Download PDF
Endoscopy 2007; 39(9): 772-778
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-966737
Original article

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Predicting presence of intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia in columnar-lined esophagus: a multivariate analysis

M.  Kerkhof1 , E.  W.  Steyerberg2 , J.  G.  Kusters1 , E.  J.  Kuipers1 , P.  D. Siersema1
  • 1Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  • 2Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Further Information

Publication History

submitted 30 December 2006

accepted after revision 24 April 2007

Publication Date:
17 August 2007 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

See also:

Commentaire de travail de M. Kerkhof et al., pp. 772Endoscopy 2007; 39(09): 930-930
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1308865

Background and study aims: In patients with presumed Barrett esophagus we evaluated clinical risk factors that could predict the presence of intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia in biopsies of columnar-lined esophagus (CLE), independently of histological results.

Patients and methods: In 908 patients with CLE of length ≥ 2 cm, data on age, sex, reflux symptoms, tobacco and alcohol use, medication use, and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy findings were prospectively collected. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed, and a model for predicting the histological results was developed.

Results: In 127/908 patients, biopsies of CLE did not contain intestinal metaplasia. Of the 781 patients with intestinal metaplasia, 663 patients (85 %) had no dysplasia, and 118 (15 %) had low grade dysplasia (LGD). The most important predictors for the presence of intestinal metaplasia were length of CLE, size of hiatal hernia, and male sex, while among those with intestinal metaplasia, age and male sex were most important for the presence of LGD. Multivariate combinations of these predictors yielded reliable models, which were able to discriminate intestinal metaplasia well from no intestinal metaplasia (area under receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve 0.82), but only reasonably discriminated LGD from no dysplasia (area under ROC 0.65).

Conclusions: A simple model based on clinical findings can be used to predict the presence of intestinal metaplasia in biopsies from CLE. In contrast, predicting the presence of LGD versus no dysplasia in intestinal metaplasia is more difficult. Predictions from these models may aid decision making on whether a patient with CLE should have surveillance, in view of the known sampling error at endoscopy and interobserver variability at histology.

