Determination of hyperregeneratory esophagopathy in dogs with clinical signs attributable to esophageal disease

Summary

Objective

It was hypothesized that typical characteristics of hyperregeneratory esophagopathy (HRE) in humans such as basal cell hyperplasia and elongation of stromal papillae are also histologically detectable in canine esophageal epithelium, and that these changes are associated with clinical signs and endoscopic findings suggesting gastroesophageal reflux (GER).

Material and methods

Sixty-five adult dogs with clinical signs attributable to esophageal disease underwent esophagoscopy and biopsy. Clinical signs suggesting GER (regurgitation, ptyalism, painful discomfort) were prospectively evaluated through a questionnaire. Endoscopic mucosal alterations suggesting GER such as minimal endoscopic changes and obvious mucosal defects were assessed via video endoscopy. Biopsy specimens obtained from the esophageal squamous epithelium were evaluated histologically. The squamous epithelium’s substructures of esophageal biopsies were quantitatively assessed through microscopic morphometry.

Results

Esophageal squamous epithelium was considered normal in 48 dogs, and HRE was detected histologically in 17 dogs; both pathognomonic changes (basal cell hyperplasia, elongation of stromal papillae) were consistently present. Morphometrically assessed stromal papillary length and basal cell layer thickness was significantly (each, p < 0.0001) higher in the 17 dogs with HRE than in the 48 dogs without HRE, respectively. Overall, clinical signs suggesting GER were significantly (p = 0.02) more frequently encountered and regurgitation was significantly (p = 0.009) more common in the 17 dogs with HRE than in the 48 dogs without HRE. Similarly, endoscopic changes were significantly (p = 0.002) more frequently observed and minimal endoscopic changes suggesting GER were significantly (p = 0.004) more common in 17 dogs with HRE than in the 48 dogs without HRE.

Conclusion and clinical relevance

Typical characteristics of hyperregeneratory esophagopathy in humans are also histologically detectable in canine esophageal epithelium. Histological changes are associated with clinical signs and endoscopic findings suggesting GER.

Keywords

Endoscopy - morphometry - gastroesophageal reflux disease - cut off values - sensitivity - specificity

