Assessment of the histological quality of endoscopic biopsies obtained from the canine gastro-esophageal junction

M. Münster; T. Bilzer; K. Dettmann; A. Hörauf; M. Vieth

doi:10.1055/s-0038-1623664

Tierärztliche Praxis Ausgabe K: Kleintiere / Heimtiere, Table of Contents

Tierarztl Prax Ausg K Kleintiere Heimtiere 2012; 40(05): 318-324
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1623664

Original Article

Schattauer GmbH

Assessment of the histological quality of endoscopic biopsies obtained from the canine gastro-esophageal junction

Bewertung der histologischen Qualität von endoskopisch entnommenen Bioptaten aus dem gastroösophagealen Übergang beim Hund

Authors

M. Münster

¹Tierärztliche Gemeinschaftspraxis Dr. Hörauf und Dr. Münster, Köln
T. Bilzer

²Institut für Neuropathologie, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf
K. Dettmann

³Institut für Pathologie, Sankt Elisabeth Krankenhaus Hohenlind, Köln
A. Hörauf

¹Tierärztliche Gemeinschaftspraxis Dr. Hörauf und Dr. Münster, Köln
M. Vieth

⁴Institut für Pathologie, Klinikum Bayreuth, Bayreuth

Abstract

Summary

Objective: In the dog biopsy samples from the gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) are rarely obtained during routine gastroscopy. The aim of this pilot study was to assess the histological quality of endoscopic biopsies sampled from the canine esophagus and cardia. It was hypothesised that it is possible to sample adequate specimens from these sites.

Materials and methods: For this purpose 10 dogs with an indication for gastroscopy were enrolled in a prospective study. Biopsy samples were obtained with standard biopsy forceps for single use exactly from the GEJ thus containing preferably columnar epithelium from the cardia and squamous epithelium from the esophagus, respectively. In every dog the specimens were examined for size, layers and site, respectively. Study endpoint was reached when specimens originated from cardia and esophagus, showing at least epithelium and lamina propria mucosae, and a diameter > 2 mm on the slide, respectively.

Results: 72 biopsy specimens (median 7, range 5–10) obtained from the GEJ were examined in 10 dogs. Specimens from the esophagus containing squamous epithelium with lamina propria mucosae were found in 5 of 10 (50.0%) dogs. Specimens from the cardia containing columnar epithelium with lamina propria mucosae were found in 10 of 10 (100.0%) dogs. Four of 10 (40.0%), and 10 of 10 (100.0%) dogs showed at least one specimen > 2 mm on the slide originating from the esophagus, and from the cardia, respectively. Histological quality was found to be adequate in 4 of 10 (40.0%) dogs, showing specimens of adequate size, originating from both esophagus and cardia, and containing at least epithelium and lamina propria mucosae.

Conclusion and clinical relevance: The pilot study provides evidence that during routine gastroscopy it is possible to sample endoscopic biopsies from the cardia and with limitations from the esophagus showing a quality adequate for histological examination of the epithelium and the lamina propria mucosae.

Zusammenfassung

Gegenstand und Ziel: Beim Hund werden während Routine-Gastroskopien nur selten Bioptate aus dem gastroösophagealen Übergang entnommen. Die Zielsetzung dieser Pilotstudie war die Bestimmung der histologischen Qualität von Bioptaten aus Ösophagus und Kardia. Die Arbeitshypothese lautete, dass beim Hund die Gewinnung histologisch auswertbarer Bioptate aus diesen Lokalisationen möglich ist.

Material und Methode: Zu diesem Zweck wurden 10 Hunde mit Indikation zur Gastroskopie prospektiv untersucht. Während Routine-Gastroskopien erfolgten Biopsien mittels zum Einmalgebrauch bestimmter Standard-Biopsiezangen exakt aus dem gastroösophagealen Übergang. Proben aus der Kardia enthielten Zylinderepithel und Proben aus dem Ösophagus Plattenepithel. Bei jedem Hund wurden die Proben auf ihre Größe, ihre Schichten und ihre Herkunft untersucht. Der Studienendpunkt war erreicht, wenn die Proben Mukosa von Kardia und Ösophagus zeigten, mindestens Epithel und Lamina propria mucosae enthielten und eine Größe von > 2 mm auf dem Objektträger aufwiesen.

Ergebnisse: Bei 10 Hunden wurden 72 Bioptate (Median 7, Bereich 5–10) aus dem gastroösophagealen Übergang ausgewertet. Die Proben des Ösophagus enthielten Plattenepithel mit Lamina propria mucosae bei 5 von 10 (50,0%) Hunden und Zylinderepithel mit Lamina propria mucosae der Kardia bei 10 von 10 (100,0%) Hunden. Eine Probengröße von > 2 mm auf dem Objektträger fand sich bei 4 von 10 (40,0%) Hunden in Ösophagusbioptaten und bei 10 von 10 (100,0%) Hunden in Kardiabioptaten. Die histologische Qualität wurde bei 4 von 10 (40,0%) Hunden als adäquat angesehen, da diese Proben Gewebe aus dem Ösophagus wie auch aus der Kardia aufwiesen, ausreichend groß waren und mindestens Epithel und Lamina propria mucosae enthielten.

