUC = 1 for EG and EoD; EPX/mm2: AUC = 0.98 (95%CI 0.96-1) for EG, AUC = 0.91 (95%CI 0.81-1) for EoD). CONCLUSION: EPX-based assessment of eosinophilic inflammation may facilitate automated histologic diagnosis.
BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of non-esophageal eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders requires quantification of tissue eosinophils. Our objective was to evaluate eosinophil peroxidase (EPX) immunohistochemistry (IHC) as a method for histologic diagnosis of eosinophilic gastritis (EG) and eosinophilic duodenitis (EoD). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of biopsies from pediatric EG/EoD cases and controls. Subjects with EG or EoD had ≥30 eosinophils per high power field (eos/hpf) in ≥5 hpf in the stomach and/or ≥3 hpf in the duodenum, respectively. Controls had no histopathologic diagnosis recorded. Tissue eosinophil counts were assessed by hematoxylin & eosin stains. EPX stains were assessed using a unique histopathologic scoring system. Slides were digitized and EPX+ staining area/mm2 was quantified by image analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-six EG/EoD cases and 40 controls were analyzed. EPX scores and EPX/mm2 levels were markedly elevated in EG/EoD (p ≤ 0.0001). Eosinophil density (eos/mm2) correlated strongly with EPX scores and EPX/mm2 levels in the stomach (r ≥ 0.77) and moderately with EPX scores and EPX/mm2 levels in the duodenum (r ≥ 0.52); (p < 0.0001). EPX quantification identified EG/EoD subjects with high diagnostic accuracy (EPX score: AUC = 1 for EG and EoD; EPX/mm2: AUC = 0.98 (95%CI 0.96-1) for EG, AUC = 0.91 (95%CI 0.81-1) for EoD). CONCLUSION: EPX-based assessment of eosinophilic inflammation may facilitate automated histologic diagnosis.
Authors: Kathryn A Peterson; William J Cobell; Frederic C Clayton; Chaya Krishnamurthy; Jian Ying; Leonard F Pease; Hedieh Saffari; Ann Georgelas; John Fang; Gerald J Gleich; Kristin M Leiferman Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Hedieh Saffari; Laura H Hoffman; Kathryn A Peterson; John C Fang; Kristin M Leiferman; Leonard F Pease; Gerald J Gleich Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Sergei I Ochkur; John Dongil Kim; Cheryl A Protheroe; Dana Colbert; Rachel M Condjella; Sophie Bersoux; Richard A Helmers; Redwan Moqbel; Paige Lacy; Elizabeth A Kelly; Nizar N Jarjour; Robert Kern; Anju Peters; Robert P Schleimer; Glenn T Furuta; Parameswaran Nair; James J Lee; Nancy A Lee Journal: J Immunol Methods Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 2.303
Authors: Daniel S Strasser; Shanon Seger; Christian Bussmann; Gabin M Pierlot; Peter M A Groenen; Anna K Stalder; Alex Straumann Journal: Histopathology Date: 2018-06-22 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Benjamin L Wright; Alfred D Doyle; Kelly P Shim; Rish K Pai; Suzanne M Barshow; Jennifer L Horsley-Silva; Huijun Luo; Matthew A Rank; Elizabeth A Jacobsen; David A Katzka; Hirohito Kita; Evan S Dellon Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2020-04-04 Impact factor: 3.199