Help
Subscribe


GastroHep.com - the global online resource for all aspects of gastroenterology, hepatology and endoscopy

 22 February 2018

Advanced search
GastroHep.com - the global online resource for all aspects of gastroenterology, hepatology and endoscopy Profile of Roy Pounder

Home

News  
Journals
Review Articles
Slide Atlas
Video Clips
Online Books
Advanced Digestive Endoscopy
Classical Cases
Conference Diary
PubMed
International GH Links
USA GH Links
National GH Links
National GI Societies
Other Useful Links




Emails on Gastroenterology and Hepatology
the National AIDS Treatment Advocacy Project
Visit the gastroenterology section of the EUMS

News

Suspicion of Barrett's esophagus based on either endoscopy or histology only

In September's issue of Gut, the results of a follow up study into endoscopic and histologic procedures used in cases of suspicion of Barrett's esophagus are published.

News image

fiogf49gjkf04

The incidence of distal esophageal adenocarcinoma is rising and chronic reflux and Barrett’s esophagus are both considered risk factors.

At present, reliable detection of Barrett's esophagus dictates the use of upper endoscopy, but both endoscopy and histology are required for accurate confirmation.

Appropriate management of patients with endoscopic suspicion but with negative histology,or of patients with no endoscopic suspicion but with a biopsy diagnosis of intestinal metaplasia at the gastro-esophageal junction, has not yet been studied prospectively.

Researchers from The University of Munich in Germany carried out a prospective multicenter study in which a total of 929 patients (51% male, mean age 50 years) referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy were included.

59% of these patients had reflux symptoms.

Researchers noted the endoscopic aspect of the Z line and any suspicion of Barrett’s esophagus. Biopsies were then taken in all patients from the Z line (n = 4), gastric cardia (n = 2), and body and antrum (n = 2 each).

Only 10–20% of cases with either endoscopic or histological suspicion of Barrett’s esophagus had established Barrett's after 2.5 years of follow up
Gut

A reference pathologist reviewed cases in which biopsies were found positive for specialized intestinal metaplasia (SIM) for confirmation of a final Barrett’s esophagus diagnosis.

All patients with endoscopic and/or histological suspicion of Barrett’s esophagus were invited for a follow up endoscopy; the remaining cases (no endoscopic or histological suspicion of Barrett’s esophagus) were followed clinically.

Of the total 235 patients positive for Barrett’s esophagus on endoscopy and/or histology, 63% agreed to undergo repeat endoscopy.

46% of patients with an endoscopic Barrett’s esophagus diagnosis but no histological confirmation showed the same distribution.

A further 42% did not have Barrett’s esophagus, and 11% had confirmed Barrett’s esophagus on both endoscopy and biopsy on follow up.

In the group with a histological Barrett’s esophagus diagnosis who had no findings on initial endoscopy, follow up showed the same in 26% whereas 46% had no Barrett’s esophagus.

Confirmed Barrett’s esophagus (endoscopy plus histology) was diagnosed in 17% of these patients.

Of the study population, 16 patients had Barrett’s esophagus on initial endoscopy confirmed by histology which remained constant in 70% at follow up.

Of the remaining patients without an initial Barrett’s esophagus diagnosis on either endoscopy or histology and only clinical follow up, one confirmed Barrett’s esophagus case was found among 100 patients re-endoscoped outside of the study protocol.

However, no single case of dysplasia or cancer of the distal oesophagus was detected in any patient during the study period.

Professor Rosch commented,"Even in a specialised gastroenterology setting, reproducibility of presumptive endoscopic or histological diagnoses of Barrett’s oesophagus at follow up were poor."

In addition, "Only 10–20% of cases with either endoscopic or histological suspicion of Barrett’s oesophagus had established Barrett’s oesophagus after 2.5 years of follow up."

The group concluded that meticulous follow up may not be required as the risk of dysplasia in this population was shown to be very low.

