Skip to main content
Log in

Association Between Endoscopic and Histologic Findings in a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort of Patients with Non-esophageal Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disorders

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Digestive Diseases and Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Little is known about the endoscopic and histologic findings of non-esophageal eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGID).

Aim

To characterize the presenting endoscopic and histologic findings in patients with eosinophilic gastritis (EG), eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EGE), and eosinophilic colitis (EC) at diagnosis and 6 months after initiating the treatment.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study at 6 US centers associated with the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Researchers. Data abstracted included demographics, endoscopic findings, tissue eosinophil counts, and associated histologic findings at diagnosis and, when available, after initial treatment.

Results

Of 373 subjects (317 children and 56 adults), 142 had EG, 123 EGE, and 108 EC. Normal endoscopic appearance was the most common finding across all EGIDs (62% of subjects). Baseline tissue eosinophil counts were quantified in 105 (74%) EG, 36 (29%) EGE, and 80 (74%) EC subjects. The mean peak gastric eosinophil count across all sites was 87 eos/hpf for EG and 78 eos/hpf for EGE. The mean peak colonic eosinophil count for EC subjects was 76 eos/hpf (range 10–500). Of the 29% of subjects with post-treatment follow-up, most had an improvement in clinical, endoscopic, and histologic findings regardless of treatment utilized. Reductions in tissue eosinophilia correlated with improvements in clinical symptoms as well as endoscopic and histologic findings.

Conclusions

In this large cohort, normal appearance was the most common endoscopic finding, emphasizing the importance of biopsy, regardless of endoscopic appearance. Decreased tissue eosinophilia was associated with improvement in symptoms, endoscopic, and histologic findings, showing that disease activity is reversible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Zuo L, Rothenberg ME. Gastrointestinal eosinophilia. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am. 2007;27:443–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chernetsova E, Sullivan K, de Nanassy J, et al. Histologic analysis of eosinophils and mast cells of the gastrointestinal tract in healthy Canadian children. Hum Pathol. 2016;54:55–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Genta RM, Sonnenberg A, Turner K. Quantification of the duodenal eosinophil content in adults: a necessary step for an evidence-based diagnosis of duodenal eosinophilia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018;47:1143–1150.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kalach N, Huvenne H, Gosset P, et al. Eosinophil counts in upper digestive mucosa of Western European children: variations with age, organs, symptoms, Helicbacter pylori status, and pathological findings. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2011;52:175–182.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dellon ES, Speck O, Woodward K, et al. Distribution and variability of esophageal eosinophilia in patients undergoing upper endoscopy. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:383–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lwin T, Melton SD, Genta RM. Eosinophilic gastritis: histopathological characterization and quantification of the normal gastric eosinophil content. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:556–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Silva J, Canao P, Espinheira MC, et al. Eosinophils in the gastrointestinal tract: how much is normal? Virchos Archiv. 2018;473:313–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. DeBrosse CW, Case JW, Putnam P, et al. Quantity and distribution of eosinophils in the gastrointestinal tract of children. Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2006;9:210–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hogan SP, Waddell A, Fulkerson PC. Eosinophils in infection and intestinal immunity. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2013;29:7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Boyle B, Collins MH, Wang Z, et al. Histologic correlates of clinical and endoscopic severity in children newly diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41:1491–1498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Jensen ET, Martin CF, Kappelman MD, Dellon ES. Prevalence of eosinophilic gastritis, gastroenteritis, and colitis: estimates from a national administrative database. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2016;62:36–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mansoor E, Saleh MA, Cooper GS. Prevalence of eosinophilic gastroenteritis and colitis in a population-based study, from 2012 to 2017. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15:1733–1741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Moawad FJ. Eosinophilic esophagitis: incidence and prevalence. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2018;28:15–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Collins MH, Capocelli K, Yang GY. Eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders pathology. Front Med. 2018;15:261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cheng K, Gupta SK, Kantor S, et al. Creating a multi-center rare disease consortium: The consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers (CEGIR). Transl Sci Rare Dis. 2017;2:141–155.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Pesek RD, Reed CC, Muir AB, et al. Increasing rates of diagnosis, substantial co-occurrence, and variable treatment patterns of eosinophilic gastritis, gastroenteritis, and colitis based on 10-year data across a multicenter consortium. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019;114:984–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhang L, Duan L, Ding S, et al. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis: clinical manifestations and morphological characteristics, a retrospective study of 42 patients. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2011;46:1074–1080.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ko HM, Morotti RA, Yershov O, Chehade M. Eosinophilic gastritis in children: clinicopathological correlation, disease course, and response to therapy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:1277–1285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Reed C, Woosley JT, Dellon ES. Clinical characteristics, treatment outcomes, and resource utilization in children and adults with eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Dig Liver Dis. 2015;47:197–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hui CK, Hui NK. A prospective study on the prevalence, extent of disease and outcome of eosinophilic gastroenteritis in patients presenting with lower abdominal symptoms. Gut Liver. 2018;12:288–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Saad AG. Normal quantity and distribution of mast cells and eosinophils in the pediatric colon. Pediatr Dev Pathol. 2011;14:294–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kim HP, Vance RB, Shaheen NJ, Dellon ES. The prevalence and diagnostic utility of endoscopic features of eosinophilic esophagitis: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastrenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:988–996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Grandinetti T, Biedermann L, Bussmann C, et al. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis: clinical manifestation, natural course, and evaluation of treatment with corticosteroids and vedolizumab. Dig Dis Sci. 2019;64:2231–2241 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-019-05617-3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ashitani K, Tsuzuki Y, Yamaoka M, et al. Endoscopic features and diagnostic procedures of eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Intern Med. 2019;58:2167–2171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dellon ES, Collins MH, Bonis PA, et al. Substantial variability in biopsy practice patterns among gastroenterologists for suspected eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14:1842–1844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Collins MH. Histopathologic features of eosinophilic esophagitis and eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2014;43:257–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Contributions

