Brush cytology vs. endoscopic biopsy for the surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus

Background and study aims: Periodic surveillance with systematic biopsies is recommended for patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Brush cytology has been proposed as a simple inexpensive component of endoscopic surveillance, which may also detect abnormalities prior to detection of histologic abnormalities. The aim of the current study was to determine whether brush cytology provides any additional value over endoscopic surveillance biopsies in patients with Barrett’s esophagus.

Patients: This retrospective cohort study included 530 patients with Barrett’s esophagus undergoing endoscopic surveillance with paired biopsy and cytology specimens at the Cleveland Clinic between January 1994 and July 2008. The main outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity, and concordance rates of cytology and histology.

Results: Sensitivity of cytology for any dysplasia was 49 % and specificity was 95 %. However, sensitivity was 82 % for detection of high grade dysplasia/adenocarcinoma but only 31 % for low grade/indefinite for dysplasia. The concordance rate between cytology and histology was 80 %. Histology had a higher dysplasia detection rate than cytology (24.0 % vs. 15.7 %, respectively; P < 0.0001).

Conclusions: Cytology has excellent specificity and good sensitivity for the detection of high grade dysplasia/adenocarcinoma but poor sensitivity for low grade dysplasia. There was substantial concordance between cytology and histology for the detection of dysplasia. However, histology had a higher dysplasia detection rate and therefore the value of routine cytology in the surveillance of Barrett’s esophagus is questionable.

