How Good is Zoom Endoscopy for Assessment of Villous Atrophy in Coeliac Disease?

Background and Study Aims: The advent of magnification endoscopy may allow the macroscopic detection of unrecognised villous atrophy in patients with unsuspected coeliac disease. In addition, it may also be possible to use this method to assess the degree of villous atrophy. The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of zoom endoscopy for the macroscopic evaluation of villous atrophy, in comparison with histological evaluation.
Patients and Methods: The zoom endoscope provided a magnification capability of × 115. A scoring system (Z score) was devised for grading the appearances of villous atrophy: “Z1” for normal mucosa, “Z2” for stunted villi, “Z3” for markedly stunted villi (with ridges and pits) and “Z4” for a flat mucosa. A total of 53 consecutive patients with treated coeliac disease were followed up over almost 2 years using the Olympus GIF-Q240Z zoom endoscope; a total of 80 procedures were carried out. Four biopsies from the second part of the duodenum were taken from each patient for histological assessment. Histological assessment of villous atrophy was made by a pathologist blinded to the Z score. The correlation between the Z score and the histological score was assessed using the weighted kappa method.
Results: The kappa score for the correlation between the macroscopic assessment of villous atrophy and the histology was 0.631, indicating fair to good reproducibility. Agresti’s method revealed a very strong baseline association between the two methods (P < 0.001). Zoom endoscopy had a positive predictive value of 83 % and a negative predictive value of 77 % in detecting villous atrophy.
Conclusions: Our findings suggest that zoom endoscopy may be valuable in assessing the degree of villous atrophy. However, further studies are needed to assess its efficacy in routine practice as a screening or case-finding tool.

References

• 1 Farrell R J, Kelly C P. Celiac sprue.  N Eng J Med. 2002;  346 180-188
• 2 Gregory C, Ashworth M, Eade O E. et al . Delay in diagnosis of adult coeliac disease.  Digestion. 1983;  28 201-204
• 3 Bodé S, Gudmand-Høyer E. Symptoms and haematologic features in consecutive adult celiac patients.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 1996;  31 54-60
• 4 Ciacci C, Maurelli L, Klain M. et al . Effects of dietary treatment on bone mineral density in adults with celiac disease: factors predicting response.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1997;  92 992-996
• 5 Ventura A, Magazzu G, Greco L. Duration of exposure to gluten and risk for autoimmune disorders in patients with celiac disease.  Gastroenterology. 1999;  117 297
• 6 Holmes G KT, Prior P, Lane M R. et al . Malignancy in celiac disease: effect of a gluten-free diet.  Gut. 1989;  30 333-338
• 7 Hin H, Bird G, Fisher P. et al . Celiac disease in primary care: case finding study.  BMJ. 1999;  318 164-167
• 8 Mein S M, Ladabau U. Serological testing for celiac disease in patients with symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome: a cost-effective analysis.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;  19 1199-1210
• 9 Lee S K, Lo W, Meneo L, Rotterdam H, Green P H. Duodenal histology in patients with celiac disease after treatment with a gluten free diet.  Gastroenterol Endosc. 2003;  57 187-191
• 10 Parnell N D, Cicliteria P J. Review article: celiac disease and its management.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1999;  13 1-13
• 11 MT B ardella, N M olteni, L P rampolini. et al . Need for follow up in celiac disease.  Arch Dis Child. 1994;  70 211-213
• 12 Acalovschi M, Jananthi V, Probert C S, Mayberry J F. Management of coeliac disease: a changing diagnostic approach but what value is follow up?.  Qual Health Care. 1992;  1 26-28
• 13 Connor M K, Sharma P. Chromoendoscopy and magnification endoscopy in Barrett’s esophagus.  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2003;  13 269-277
• 14 Toyoda H, Rubio C, Befrits R. et al . Detection of intestinal metaplasia in distal esophagus and esophagogastric junction by enhanced-magnification endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  59 15-21
• 15 Kudo S, Tamura S, Nakajima T. et al . Diagnosis of colorectal tumorous lesions by magnifying endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  44 8-14
• 16 Axelrod A M, Fleischer D E, Geller A J. et al . High-resolution chromoendoscopy for the diagnosis of diminutive colon polyps: implications for colon cancer screening.  Gastroenterology. 1996;  110 1253-1258
• 17 Hurlstone D P, Lobo A J. Assessing resection margins using high-magnification chromoscopy: a useful tool after colonic endoscopic mucosal resection.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;  97 2143-2144
• 18 Siegel L M, Stevens P D, Lightdale C J. et al . Combined magnification endoscopy with chromoendoscopy in the evaluation of patients with suspected malabsorption.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;  46 226-230
• 19 Kiesslich R, Mergener K, Naumann C. et al . Value of chromoendoscopy and magnification endoscopy in the evaluation of duodenal abnormalities: a prospective, randomised comparison.  Endoscopy. 2003;  35 559-563
• 20 Whitehead R. Mucosal biopsy of the gastrointestinal tract. London; W.B. Saunders Co. Ltd 1973: 84
• 21 Oberhuber G, Granditsch G, Vogelsang H. The histopathology of celiac disease: time for a standardized report scheme for pathologists.  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 1999;  11 1185-1194
• 22 Marsh M N. The natural history of gluten sensitivity: defining, refining and re-defining.  Q J Med. 1995;  85 9-13
• 23 Fleiss J L. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 3rd edn. New York; Wiley 2003
• 24 Agresti A. A model for agreement between two ratings on an ordinal scale.  Biometrics. 1988;  44 539-548
• 25 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