RDP was a consultant for Allakos. MHC was a consultant for Allakos, AstraZeneca, Esocap, Celgene Corporation, Regeneron, and Shire and received research support from Regeneron and Shire. PF was a consultant for Genentech, Inc, and received grant funding from the NIH and research support from Knopp Biosciences, LLC. GF was a consultant for Takeda/Shire and Adare and obtained research support from Takeda/Shire, Celgene, Adare, Regeneron, and Allakos. JMS was a consultant for Regeneron, DBV Technology, and Kaleo and received grant funding from DBV Technology, Aimmune Therapeutics, and Food Allergy Research Education and royalties from UpToDate. NG was in the advisory board for Allakos and obtained royalties from UpToDate. SKG was a consultant for Adare, Alkalos, Abbott, GossamerQOL, and Receptos and obtained research support from Shire and royalties from UpToDate. GF was the founder of EnteroTrack and a consultant for Shire. MER was a consultant for Pulm One, Spoon Guru, Clostrabio, Celgene, Shire, Astra Zeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Allakos, Adare, Regeneron, and Novartis, has an equity interest in the first three listed and Immune Pharmaceuticals, and received royalties from reslizumab (Teva Pharmaceuticals), PEESSv2 (Mapi Research Trust), and UpToDate. MER is an inventor of patents owned by Cincinnati Children’s. ED was a consultant for Adare, Aimmune, Allakos, Alivio, AstraZeneca, Banner, Biorasi, Calypso, Celgene/Receptos, Enumeral, EsoCap, Gossamer Bio, GSK, Regeneron, Salix, and Shire and received research funding from Adare, Allakos, Celegene/Receptos, GSK, Miraca, Meritage, Nutricia, Regeneron, and Shire and educational grant from Allakos, Banner, and Holoclara.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert D. Pesek.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

As a corresponding author, I declare the disclosures and potential conflicts of interest listed below on behalf of all authors. This has been verified to be accurate and up to date at the time of submission of the manuscript. In addition to the disclosures below, this study was funded in part through a research training grant as a part of the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers (CEGIR) (U54 AI117804). CEGIR is part of the Rare Disease Clinical Research Network (RDCRN), an initiative of the Office of Rare Diseases Research (ORDR), NCATS, and is funded through collaboration between NIAID, NIDDK, and NCATS. CEGIR is also supported by patient advocacy groups including APFED CURED and EFC. This project also received support from NIH T32 DK007634 (CCR).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 12 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pesek, R.D., Reed, C.C., Collins, M.H. et al. Association Between Endoscopic and Histologic Findings in a Multicenter Retrospective Cohort of Patients with Non-esophageal Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disorders. Dig Dis Sci 65, 2024–2035 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-019-05961-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-019-05961-4

Keywords

Navigation