Is there an advantage to be gained from adding digital image cytometry of brush cytology to a standard biopsy protocol in patients with Barrett’s esophagus?

J. Borovicka; R. Schönegg; M. Hell; D. Kradolfer; P. Bauerfeind; G. Dorta; P. Netzer; J. Binek; C. Meyenberger; J. E. Fischer; P. Spieler

doi:10.1055/s-0029-1214641

Endoscopy 2009; 41(5): 409-414
DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1214641

Original article

Is there an advantage to be gained from adding digital image cytometry of brush cytology to a standard biopsy protocol in patients with Barrett’s esophagus?

J. Borovicka¹ , R. Schönegg² , M. Hell² , D. Kradolfer² , P. Bauerfeind³ , G. Dorta⁴ , P. Netzer⁵ , J. Binek¹ , C. Meyenberger¹ , J. E. Fischer⁶ , P. Spieler²

¹Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Cantonal Hospital, St. Gall, Switzerland
²Institute of Pathology, Cantonal Hospital, St. Gall, Switzerland
³Division of Gastroenterology, University Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland
⁴Division of Gastroenterology, University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland
⁵Division of Gastroenterology, University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland
⁶Mannheim Institute of Public Health, Mannheim Medical Faculty, University of Heidelberg, Germany

Abstract

Background and study aims: The current gold standard in Barrett’s esophagus monitoring consists of four-quadrant biopsies every 1 – 2 cm in accordance with the Seattle protocol. Adding brush cytology processed by digital image cytometry (DICM) may further increase the detection of patients with Barrett’s esophagus who are at risk of neoplasia. The aim of the present study was to assess the additional diagnostic value and accuracy of DICM when added to the standard histological analysis in a cross-sectional multicenter study of patients with Barrett’s esophagus in Switzerland.

Methods: One hundred sixty-four patients with Barrett’s esophagus underwent 239 endoscopies with biopsy and brush cytology. DICM was carried out on 239 cytology specimens. Measures of the test accuracy of DICM (relative risk, sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios) were obtained by dichotomizing the histopathology results (high-grade dysplasia or adenocarcinoma vs. all others) and DICM results (aneuploidy/intermediate pattern vs. diploidy).

Results: DICM revealed diploidy in 83 % of 239 endoscopies, an intermediate pattern in 8.8 %, and aneuploidy in 8.4 %. An intermediate DICM result carried a relative risk (RR) of 12 and aneuploidy a RR of 27 for high-grade dysplasia/adenocarcinoma. Adding DICM to the standard biopsy protocol, a pathological cytometry result (aneuploid or intermediate) was found in 25 of 239 endoscopies (11 %; 18 patients) with low-risk histology (no high-grade dysplasia or adenocarcinoma). During follow-up of 14 of these 18 patients, histological deterioration was seen in 3 (21 %).

Conclusion: DICM from brush cytology may add important information to a standard biopsy protocol by identifying a subgroup of BE-patients with high-risk cellular abnormalities.

Volltext

Referenzen

References

1 Reid B J, Blount P L, Feng Z, Levine D S. Optimizing endoscopic biopsy detection of early cancers in Barrett’s high-grade dysplasia. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000; 95 3089-3096
2 Hurschler D, Borovicka J, Neuweiler J. et al . Increased detection rates for Barrett’s oesophagus without rise in incidence of oesophageal adenocarcinoma – a ten-year survey in Eastern Switzerland. Swiss Med Weekly. 2003; 133 507-514
3 Drewitz D J, Sampliner R E, Garewal H S. The incidence of adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus: a prospective study of 170 patients followed 4.8 years. Am J Gastroenterol. 1997; 92 212-215
4 Reid B J, Prevo L J, Galipeau P C. et al . Predictors of progression in Barrett’s esophagus II: baseline 17p (p53) loss of heterozygosity identifies a patient subset at increased risk for neoplastic progression. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001; 96 2839-2848
5 Alanen K A, Lintu M, Joensuu H. Image cytometry of breast carcinomas that are DNA diploid by flow cytometry: time to revise the concept of DNA diploidy?. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1998; 20 178-186
6 Fang M, Lew E, Klein M. et al . DNA abnormalities as marker of risk for progression of Barrett’s esophagus to adenocarcinoma: image cytometric DNA analysis in formalin-fixed tissues. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004; 99 1887-1894
7 Falk G W, Ours T M, Richter J E. Practice patterns for surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus in the United States. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000; 52 197-203
8 Borovicka J, Fischer J, Neuweiler J. et al . Autofluorescence endoscopy in surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus: a multicenter randomized trial on diagnostic efficacy. Endoscopy. 2006; 38 867-372
9 Haggitt R C. Barrett’s esophagus, dysplasia, and adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol. 1994; 25 982-993
10 Haroske G, Meyer W, Theissig F. et al . Remote quantitation server for quality assurance in DNA ploidy analysis. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1998; 20 302-312
11 Haroske G, Baak J P, Danielsen H. et al . Fourth updated ESACP consensus report on diagnostic DNA image cytometry. Anal Cell Pathol. 2001; 23 89-95
12 Vogt N, Schönegg R, Gschossmann J M, Borovicka J. Benefit of baseline cytometry as add-on to standard histology on surveillance in patients with Barrett’s esophagus: preliminary results. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008; 67 AB175
13 Reid B J, Levine D S, Longton G. et al . Predictors of progression to cancer in Barrett’s esophagus: baseline histology and flow cytometry identify low- and high-risk patient subsets. Am J Gastroenterol. 2000; 95 1669-1676
14 Wang K K, Prasad G, Buttar N S. et al . Correlation of DNA ploidy analysis by digital image analysis and flow cytometry in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology. 2006; 130 A-261

J. BorovickaMD

Department of Gastroenterology/Hepatology
Department of Internal Medicine

Cantonal Hospital
9007 St. Gallen
Switzerland

eMail: jan.borovicka@kssg.ch