Clinical outcomes in patients with a diagnosis of “indefinite for dysplasia” in Barrett’s esophagus: a multicenter cohort study

Background and study aim: Data are limited on the natural history of patients with Barrett’s esophagus with a diagnosis of “indefinite for dysplasia” (IND). The aims of this study were to: (i) determine rates of progression to high grade dysplasia (HGD) or esophageal adenocarcinoma, and compare these with rates for low grade dysplasia (LGD); and (ii) determine the proportion of patients whose histological IND diagnosis changed on follow-up endoscopy.

Patients and methods: Demographic, endoscopic, and histologic information of patients with diagnoses of IND and LGD and at least 12 months of follow-up were extracted from the database of a multicenter Barrett’s esophagus study. Rates and times for progression to HGD and esophageal adenocarcinoma and regression to nondysplastic epithelium were calculated. Proportions of diagnoses upgraded to HGD/esophageal adenocarcinoma or downgraded to nondysplastic epithelium at first follow-up endoscopy were evaluated.

Results: Amongst 2264 patients, 83 with a diagnosis of IND (mean age 60 years, 95 % men, 95 % white; mean follow-up 5.6 years) and 79 with diagnosis of LGD were identified. In the IND group, annual incidences of esophageal adenocarcinoma and HGD were 0.21 % and 0.64 %, respectively, representing a combined incidence of 0.8 %. Mean time to progression was 4.72 years. Within the IND group 55 % patients showed regression to nondysplastic epithelium at first follow-up endoscopy and the overall regression rate was 80 %. Corresponding rates in LGD patients were similar.

Conclusions: Lesions diagnosed as IND and LGD show similar biological behavior and can be treated as a single category with respect to surveillance and follow-up.

• References

• 1 Pohl H, Welch HG. The role of overdiagnosis and reclassification in the marked increase of esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 142-146
• 2 Sharma P. Clinical practice. Barrett’s esophagus. NEJM 2009; 361: 2548-2556
• 3 Skinner DB, Walther BC, Riddell RH et al. Barrett’s esophagus. Comparison of benign and malignant cases. Ann Surg 1983; 198: 554-565
• 4 Smith RR, Hamilton SR, Boitnott JK et al. The spectrum of carcinoma arising in Barrett’s esophagus. A clinicopathologic study of 26 patients. Am J Surg Pathol 1984; 8: 563-573
• 5 Hamilton SR, Smith RR. The relationship between columnar epithelial dysplasia and invasive adenocarcinoma arising in Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Clin Pathol 1987; 87: 301-312
• 6 Schlemper RJ, Riddell RH, Kato Y et al. The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. Gut 2000; 47: 251-255
• 7 Wani S, Mathur S, Sharma P. How to manage a Barrett’s esophagus patient with low grade dysplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 27-32
• 8 Wang KK, Sampliner RE. Updated guidelines 2008 for the diagnosis, surveillance and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2008; 103: 788-797
• 9 Riddell RH, Goldman H, Ransohoff DF et al. Dysplasia in inflammatory bowel disease: standardized classification with provisional clinical applications. Hum Pathol 1983; 14: 931-968
• 10 Reid BJ, Haggitt RC, Rubin CE et al. Observer variation in the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. Hum Pathol 1988; 19: 166-178
• 11 Odze RD. Update on the diagnosis and treatment of Barrett esophagus and related neoplastic precursor lesions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2008; 132: 1577-1585
• 12 Kaye PV, Haider SA, Ilyas M et al. Barrett’s dysplasia and the Vienna classification: reproducibility, prediction of progression and impact of consensus reporting and p53 immunohistochemistry. Histopathology 2009; 54: 699-712
• 13 Wani S, Falk GW, Post J et al. Risk factors for progression of low grade dysplasia in patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2011; 141: 1179-1186, 1186 e1171
• 14 Rastogi A, Puli S, El-Serag HB et al. Incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with Barrett’s esophagus and high grade dysplasia: a meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 394-398
• 15 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
• 16 Wani S, Mathur SC, Curvers WL et al. Greater interobserver agreement by endoscopic mucosal resection than biopsy samples in Barrett’s dysplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 783-788
• 17 Singh S, Manickam P, Amin AV et al. Incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s esophagus with low grade dysplasia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 897-909.e894
• 18 Spechler SJ, Sharma P, Souza RF et al. American Gastroenterological Association medical position statement on the management of Barrett’s esophagus. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 1084-1091
• 19 Younes M, Lauwers GY, Ertan A et al. The significance of “indefinite for dysplasia” grading in Barrett metaplasia. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2011; 135: 430-432
• 20 Montgomery E, Goldblum JR, Greenson JK et al. Dysplasia as a predictive marker for invasive carcinoma in Barrett esophagus: a follow-up study based on 138 cases from a diagnostic variability study. Hum Pathol 2001; 32: 379-388
• 21 Schnell TG, Sontag SJ, Chejfec G et al. Long-term nonsurgical management of Barrett’s esophagus with high grade dysplasia. Gastroenterology 2001; 120: 1607-1619
• 22 Conio M, Blanchi S, Lapertosa G et al. Long-term endoscopic surveillance of patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Incidence of dysplasia and adenocarcinoma: a prospective study. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 1931-1939
• 23 Sharma P, Falk GW, Weston AP et al. Dysplasia and cancer in a large multicenter cohort of patients with Barrett’s esophagus. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 4: 566-572
• 24 Curvers WL, ten Kate FJ, Krishnadath KK et al. Low grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: overdiagnosed and underestimated. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1523-1530
• 25 Montgomery E, Bronner MP, Goldblum JR et al. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus: a reaffirmation. Hum Pathol 2001; 32: 368-378
• 26 Skacel M, Petras RE, Gramlich TL et al. The diagnosis of low grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus and its implications for disease progression. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 3383-3387
• 27 O’Connor JB, Falk GW, Richter JE. The incidence of adenocarcinoma and dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus: report on the Cleveland Clinic Barrett’s Esophagus Registry. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94: 2037-2042
• 28 Weston AP, Banerjee SK, Sharma P et al. p53 protein overexpression in low grade dysplasia (LGD) in Barrett’s esophagus: immunohistochemical marker predictive of progression. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 1355-1362
• 29 Phoa KN, van Vilsteren FG, Weusten BL et al. Radiofrequency ablation vs endoscopic surveillance for patients with Barrett esophagus and low grade dysplasia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014; 311: 1209-1217
• 30 Wani S. Management of low grade dysplasia in Barrett’s esophagus. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2012; 28: 370-376
• 31 Sonwalkar SA, Rotimi O, Scott N et al. A study of indefinite for dysplasia in Barrett’s oesophagus: reproducibility of diagnosis, clinical outcomes and predicting progression with AMACR (alpha-methylacyl-CoA-racemase). Histopathology 2010; 56: 900-907
• 32 Odze RD. In Reply. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009; 133: 1909-1910
• 33 Palermo G. Questions on the significance of "indefinite for dysplasia" in Barrett metaplasia. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2012; 136: 588 ; author reply 588–589