Publication

Benefit of baseline cytometry for surveillance of patients with Barrett's esophagus

Journal Paper/Review - Dec 8, 2009

Units
PubMed
Doi

Citation
Vogt N, Schönegg R, Gschossmann J, Borovicka J. Benefit of baseline cytometry for surveillance of patients with Barrett's esophagus. Surgical endoscopy 2009
Type
Journal Paper/Review (English)
Journal
Surgical endoscopy 2009
Publication Date
Dec 8, 2009
Issn Electronic
1432-2218
Brief description/objective

BACKGROUND: The current gold standard for the surveillance of Barrett's esophagus is the Seattle four-quadrant biopsies protocol (4-QB). Using endoscopic brush cytology, this study prospectively investigated whether digital image cytometry (DICM) is of additional benefit over regular histology as a predictor for progression to high-grade dysplasia or cancer during a surveillance of at least 3 years. METHODS: The prospective cohort in this study included 93 patients (72% male) with Barrett's esophagus, baseline endoscopies, and at least one DICM in addition to 4-QB who had been followed up a minimum of 3 years at the time of analysis. High-grade dysplasia (HGD) and adenocarcinoma were defined as primary end points. The DICM was performed on Feulgen-restained cytology smears with a continuous collision detection (CCD) three-chip color video camera (Sony) and an AutoCyte QUIC DNA workstation. RESULTS: Of the 93 patients, 11 presented with the diagnosis of HGD and adenocarcinoma at baseline endoscopy. The remaining 82 patients were analyzed after a median follow-up time of 44 months (range, 36-65 months). Of these 82 patients, 9 (11%) had low-grade dysplasia (LGD) at baseline histology: One of two patients with LGD and aneuploid DICM showed HGD at follow-up assessment, whereas none of seven patients with LGD and diploid DICM had development of HGD. Of the 82 patients, 73 (89%) had either specialized intestinal metaplasia (SIM) without dyplasia or indefinite findings for dysplasia at baseline histology. Of the eight patients with SIM and intermediate/aneuploid DICM, two had development of HGD. None of those with negative or indefinite findings for dysplasia and diploid DICM had HGD at the follow-up evaluation. In summary, the three patients who had development of HGD showed a pathologic DICM at baseline, and no patient with diploid DICM had HGD. CONCLUSIONS: Cytometry from brush cytology as an add-on to histology appears to be of additional benefit during surveillance of Barrett's esophagus. Whereas an aneuploid/intermediate DICM warrants an early re-endoscopy, a diploid DICM underscores the low-risk status especially of patients with low-grade dysplasia.