Article

Utilization of cytokeratins 7 and 20 does not differentiate between Barrett's esophagus and gastric cardiac intestinal metaplasia.

Department of Pathology and Molecular Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Modern Pathology (Impact Factor: 6.36). 06/2002; 15(6):611-6. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.3880574
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Long segment Barrett's esophagus (LSBE) is a recognized risk factor for the development of esophageal dysplasia and carcinoma. However, the risk of dysplasia arising within intestinal metaplasia below a normal-appearing Z-line (i.e., in native cardiac mucosa) is unknown. Regular endoscopic surveillance is required in patients with LSBE and is frequently performed in short segment BE (SSBE), but the need for surveillance in cardiac intestinal metaplasia (CIM) is unknown. Unfortunately IM arising in SSBE and immediately below a normal Z-line can be indistinguishable histologically on H&E stains. Previous reports suggest that the appearance of superficial CK20 immunohistochemical staining accompanied by intermediate and deep CK7 positivity is characteristic of BE, whereas CIM specimens show superficial and deep CK20 positivity and weak to absent CK7 staining. We hypothesized that CK7/20 immunostaining of metaplastic biopsies from the esophagus and stomach would allow complete differentiation of these two entities when correlated with the endoscopic appearance. We undertook an evaluation of gastric and esophageal specimens to determine whether these characteristics were valid. Cases of both BE (long and short segment) and CIM, as well as cases of gastric cardiac biopsies lacking IM, were evaluated for CK7 and CK20 and correlated with the endoscopic appearance. We observed that, although the "Barrett's" pattern of CK7/20 was maintained for many cases of BE, the sensitivity and specificity were only moderate (65% and 56%, respectively). The pattern of staining for the CIM was variable, i.e., some cases showed a CK7/20 Barrett's pattern despite a normal appearance at endoscopy. The differences between this and previous studies may be due to inaccurate visualization of SSBE on endoscopy, the development of very early SSBE cases, inter-observer variability, fixation differences, or antibody differences. Whatever the cause of the differences, if results between laboratories are not comparable, CK7/20 immunostaining cannot be used to differentiate reliably between IM present in biopsy specimens taken from above versus below the Z-line. However, further studies should be performed to determine whether the presence or absence of a Barrett's pattern of CK7/20 immunostaining could predict progression to dysplasia or carcinoma.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
75 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 2,4–4 % [36, 86]. Поэтому проблема дифференциальной диагностики ПБ и мониторинга этих больных – одна из актуаль-ных не только в эндоскопии, но и в онкологии. Неопластическая прогрессия ПБ характеризу-ется последовательным нарастанием степени дисплазии эпителия и, далее, аденокарциномы пищевода (АК). Частота развития АК на фоне ПБ в последнее десятилетие неуклонно на-растает, составляя, по данным литературы, 0,5–5 % пациентов с ПБ в год [43]. В то же время четкие критерии ПБ пока не сформулированы. Согласно принятому в 2004 г. рабочей группой по классификации эзофагитов (подгруппа Барретта) соглашению, к ПБ следует относить только специализированную неполную кишеч-ную метаплазию плоского эпителия пищевода, расположенную выше кардиоэзофагеального перехода [80]. Однако в рутинной клинической практике за ПБ нередко принимают полную Российский онкологический научный центр им. Н.Н. Блохина РАМН, г. Москва В обзоре систематизированы данные литературы, касающиеся маркеров кишечной и желудочной метаплазии в уточ-няющей дифференциальной диагностике пищевода Барретта (ПБ): MUC1 – MUC6, TFF1/TFF2, цитокератинов СK7, 8, 3, 18, 19, 20, Her-2-Neu, циклооксигеназы-2, VEGF, транскрипционного фактора CDX2. Представлен критический анализ значимости потенциальных маркеров неопластической прогрессии ПБ: Ki67, генов-супрессоров опухоли p53, APC, CDKN2 (p16), некоторых циклинов и циклин-зависимых киназ (CDK), про-и антиапоптотических генов (BCL2, BAX, BCL-XL), онкогенов c-k-ras, c-myb, c-myc, молекул клеточной адгезии, факторов роста, хромосомных аберраций. Ключевые слова: пищевод Барретта, молекулярные маркеры, неопластическая прогрессия. The review systematizes data concerning markers of intestinal and gastric metaplasias (MUC1-MUC6, TFF1/TFF2, cytokeratins CK7, 8, 3, 18, 19, 20, Her-2-Neu, cyclooxigenase-2, VEGF, transcription factor CDX2) in differentiated diagnosis of Barrett's eso-phagus (BE). Critical analysis of markers of BE neoplastic progression (Ki67, genes-tumor suppressors p53, APC, CDKN2 (p16), some cyclins and cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK), pro-and antiapoptotic genes BCL2, BAX, BCL-XL, oncogenes c-k-ras, c-myb, c-myc, cell adhesion molecules, growth factors and chromosome aberrations) has been presented.
  • Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology: AIMM / official publication of the Society for Applied Immunohistochemistry 01/2004; DOI:10.1097/00129039-200406000-00008 · 2.06 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma and associated mortality has risen dramatically over the past several decades and, thus, it is increasingly important to understand its pathogenesis and risk factors. Barrett esophagus is the established precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma that progresses through a metaplasia-dysplasia-carcinoma sequence. Its risk of transforming to carcinoma is not as high as previously reported and there appears to be biological heterogeneity among patients with this disease. The overall prevalence of Barrett esophagus in the United States ranges from 1-25% and is closer to 5% in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Because of the frequency of Barrett esophagus and associated implications, it is important for the practicing pathologist to have a thorough understanding of this disease and its diagnostic pitfalls. In this review, we will discuss issues associated with the diagnosis of Barrett esophagus, including the definition of Barrett esophagus and its distinction from carditis with intestinal metaplasia. We will also discuss challenges in the grading of dysplasia and new variants of dysplasia, including crypt dysplasia and foveolar type dysplasia. Finally, we will touch upon the evaluation of dysplasia in endoscopic mucosal resection specimens.
    Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology 03/2014; DOI:10.1053/j.semdp.2014.02.005 · 1.80 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
41 Downloads
Available from
Jun 2, 2014