Background and study aims: The current internationally accepted gold standard for diagnosing celiac disease is a small-bowel biopsy demonstrating villous atrophy. However, it has been suggested that the diagnosis might not be considered as confirmed if the villous atrophy is patchy. Our aim was to assess whether there is an optimal duodenal biopsy strategy for detecting villous atrophy in adult patients with suspected gluten-sensitive enteropathy.
Patients and methods: Patients who had positive endomysial or tissue transglutaminase antibodies were prospectively recruited. Nine biopsies were taken from the duodenum: one from the duodenal bulb, four from the proximal duodenum, and four from the distal duodenum. Each biopsy was graded according to the Marsh criteria. All possible biopsy regimes were evaluated for their ability to detect the presence and severity of villous atrophy.
Results: A total of 56 patients were recruited (23 men [41 %], 33 women [59 %]; mean age 47, range 16 - 85): 53/56 patients had villous atrophy present in at least one biopsy; 10/53 patients had biopsy specimens that showed ”patchy” villous atrophy. In all 53 patients with villous atrophy this was detected by taking a minimum of three biopsies (sensitivity 100 %, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 93.2 % - 100 %). However, this strategy always incorporated a duodenal bulb biopsy. The most severe degree of villous atrophy in all 56 patients was only detected by using a five-biopsy regime (sensitivity 100 %, 95 % CI 93.6 % - 100 %).
Conclusions: In this study we observed that villous atrophy in adult patients with suspected gluten-sensitive enteropathy (antibody-positive) is patchy. For this reason we would suggest a minimum of three biopsies, incorporating a duodenal bulb biopsy, to ensure that villous atrophy is detected. However, a five-biopsy regime is required for recognition of the most severe lesion.
References
1
Revised criteria for diagnosis of coeliac disease. Report of working group of European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition.
Arch Dis Child.
1990;
65
909-911
2
United European Gastroenterology. When is a coeliac a coeliac? Report of a working group of the United European Gastroenterology Week in Amsterdam, 2001.
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol.
2001;
13
1123-1128
3
National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement on Celiac Disease, June 28-30, 2004.
Gastroenterology.
2005;
128 (4 Suppl 1)
S1-S9
4
Achkar E, Carey W D, Petras R. et al .
Comparison of suction capsule and endoscopic biopsy of small bowel mucosa.
Gastrointest Endosc.
1986;
32
278-281
6
Mee A S, Burke M, Vallon A G. et al .
Small bowel biopsy for malabsorption: comparison of the diagnostic adequacy of endoscopic forceps and capsule biopsy specimens.
BMJ.
1985;
291
769-772
10
Brocchi E, Corazza G R, Brusco G. et al .
Unsuspected celiac disease diagnosed by endoscopic visualization of duodenal bulb micronodules.
Gastrointest Endosc.
1996;
44
610-611
12
Bonamico M, Mariani P, Thanasi E. et al .
Patchy villous atrophy of the duodenum in childhood celiac disease.
J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr.
2004;
38
204-207
13
Macdonald W C, Brandborg L L, Flick A L. et al .
Studies of celiac sprue IV: the response of the whole length of the small bowel to a gluten-free diet.
Gastroenterology.
1964;
47
573-589
14
Horoldt B S, McAlindon M E, Stephenson T J. et al .
Making the diagnosis of celiac disease: is there a role for push enteroscopy?.
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol.
2004;
16
1143-1146
15
Ravelli A, Bolognini S, Gambarotti M, Villanacci V.
Variability of histologic lesions in relation to biopsy site in gluten-sensitive enteropathy.
Am J Gastroenterol.
2005;
100
177-185
17
Oberhuber G, Granditsch G, Vogelsang H.
The histopathology of coeliac disease: time for a standardized report scheme for pathologists.
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol.
1999;
11
1185-1194
20 Nenna R, Thanasi E, Luparia R PL. et al .Duodenal bulb biopsies in celiac disease: a multicenter study. Proceedings of the XIIth International Celiac Disease Symposium; 2006 November 9 - 11; New York City, New York, USA. D-108 : 15.
21
Hopper A D, Cross S S, Hurlstone D P. et al .
Pre-endoscopy serological testing for coeliac disease: evaluation of a clinical decision tool.
BMJ.
2007;
334
729
23
Fasano A, Berti I, Gerarduzzi T. et al .
Prevalence of celiac disease in at-risk and not-at-risk groups in the United States: a large multicenter study.
Arch Intern Med.
2003;
163
286-292
24
Scott B B, Losowsky M S.
Patchiness and duodenal-jejunal variation of the mucosal abnormality in coeliac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis.
Gut.
1976;
17
984-992
26
Fine K D, Meyer R L, Lee E L.
The prevalence and causes of chronic diarrhea in patients with celiac sprue treated with a gluten-free diet.
Gastroenterology.
1997;
112
1830-1838
27
Bardella M T, Fredella C, Saladino V. et al .
Gluten intolerance: gender- and age-related differences in symptoms.
Scand J Gastroenterol.
2005;
40
15-19
29
Niveloni S, Fiorini A, Dezi R. et al .
Usefulness of videoduodenoscopy and vital dye staining as indicators of mucosal atrophy of celiac disease: assessment of interobserver agreement.
Gastrointest Endosc.
1998;
47
223-229
31
Bardella M T, Minoli G, Radaelli F. et al .
Reevaluation of duodenal endoscopic markers in the diagnosis of celiac disease.
Gastrointest Endosc.
2000;
51
714-716
33
Cammarota G, Cesaro P, La Mura R. et al .
Role of the ”immersion technique” in diagnosing celiac disease with villous atrophy limited to the duodenal bulb.
J Clin Gastroenterol.
2007;
41
571-575
34
Cammarota G, Cesaro P, Martino A. et al .
High accuracy and cost-effectiveness of a biopsy-avoiding endoscopic approach in diagnosing coeliac disease.
Aliment Pharmacol Ther.
2006;
23
61-69
35
Cammarota G, Cuoco L, Cesaro P. et al .
A highly accurate method for monitoring histological recovery in patients with celiac disease on a gluten-free diet using an endoscopic approach that avoids the need for biopsy: a double-center study.
Endoscopy.
2007;
39
46-51
