1 / 34

Barrett’s Esophagus Endoscopic Diagnosis

Barrett’s Esophagus Endoscopic Diagnosis. Alessandro Repici Dept of Gastroenterology Molinette Hospital, Torino. Historical notes. “peptic ulcer of the esophagus” with a close resemblance of the mucous membrane to that found in the stomach. 1906, Tileston.

melva
Download Presentation

Barrett’s Esophagus Endoscopic Diagnosis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Barrett’s EsophagusEndoscopic Diagnosis Alessandro Repici Dept of Gastroenterology Molinette Hospital, Torino

  2. Historical notes “peptic ulcer of the esophagus” with a close resemblance of the mucous membrane to that found in the stomach 1906, Tileston “The lower esophagus lined by columnar epithelium” (erroneously considered as congenital) 1957, Barrett “Columnar-lined oesophagus: an acquired lesion with malignant predisposition” 1975, Naef

  3. Barrett’s Esophagus: diagnostic issues Which length? Which metaplasia?

  4. 1998 A.C.G.: …”a change in the esophageal epithelium of any length that can be recognized at endoscopy and is confirmed to have intestinal metaplasia by biopsy” Presence of Goblet Cells becomes a “must”

  5. Histomorphological changes in Barrett‘s esophagus A: Damage to the superficial compartments through acid or bile B: Damage to the cellular layers and activation of toti- potential cells

  6. Histomorphological changes in Barrett‘s esophagus Development of areas with mucin secreting cells with resistance against acid and bile Jankowski, AJP 1999

  7. Macroscopic classification > 3 cm, Barrett < 3 cm, Short Barrett Super Short Barrett AJG 2000

  8. Easy to identify Long-segment Barrett

  9. Correct definition of OGJ allows detection of short segments of Barrett’s esophagus SCJ=„squamocolumnar junction“ OGJ=„oesophagogastric junction“

  10. BE: Progression BE (no dysplasia) Low-grade dysplasia High-grade dysplasia Esophageal adenocarcinoma

  11. Biomarkers in BE • Multiple genetic lesions occur during the neoplastic progression of BE • Biomarkers may be used for risk assessment of patients as well as intermediate endpoints in trials • 17p (p53) LOH and p16 abnormalities seem to predict progression to cancer in BE patients • No realiable markers of Cancer progression are currently available Reid BJ, DDW 2001 Wong DJ, DDW 2001

  12. Endoscopic diagnosis • Surveillance • Detection of dysplasia • Staging of the disease

  13. Endoscopic Surveillance of Barrett’s Esophagus • Optimal endoscopic technique • Biopsies of all mucosal abnormalities (ulcer, nodule, plaque) • Four quadrant (jumbo) biopsies at 1 – 2 cm intervals • Recommended surveillance intervals • No dysplasia 3 yrs after 2 EGD • LGD 6m for 1 yr, then 1yr • HGD Confirm and resect vs. 3 m

  14. LIMITATIONS OF SURVEILLANCE STRATEGY • Cancer/Dysplasia -- multifocal and patchy • “Seattle Protocol” – cumbersome and tedious • Compliance is poor • Unsuspected Cancer -- up to 53% of HGD • Surveillance Intervals - poorly defined biology • Dilemma with HGD – variable interpretation • surveillance vs. surgery? • Costly with unproven benefit

  15. NEEDED TECHNIQUE • Highly sensitive to dysplasia – must detect changes at a nuclear level • High resolution but also able to scan wide area in real-time • Specific – not affected by esophageal inflammation • High interobserver agreement • Localize dysplastic area for biopsy • Cost not prohibitive

  16. Alternative Methods for Surveillance • Blind balloon cytology – sensitivity limited • High Magnification Endoscopy • Confocal Microscopy • Chromoendoscopy (methylene blue) • Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) • Laser Induced Fluorescence • Optical Coherence Tomography • Light Scattering Spectroscopy • Raman Spectroscopy

  17. BE SURVEILLANCE --BLIND CYTOLOGY • Advantages • Sample larger area • Quick and Inexpensive • Disadvantages • Limited sensitivity (< 25% for LGD) • Future Hope • Molecular probes • Immunostains • FISH

  18. HIGH MAG – DETECTING BE • Contrast Agents • Acetic acid • Indigo carmine • Methylene blue • Distinct morphology for IM • High Sensitivity (> 95%) for IM • Still inaccurate for LGD/HGD

  19. HIGH MAG – DETECTING DYSPLASIA • Sharma et al. – 80 patients • Distinct morphology - Ridged/villous/ Circular/ Irregular&Distorted • All 6 HGD were irregular and distorted • Limitations -Cannot distinguish LGD; Difficult for surveillance of large area; Results very preliminary

  20. High Grade Dysplasia Intestinal Metaplasia

  21. METHYLENE BLUE CHROMOENDOSCOPY • Rationale • MB absorption by absorptive columnar cells (small bowel and colon) • MB not absorbed by dysplastic cells

  22. Methylene blue selectively stains SCE in Barrett’s esophagus Focal Diffuse

  23. Summary of Studies

  24. LIMITATIONS OF MB DIRECTED SURVEILLANCE • Stains inflammation • Staining paradox • No time saving • Messy • Operator dependent; not sensitive enough

  25. EUS For Surveillance • Theory of Ultrasound Imaging • Sound reflects at tissue interface • Higher frequency equals higher resolution but lower penetration • Useable frequencies do not provide cellular resolution

  26. When not to do EMR 20 Mhz probe EUS at 7.5 MHz

  27. LIMITATIONS OF EUS • CANNOT DETECT DYSPLASIA • May or may not identify cancer reliably in HGD • Accuracy for identifying malignant nodal spread is limited.

  28. LASER INDUCED FLUORESCENCE (LIF) • Theory • Dysplastic tissue is biochemically different and thus fluoresces differently from normal; • Dysplastic tissue may also absorb fluorophores differentially • Autofluorescence alone not accurate enough • Local or systemic ALA (Messman et al.) absorbed by dysplastic cells

  29. DIFFICULTIES WITH L.I.F. • Inflammation may cause false positives • Dysplasia -- sensitivity < 80%, specificity < 70% • Cost of fluorophore • Cost of LIF scopes • More research; better fluorophores needed

  30. OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY • Theory – Coherent back scattered light provides imaging resolution at microscopic level.

  31. Figure 3A

  32. Figure 3B

  33. Figure 4A

  34. DIFFICULTIES WITH OCT • Limited sensitivity • Surveillance of large areas • Further studies of dysplastic tissue required

More Related