Value of cytology in detecting intestinal metaplasia and associated dysplasia at the gastroesophageal junction.
ABSTRACT Tissue sampling is essential for detecting intestinal metaplasia in the distal esophagus (Barrett's esophagus), because symptoms and endoscopy are not reliable in making this diagnosis. The utility of cytology in this process is unknown. All adult patients having elective upper gastrointestinal endoscopy over a 6-month period were invited to participate in a prospective study whose aim was to determine the prevalence of intestinal metaplasia in the distal esophagus in an adult population with diverse upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Clinical data and endoscopic findings were recorded. Brush cytology and biopsy specimens were obtained from both sides of the apparent squamocolumnar junction. The cytology specimens were processed routinely, stained with the Papanicolaou technique, and reviewed blinded to the clinical information and the histological findings in the corresponding biopsy specimens. One hundred fifty-five patients (81 women, 74 men; 137 whites, 11 blacks, 7 others; mean age, 52 years) were included. Glandular epithelium/cells were present on both histology and cytology in 147 specimens. Thirty-two patients (22%) showed intestinal metaplasia on histology. Of the cytology specimens from these 32 patients, 6 contained definite goblet cells (19%), 7 probable goblet cells, and 19 no goblet cells. Goblet cells and probable goblet cells were observed on cytology in 7 and 11 additional specimens, respectively. One was from a patient known to have intestinal metaplasia in the esophagus. Follow-up endoscopy with biopsy was performed in two of these latter 18 patients and did not show intestinal metaplasia. One case of high-grade dysplasia, two of low-grade dysplasia, and three indefinite for dysplasia were diagnosed on histology. All three cases of dysplasia were also identified on cytology. The three indefinite cases on histology were considered reactive in two and unremarkable in one on cytology. Low-grade dysplasia was diagnosed on cytology alone on two cases. Follow-up endoscopy with biopsy was performed in one patient, and low-grade dysplasia was found. Cytology using the Papanicolaou stain is not as sensitive and specific as histology for detecting intestinal metaplasia in the distal esophagus. However, it may be at least as useful as tissue sampling in detecting dysplasia.
SourceAvailable from: dare.uva.nl
Article: Cytology in Barrett's esophagusDiagnostic Cytopathology 11/1998; 19(5):401 - 402. DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0339(199811)19:5<401::AID-DC22>3.0.CO;2-5 · 1.52 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: We studied 327 consecutive paired esophageal biopsies and brushing specimens obtained during the same endoscopic session to evaluate the role of cytology for the diagnosis of Barrett's esophagus (BE) and/or surveillance for associated dysplasia. A diagnosis of BE was based on the cytologic presence of goblet cells. Cases were reviewed and categorized into: 1) benign esophageal lesions (125 cases), with 48 cases of Candida (32 cases diagnosed by both techniques and 16 diagnosed only by cytology), 3 cases of herpes simplex with only 1 case diagnosed by cytology, and 74 cases of inflammation and/or repair; 2) benign BE (141 cases), with 74 cases (52%) diagnosed by both techniques, 11 cases by cytology only (8%), and 56 cases (40%) by histology only; 3) low-grade dysplasia (LGD, 30 cases), with 5 cases (17%) diagnosed with both specimens, one case (3%) by cytology only, and 24 cases (80%) by histology only; 4) high-grade dysplasia (HGD, 10 cases), with 8 cases (80%) diagnosed with both specimens, 1 case (10%) by cytology, and 1 case (10%) by histology; and 5) carcinomas (23 cases), with 20 cases (87%) diagnosed with both specimens, 2 cases (9%) by cytology only, and 1 case (4%) by histology only. Our results support the high degree of diagnostic accuracy of cytology for the diagnosis of Barrett's-associated HGD and/or carcinoma, and moderate sensitivity for BE. Diagn. Cytopathol. 2003;29:130–135. © 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.Diagnostic Cytopathology 09/2003; 29(3):130 - 135. DOI:10.1002/dc.10334 · 1.52 Impact Factor