References

• 1 Hirota W K, Zuckerman M J, Adler D G. et al . ASGE guideline: the role of endoscopy in the surveillance of premalignant conditions of the upper GI tract.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;  63 570-580
• 2 Sharma P, McQuaid K, Dent J. et al . A critical review of the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus: the AGA Chicago Workshop.  Gastroenterology. 2004;  127 310-330
• 3 Wang K K, Sampliner R E. Updated guidelines 2008 for the diagnosis, surveillance and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;  103 788-797
• 4 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
• 5 Alexander J A, Jones S M, Smith C J. et al . Usefulness of cytopathology and histology in the evaluation of Barrett’s esophagus in a community hospital.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;  46 318-320
• 6 Geisinger K R, Teot L A, Richter J E. A comparative cytopathologic and histologic study of atypia, dysplasia, and adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus.  Cancer. 1992;  69 8-16
• 7 Hardwick R H, Morgan R J, Warren B F. et al . Brush cytology in the diagnosis of neoplasia in Barrett’s esophagus.  Dis Esophagus. 1997;  10 233-237
• 8 Robey S S, Hamilton S R, Gupta P K, Erozan Y S. Diagnostic value of cytopathology in Barrett esophagus and associated carcinoma.  Am J Clin Pathol. 1988;  89 493-498
• 9 Saad R S, Mahood L K, Clary K M. et al . Role of cytology in the diagnosis of Barrett’s esophagus and associated neoplasia.  Diagn Cytopathol. 2003;  29 130-135
• 10 Wang H H, Doria Jr. M I, Purohit-Buch S. et al . Barrett’s esophagus. The cytology of dysplasia in comparison to benign and malignant lesions.  Acta Cytol. 1992;  36 60-64
• 11 Wang H H, Jonasson J G, Ducatman B S. Brushing cytology of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Obsolete or not?.  Acta Cytol. 1991;  35 195-198
• 12 Wang H H, Sovie S, Zeroogian J M. et al . Value of cytology in detecting intestinal metaplasia and associated dysplasia at the gastroesophageal junction.  Hum Pathol. 1997;  28 465-471
• 13 Fritcher E G, Brankley S M, Kipp B R. et al . A comparison of conventional cytology, DNA ploidy analysis, and fluorescence in situ hybridization for the detection of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett’s esophagus.  Hum Pathol. 2008;  39 1128-1135
• 14 Falk G W. Cytology in Barrett’s esophagus.  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2003;  13 335-348
• 15 Falk G W, Chittajallu R, Goldblum J R. et al . Surveillance of patients with Barrett’s esophagus for dysplasia and cancer with balloon cytology.  Gastroenterology. 1997;  112 1787-1797
• 16 Kariv R, Plesec T P, Goldblum J R. et al . The Seattle protocol does not more reliably predict the detection of cancer at the time of esophagectomy than a less intensive surveillance protocol.  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;  7 653-658
• 17 Montgomery E, Bronner M P, Goldblum J R. et al . Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus: a reaffirmation.  Hum Pathol. 2001;  32 368-378
• 18 Petras R E, Sivak Jr. M V, Rice T W. Barrett’s esophagus. A review of the pathologist’s role in diagnosis and management.  Pathol Annu. 1991;  26 Pt 2 1-32
• 19 Reid B J, Weinstein W M, Lewin K J. et al . Endoscopic biopsy can detect high-grade dysplasia or early adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus without grossly recognizable neoplastic lesions.  Gastroenterology. 1988;  94 81-90
• 20 Liu H, Wu T. Estimating the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve for repeated measures design.  J Stat Softw. 2003;  8 1-18
• 21 Mandal A, Playford R J, Wicks A C. Current practice in surveillance strategy for patients with Barrett’s oesophagus in the UK.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003;  17 1319-1324
• 22 Goldblum J R, Lauwers G Y. Dysplasia arising in barrett’s esophagus: diagnostic pitfalls and natural history.  Semin Diagn Pathol. 2002;  19 12-19
• 23 Kerkhof M, van Dekken H, Steyerberg E W. et al . Grading of dysplasia in Barrett’s oesophagus: substantial interobserver variation between general and gastrointestinal pathologists.  Histopathology. 2007;  50 920-927
• 24 Reid B J, Haggitt R C, Rubin C E. et al . Observer variation in the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus.  Hum Pathol. 1988;  19 166-178
• 25 Dulai G S, Shekelle P G, Jensen D M. et al . Dysplasia and risk of further neoplastic progression in a regional Veterans Administration Barrett’s cohort.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;  100 775-783
• 26 Lim C H, Treanor D, Dixon M F, Axon A T. Low-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus has a high risk of progression.  Endoscopy. 2007;  39 581-587
• 27 Skacel M, Petras R E, Gramlich T L. et al . The diagnosis of low-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus and its implications for disease progression.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2000;  95 3383-3387
• 28 Skacel M, Petras R E, Rybicki L A. et al . p53 expression in low grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: correlation with interobserver agreement and disease progression.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;  97 2508-2513
• 29 Wani S, Puli S R, Shaheen N J. et al . Esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus after endoscopic ablative therapy: a meta-analysis and systematic review.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;  104 502-513
• 30 Rossi E, Villanacci V, Bassotti G. et al . Her-2/neu in barrett esophagus: a comparative study between histology, immunohistochemistry, and fluorescence in situ hybridization.  Diagn Mol Pathol. 2006;  15 125-130
• 31 Cestari R, Villanacci V, Rossi E. et al . Fluorescence in situ hybridization to evaluate dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: a pilot study.  Cancer Lett. 2007;  251 278-287
• 32 Brien T P, Odze R D, Sheehan C E. et al . HER-2/neu gene amplification by FISH predicts poor survival in Barrett’s esophagus-associated adenocarcinoma.  Hum Pathol. 2000;  31 35-39
• 33 Fahmy M, Skacel M, Gramlich T L. et al . Chromosomal gains and genomic loss of p53 and p16 genes in Barrett’s esophagus detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization of cytology specimens.  Mod Pathol. 2004;  17 588-596
• 34 Falk G W, Skacel M, Gramlich T L. et al . Fluorescence in situ hybridization of cytologic specimens from Barrett’s esophagus: a pilot feasibility study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  60 280-284
• 35 Krishnadath K K, Tilanus H W, Alers J C. et al . Detection of genetic changes in Barrett’s adenocarcinoma and Barrett’s esophagus by DNA in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry.  Cytometry. 1994;  15 176-184
• 36 Rygiel A M, van Baal J W, Milano F. et al . Efficient automated assessment of genetic abnormalities detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization on brush cytology in a Barrett esophagus surveillance population.  Cancer. 2007;  109 1980-1988
• 37 Brankley S M, Wang K K, Harwood A R. et al . The development of a fluorescence in situ hybridization assay for the detection of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus.  J Mol Diagn. 2006;  8 260-267
• 38 Prasad G A, Wang K K, Halling K C. et al . Utility of biomarkers in prediction of response to ablative therapy in Barrett’s esophagus.  Gastroenterology. 2008;  135 370-379
• 39 Borovicka J, Schonegg R, Hell M. et al . 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?.  Endoscopy. 2009;  41 409-414
• 40 Huang Q, Yu C, Zhang X, Goyal R K. Comparison of DNA histograms by standard flow cytometry and image cytometry on sections in Barrett’s adenocarcinoma.  BMC Clin Pathol. 2008;  8 5
• 41 Lin X, Finkelstein S D, Zhu B. et al . Loss of heterozygosities in Barrett esophagus, dysplasia, and adenocarcinoma detected by esophageal brushing cytology and gastroesophageal biopsy.  Cancer Cytopathol. 2009;  117 57-66
• 42 Rygiel A M, Milano F, Ten Kate F J. et al . Assessment of chromosomal gains as compared to DNA content changes is more useful to detect dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus brush cytology specimens.  Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 2008;  47 396-404
• 43 Tomizawa Y, Wang K K. Changes in screening, prognosis and therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus.  Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2009;  25 358-365