Gut;2004:53:1402-1407
20 September 2004

Go to top of page Email this page Email this page to a colleague

 22 February 2018 
Autophagy enhancers
 22 February 2018 
Outcomes with Crohn’s after infliximab withdrawal
 22 February 2018 
Elderly onset of IBD

 21 February 2018 
Adalimumab and infliximab in biologic-naïve Crohn's
 21 February 2018 
Cystic fibrosis and colorectal cancer
 21 February 2018 
Management of hemorrhoids in the USA
 20 February 2018 
Treatment algorithm for polyp cancers
 20 February 2018 
Predictors of postoperative infection in Crohn's
 20 February 2018 
Complications and surveillance colonoscopies
 19 February 2018 
Screening colonoscopy in the right and left colon
 19 February 2018 
NAFLD prevalence in the USA
 19 February 2018 
Fructans in children with IBS

 16 February 2018 
Undetected celiac in the elderly
 16 February 2018 
Inflammatory bowel diseases are global diseases
 16 February 2018 
Fructans induce non-celiac gluten sensitivity
 15 February 2018 
NSAIDS and GI damage
 15 February 2018 
Oral direct-acting antiviral treatment for Hep C virus genotype 1
 15 February 2018 
Primary vs secondary surgery for the presence of lymph node metastasis
 14 February 2018 
Predicting adenoma detection rate
 14 February 2018 
Normal bowel frequency characterization in the USA 
 13 February 2018 
Personalising treatment options for IBS
 13 February 2018 
Prebiotics improve endothelial dysfunction
 13 February 2018 
Diagnostic criteria for a Rome IV functional gastrointestinal disorders
 12 February 2018 
Visceral hypersensitivity and functional GI disorders
 12 February 2018 
Depression and aggressive IBD
 12 February 2018 
Variability in interpretation of endoscopic findings impacts patient management
 09 February 2018 
Treatment of choice for anastomotic stricture in IBD
 09 February 2018 
PRO measurement information system 
 09 February 2018 
Overall disease severity indices for IBD
 08 February 2018 
Prediction of endoscopically active disease

 08 February 2018 
Steroid-refractory acute severe ulcerative colitis
 08 February 2018 
Decision aid used by IBD patients
 07 February 2018 
Ursodeoxycholic acid combined with bezafibrate for itching
 07 February 2018 
Change in microbiome in gastritis vs gastric carcinoma
 07 February 2018 
Colorectal cancer and primary sclerosing cholangitis-IBD
 06 February 2018 
Risk of death after liver transplantation
 06 February 2018 
Crohn’s disease vs refractory pouchitis
 06 February 2018 
Support for functional dyspepsia symptom diary
 05 February 2018 
Helicobacter spp influence on GI tract 
 05 February 2018 
No link found between severe reflux and all-cause mortality 
 05 February 2018 
Psychological distress in PPI non-responders
 02 February 2018 
Assessing psychosexual impact of IBD
 02 February 2018 
Decrease in overall mortality with cholera vaccination
 02 February 2018 
Diagnostic performance of fecal immunochemical tests
 01 February 2018 
Screening frequency with family histories of colorectal cancer
 01 February 2018 
IBD and sport participation
 01 February 2018 
Life with a stoma 
 31 January 2018 
Aprepitant and gastroparesis 
 31 January 2018 
Anesthesia risk in colonoscopy
 31 January 2018 
GED-0301 for Crohn's Disease
 30 January 2018 
Intestinal dysbiosis and allergic diseases in infants
 30 January 2018 
Fructans and IBS symptoms in children
 29 January 2018 
Dosing calculator for therapy optimization in IBD
 29 January 2018 
Glecaprevir–pibrentasvir for in HCV
 29 January 2018 
Food allergen injections in eosinophilic esophagitis
 29 January 2018 
Reliability of the IBD index
 26 January 2018 
Tofacitinib vs biological therapies for ulcerative colitis
 26 January 2018 
Optimizing selection of biologics in IBD
 26 January 2018 
Nutritional risk and laparoscopic-assisted gastrectomy outcomes
 25 January 2018 
Patient-reported outcome measure for functional dyspepsia

Blackwell Publishing


GastroHep.com is a Blackwell Publishing registered trademark
© 2018 Wiley-Blackwell and GastroHep.com and contributors
Privacy Statement
Disclaimer
About Us