Assessment of columnar-lined esophagus in controls and patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease with and without proton-pump inhibitor therapy
- 77 Downloads
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is associated with columnar-lined esophagus (CLE) without and with intestinal metaplasia (IM), i.e., nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (NDBE; 0.5 % annual cancer risk). We aimed to compare endoscopy and histopathology in controls and GERD patients with and without proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy.
We conducted endoscopy with four-quadrant multi-level biopsy sampling of any endoscopically visible columnar-lined esophagus (CLEv) in 0.5 cm increments and at 0.5 and 1.0 cm distal to the level of the rise of the endoscopic gastric-type folds in controls (n = 76), GERD patients with (n = 177) and without (n = 38) PPI therapy. Squamous epithelium (Squ) of the esophagus and oxyntic mucosa (OM) of the proximal stomach defined normalcy. CLE included oxyntocardiac, cardiac mucosa (CM) ± IM.
All persons had CLE interposed between Squ and OM. Frequency and distribution of endoscopic and histopathologic findings did not differ between the three groups (p > 0.05). Frequency of IM was 13.2, 26.3, and 20.9 % in controls, GERD patients with and without PPI therapy, respectively (p = 0.194). The frequency of IM increased with longer CLEv. In 50 % of the cases, CLE included more than the proximal 1.0 cm portion of the endoscopically visible gastric-type folds.
The frequency of IM is independent from the presence or absence of GERD symptoms and increases with increased length of CLEv. The proximal portion of the endoscopic gastric-type folds contains CLE and not OM. Thus, what is taken for proximal stomach during endoscopy represents gastric folds forming sac-like CLE.
KeywordsBarrett’s esophagus Columnar-lined esophagus Endoscopy Dilated distal esophagus Gastroesophageal reflux disease Histopathology Squamooxyntic gap
Conflict of interest statement
The authors inform that there exists no conflict of interest.
- 2.Kamolz T, Velanovich V. The impact of disease and treatment on health-replated quality of life in patients suffering from GERD. In: Granderath FA, Kamolz T, Pointner R, editors. Gastroesophageal reflux disease, principles of disease, diagnosis and treatment. New York: Springer; 2006. 287–98.Google Scholar
- 3.Rieder F, Biancani P, Harnett K, et al. Inflammatory mediators in gastroesophageal reflux disease: impact on esophageal motility, fibrosis, and carcinogenesis. Am J Physiol. 2010;298:G571–81.Google Scholar
- 12.Desai TK, Krishnan K, Samala N, et al. The incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma in non-dysplastic Barrett’s oesophagus: a meta-analysis. Gut. 2011. Epub ahead of print.Google Scholar
- 19.Glickman JN, Spechler SJ, Souza RF, et al. Multilayered epithelium in mucosal biopsy specimens from the gastroesophageal junction region is a histologic marker of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;818–25.Google Scholar
- 39.Greer KB, Thompson CL, Brenner L, et al. Association of insulin and insulin-like growth factors with Barrett’s oesophagus. Gut. 2011. Epub ahead of print.Google Scholar
- 44.Koch OO, Kaindlsdorfer A, Antoniou SA, et al. Laparoscopic Nissen versus Toupet fundoplication: objective and subjective results of a prospective randomized trail. Surg Endosc. Sep 2011. Epub ahead of print.Google Scholar
- 54.Theodorou D, Ayazi S, DeMeester SR, et al. Intraluminal pH and goblet cell density in Barrett’s esophagus. J Gastrointest Surg. 2011. Epub ahead of print.Google Scholar