References

  • 1 Avidan B, Sonnenberg A, Schnell T G. et al . Hiatal hernia and acid reflux frequency predict presence and length of Barrett’s esophagus.  Dig Dis Sci. 2002;  47 256-264
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Guillem P G. How to make a Barrett esophagus: pathophysiology of columnar metaplasia of the esophagus.  Dig Dis Sci. 2005;  50 415-424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Paull A, Trier J S, Dalton M D. et al . The histologic spectrum of Barrett’s esophagus.  N Engl J Med. 1976;  295 476-480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Chandrasoma P T, Lokuhetty D M, Demeester T R. et al . Definition of histopathologic changes in gastroesophageal reflux disease.  Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;  24 344-351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Falk G W. Barrett’s esophagus.  Gastroenterology. 2002;  122 1569-1591
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hamilton S R, Smith R R. The relationship between columnar epithelial dysplasia and invasive adenocarcinoma arising in Barrett’s esophagus.  Am J Clin Pathol. 1987;  87 301-312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sampliner R E. Updated guidelines for the diagnosis, surveillance, and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;  97 1888-1895
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Oberg S, Johansson J, Wenner J. et al . Endoscopic surveillance of columnar-lined esophagus: frequency of intestinal metaplasia detection and impact of antireflux surgery.  Ann Surg. 2001;  234 619-626
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kerkhof M, Bax D A, Moons L MG. et al . CDX2 expression predicts Barrett’s metaplasia in oesophageal columnar epithelium without goblet cells.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2006;  24 1613-1621
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Campos G M, DeMeester S R, Peters J H. et al . Predictive factors of Barrett esophagus: multivariate analysis of 502 patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease.  Arch Surg. 2001;  136 1267-1273
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Cameron A J. Barrett’s esophagus: prevalence and size of hiatal hernia.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;  94 2054-2059
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Conio M, Filiberti R, Blanchi S. et al . Risk factors for Barrett’s esophagus: a case-control study.  Int J Cancer. 2002;  97 225-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Aste H, Bonelli L, Ferraris R. et al . Gastroesophageal reflux disease: relationship between clinical and histological features. GOSPE. Gruppo Operativo per lo Studio delle Precancerosi dell’Esofago.  Dig Dis Sci. 1999;  44 2412-2418
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Haggitt R C. Barrett’s esophagus, dysplasia, and adenocarcinoma.  Hum Pathol. 1994;  25 982-993
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hameeteman W, Tytgat G N, Houthoff H J. et al . Barrett’s esophagus: development of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma.  Gastroenterology. 1989;  96 1249-1256
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Buttar N S, Wang K K. Mechanisms of disease: carcinogenesis in Barrett’s esophagus.  Nat Clin Pract Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;  1 106-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Hage M, Siersema P D, van Dekken H. et al . Oesophageal cancer incidence and mortality in patients with long-segment Barrett’s oesophagus after a mean follow-up of 12.7 years.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 2004;  39 1175-1179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Mashimo H, Wagh M S, Goyal R K. Surveillance and screening for Barrett esophagus and adenocarcinoma.  J Clin Gastroenterol. 2005;  39 S33-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kerkhof M, van Dekken H, Steyerberg E W. et al . Grading of dysplasia in Barrett’s oesophagus: substantial interobserver variation between general and gastrointestinal pathologists.  Histopathology. 2007;  50 920-927
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Montgomery E, Bronner M P, Goldblum J R. et al . Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus: a reaffirmation.  Hum Pathol. 2001;  32 368-378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Gopal D V, Lieberman D A, Magaret N. et al . Risk factors for dysplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus (BE): results from a multicenter consortium.  Dig Dis Sci. 2003;  48 1537-1541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Avidan B, Sonnenberg A, Schnell T G. et al . Hiatal hernia size, Barrett’s length, and severity of acid reflux are all risk factors for esophageal adenocarcinoma.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;  97 1930-1936
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Rath H C, Timmer A, Kunkel C. et al . Comparison of interobserver agreement for different scoring systems for reflux esophagitis: impact of level of experience.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  60 44-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Sharma P, McQuaid K, Dent J. et al . A critical review of the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s esophagus: the AGA Chicago Workshop.  Gastroenterology. 2004;  127 310-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Reid B J, Haggitt R C, Rubin C E. et al . Observer variation in the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus.  Hum Pathol. 1988;  19 166-178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Steyerberg E W, Eijkemans M J, Harrell Jr F E. et al. Prognostic modelling with logistic regression analysis: a comparison of selection and estimation methods in small data sets.  Stat Med. 2000;  19 1059-1079
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Nagelkerke N JD. A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination.  Biometrika. 1991;  78 691-692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Harrell F E. Regression modeling strategies: with applications to linear models, logistic regression, and survival analysis.  New York:. Springer;  2001 xxii, 568
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Steyerberg E W, Harrell Jr F E, Borsboom G J. et al . Internal validation of predictive models: efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;  54 774-781
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Dickman R, Green C, Chey W D. et al . Clinical predictors of Barrett’s esophagus length.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;  62 675-681
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 de Jonge P J, Steyerberg E W, Kuipers E J. et al . Risk factors for the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;  101 1421-1429
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Stein D J, El-Serag H B, Kuczynski J. et al . The association of body mass index with Barrett’s oesophagus.  Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;  22 1005-1010
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Lagergren J, Bergstrom R, Nyren O. Association between body mass and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and gastric cardia.  Ann Intern Med. 1999;  130 883-890
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Chow W H, Blot W J, Vaughan T L. et al . Body mass index and risk of adenocarcinomas of the esophagus and gastric cardia.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;  90 150-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Bu X, Ma Y, Der R. et al . Body mass index is associated with Barrett esophagus and cardiac mucosal metaplasia.  Dig Dis Sci. 2006;  51 1589-1594
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Provenzale D, Schmitt C, Wong J B. Barrett’s esophagus: a new look at surveillance based on emerging estimates of cancer risk.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;  94 2043-2053
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Shaheen N J, Provenzale D, Sandler R S. Upper endoscopy as a screening and surveillance tool in esophageal adenocarcinoma: a review of the evidence.  Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;  97 1319-1327
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Rudolph R E, Vaughan T L, Storer B E. et al . Effect of segment length on risk for neoplastic progression in patients with Barrett esophagus.  Ann Intern Med. 2000;  132 612-620
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Guda N M, Partington S, Vakil N. Inter- and intra-observer variability in the measurement of length at endoscopy: Implications for the measurement of Barrett’s esophagus.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  59 655-658
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

M. Kerkhof, MD

Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Erasmus MC - University Medical Center Rotterdam

PO Box 2040

3000 CA Rotterdam

The Netherlands

Fax: +31-10-4634682

Email: m.kerkhof@erasmusmc.nl

      >