Download PDF
Endoscopy 2010; 42(10): 800-805
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1255710
Original article

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

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

A.  Kumaravel1 , R.  Lopez2 , J.  Brainard3 , G.  W.  Falk4
  • 1Department of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • 2Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • 3Department of Anatomic Pathology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
  • 4Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 11 February 2010

accepted after revision 18 June 2010

Publication Date:
06 September 2010 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

See also:

Commentaire de travail de A. Kumaravel et al., pp. 800Endoscopy 2010; 42(10): 883-883
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1291881

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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Falk G W. Cytology in Barrett’s esophagus.  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2003;  13 335-348
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar

G. W. FalkMD, MS 

Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania
Division of Gastroenterology

3400 Spruce Street
3 Ravdin
Philadelphia
PA 19104
USA

Fax: +1-215-349-5915

Email: gary.falk@uphs.upenn.edu