• Literatur

• 1 Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Lijmer JG, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC. Toward complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. The STARD initiative. Am J Clin Pathol 2003; 119 (01) 18-22.
• 2 Elster K. Morphology of esophagitis. Leber Magen Darm 1972; 02: 44-47.
• 3 Eros G, Kaszaki J, Czobel M, Boros M. Systemic phosphatidylcholine pretreatment protects canine esophageal mucosa during acute experimental biliary reflux. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12: 271-279.
• 4 Evander A, Little AG, Riddel RH. Composition of the refluxed material determined the degree of reflux esophagitis in the dog. Gastroenterology 1987; 93: 280-286.
• 5 Farré R, van Malenstein H, De Vos R, Geboes K, Depoortere I, Vanden PBerghe, Fornari F, Blondeau K, Mertens V, Tack J, Sifrim D. Short exposure of esophageal mucosa to bile acids, both in acidic and weekly acidic conditions, can impair mucosal integrity and provoke dilated intercellular spaces. Gut 2008; 57: 1366-1374.
• 6 Fiocca R, Mastracci L, Riddell R, Takubo K, Vieth M, Yerian L, Sharma P, Fernström P, Ruth M. Development of consensus guidelines for the histologic recognition of microscopic esophagitis in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: the Esohisto project. Hum Pathol 2010; 02: 223-231.
• 7 Glazer A, Walters P. Esophagitis and esophageal strictures. Compend Contin Educ Vet 2008; 05: 281-292.
• 8 Gualtieri M. Esophagoscopy. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2001; 31: 605-630.
• 9 Gualtieri M, Cocci A, Olivero D, Monti S. Esophageal and gastric intestinal metaplasia in the dog and the cat: a retrospective study of 41 cases (2003–2007). Proceedings 18th ECVIM-CA Congress, Ghent 2008; 217.
• 10 Guilford WG, Strombeck DR. Diseases of swallowing. In: Strombeck’s Small Animal Gastroenterology. 3rd edn.. Guilford GW, Center SA, Strombeck DR, Williams DA, Meyer DJ. eds. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1996: 224-225.
• 11 Haggitt RC. Histopathology of reflux-induced esophageal and supraesophageal injuries. Am J Med 2000; 108: 109S-111S.
• 12 Han E. Diagnosis and management of reflux esophagitis. Clin Tech Small Anim Pract 2003; 18: 231-238.
• 13 Ismail-Beigi F, Horton PF, Pope 2nd CE. Histological consequences of gastroesophageal reflux in man. Gastroenterology 1970; 58: 163-174.
• 14 Ismail-Beigi F, Pope 2nd CE. Distribution of the histological changes of gastroesophageal reflux in the distal esophagus of man. Gastroenterology 1974; 66: 1109-1113.
• 15 Kiesslich R, Kanzler S, Vieth M, Moehler M, Neidig J, Thanka BJNadar, Schilling D, Burg J, Nafe B, Neurath MF, Galle PR. Minimal change esophagitis: prospective comparison of endoscopic and histological markers between patients with non-erosive reflux disease and normal controls using magnifying endoscopy. Dig Dis 2004; 02: 221-227.
• 16 Kook PH, Kempf J, Reusch CE. Wireless ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring in healthy dogs and dogs with historical and clinical signs interpretated as gastroesophageal reflux. J Vet Intern Med 2012; 26: 1528.
• 17 Liebich HG. Rumpfdarm. In: Funktionelle Histologie der Haussäugetiere und Vögel, 5. Aufl. Liebich HG. Hrsg. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 2010: 209-214.
• 18 Münster M, Bilzer T, Dettmann K, Hörauf A, Vieth M. Assessment of the histological quality of endoscopic biopsies obtained from the canine gastroesophageal junction. Tierärztl Prax 2012; 40 (K): 318-324.
• 19 Münster M, Hörauf A, Lübke-Becker A, Grest P, Rütten M. Idiopathic esophagopathies resembling gastroesophageal reflux disease in dogs. Tierärztl Prax 2013; 41 (K): 173-179.
• 20 Münster M, Vieth M, Hörauf A. Evaluation of the quality of endoscopically obtained esophageal biopsies in the dog. Tierärztl Prax 2013; 41 (K): 375-382.
• 21 Poorkhalkali N, Jacobson I, Helander HF. Lectin histochemistry of the esophagus in several mammalian species. Anat Embryol (Berl) 1999; 200: 541-549.
• 22 Solcia E, Villani L, Luinetti O, Trespi E, Strada E, Tinelli C, Fiocca R. Altered intercellular glycoconjugates and dilated intercellular spaces of esophageal epithelium in reflux disease. Virchows Arch 2000; 436: 207-216.
• 23 Szentpali K, Eros G, Kaszaki J, Tiszlavicz L, Lázár G, Wolfárd A, Balogh A, Boros M. Microcirculatory changes in the canine esophageal mucosa during experimental reflux esophagitis: comparison of the effects of acid and bile. Scand J Gastroenterology 2003; 38: 1016-1022.
• 24 Vaezi MF, Singh S, Richter JE. Role of acid and duodenogastric reflux in esophageal injury: a review of animal and human studies. Gastroenterology 1995; 108: 1897-1907.
• 25 Vieth M, Langner C, Rüschoff J. Nichtneoplastische Erkrankungen und Barrett-Ösophagus. In: Pathologie: Verdauungstrakt und Peritoneum, 3. Aufl. Stolte M, Rüschoff J, Klöppel G. Hrsg. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2013: 42-43.
• 26 Vieth M. Structural abnormalities of endoscopy-negative reflux disease – real or perceived?. Digestion 2008; 78: 24-30.
• 27 Vieth M, Fiocca R, Wernersson B, Ohlsson B, Ruth M. Evaluation of histologic criteria for the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Gut 2011; 60 (Suppl. 03) A157.
• 28 Wienbeck M, Barnert J. Epidemiology of reflux disease and reflux esophagitis. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 1989; 156: 7-13.
• 29 Willard MD, Carsten EW. Esophagitis. In: Kirk’s current veterinary therapy XIV. Bonagura JD. ed. St. Louis: Saunders; 2009: 482-486.
• 30 Yerian L, Fiocca R, Mastracci L, Riddell R, Vieth M, Sharma P, Franzen S, Fernstrom P, Ruth M. Refinement and reproducibility of histologic criteria for the assessment of microscopic lesions in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: the Esohisto Project. Dig Dis Sci 2011; [phone].
• 31 Zentilin P, Savarino V, Mastracci L, Spaggiari P, Dulbecco P, Ceppa P, Savarino E, Parodi A, Mansi C, Fiocca R. Reassessment of the diagnostic value of histology in patients with GERD, using multiple biopsy sites and an appropriate control group. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100 (10) 2299-2306.