Schlussfolgerung und klinische Relevanz: Die Pilotstudie liefert Belege dafür, dass bei Routine-Gastroskopien aus der Kardia meistens und aus dem Ösophagus mit Einschrän- kungen Probenmaterial gewonnen werden kann, das sich zur histologischen Untersuchung von Epithel und Lamina propria mucosae eignet.

Key words

Esophagoscopy - histology - esophagus - stomach - z-line - biopsy- technique

Schlüsselwörter

Ösophagoskopie - Histologie - Speiseröhre - Magen - Z-Linie - Biopsietechnik

Full Text

References

References
1 Adamama-Moraitou KK, Rallis TS, Prassinos NN, Galatos AD. Benign esophageal stricture in the dog and cat: a retrospective study of 20 cases. Can J Vet Res 2002; 66: 55-59.
2 Allende DS, Yerian LM. Diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease: the pathologist’s perspective. Adv Anat Pathol 2009; 03: 161-165.
3 Armstrong D, Bennett JR, Blum AL, Dent J, De Dombal FT, Galmiche JP, Lundell L, Margulies M, Richter JE, Spechler SJ, Tytgat GN, Wallin L. The endoscopic assessment of esophagitis: a progress report on observer agreement. Gastroenterology 1996; 01: 85-92.
4 Bernstein DE, Barkin JS, Reiner DK, Lubin J, Phillips RS, Grauer L. Standard biopsy forceps versus large-capacity forceps with and without needle. Gastrointest Endosc 1995; 41: 573-576.
5 Boeckxstaens GE. Review article: the pathophysiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007; 02: 149-160.
6 Busch C. Zur Struktur der Speiseröhre des Hundes. Acta Anatomica 1980; 107: 339-360.
7 Day MJ, Bilzer T, Mansell J, Wilcock B, Hall EJ, Jergens A, Minami T, Willard M, Washabau R. Histopathological standards for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal inflammation in endoscopic biopsy samples from the dog and cat: a report from the World Small Animal Veterinary Association Gastrointestinal Standardization Group. J Comp Pathol 2008; 138: S1-S43.
8 Dolwani S, Saleem H, Thompson IW, Allison MC. A comparison of three types of biopsy forceps in the endoscopic surveillance of Barrett’s oesophagus. Endoscopy 2002; 12: 946-949.
9 Eros G, Kaszaki J, Czobel M, Boros M. Systemic phosphatidylcholine pretreatment protects canine esophageal mucosa during acute experimental biliary reflux. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12: 271-279.
10 Evander A, Little AG, Riddel RH. Composition of the refluxed material determines the degree of reflux esophagitis in the dog. Gastroenterology 1987; 93: 280-286.
11 Farese JP, Bacon NJ, Ehrhart NP, Bush J, Ehrhart EJ, Withrow SJ. Oesophageal leiomyosarcoma in dogs: surgical management and clinical outcome of four cases. Vet Comp Oncol 2008; 01: 31-38.
12 Fiocca R, Mastracci L, Riddell R, Takubo K, Vieth M, Yerian L, Sharma P, Fernström P, Ruth M. Development of consensus guidelines for the histologic recognition of microscopic esophagitis in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: the Esohisto project. Hum Pathol 2010; 02: 223-231.
13 Frapier BL. Digestive system. In: Dellmann’s Textbook of Veterinary Histology. 6th edn. Eurell JA, Frappier BL. eds. Oxford: Blackwell; 2006: 170-212.
14 Gaskell CJ, Gibbs C, Pearson H. Sliding hiatus hernia with reflux oesophagitis in two dogs. J Small Anim Pract 1974; 15: 503-509.
15 Gibson CJ, Parry NM, Jakowski RM, Cooper J. Adenomatous polyp with intestinal metaplasia of the esophagus (Barrett esophagus) in a dog. Vet Pathol 2010; 47: 116-119.
16 Glazer A, Walters P. Esophagitis and esophageal strictures. Compend Contin Educ Vet 2008; 05: 281-292.
17 Gonzalez S, Yu WM, Smith MS, Slack KN, Rotterdam H, Abrams JA, Lightdale CJ. Randomized comparison of 3 different-sized biopsy forceps for quality of sampling in Barrett’s esophagus. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 935-940.
18 Gualtieri M. Esophagoscopy. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2001; 31: 605-630.
19 Gualtieri M, Olivero D. Reflux esophagitis in three cats associated with metaplastic columnar esophageal epithelium. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc 2006; 01: 65-70.
20 Guilford WG, Strombeck DR. Diseases of swallowing. In: Strombeck’s Small Animal Gastroenterology. 3rd edn. Guilford GW, Center SA, Strombeck DR, Williams DA, Meyer DJ. eds. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1996: 224-225.
21 Han E. Diagnosis and management of reflux esophagitis. Clin Tech Small Anim Pract 2003; 18: 231-238.
22 Harai BH, Johnson SE, Sherding RG. Endoscopically guided balloon dilatation of benign esophageal strictures in 6 cats and 7 dogs. J Vet Intern Med 1995; 09: 332-335.
23 Kiesslich R, Kanzler S, Vieth M, Moehler M, Neidig J, Thanka BJNadar, Schilling D, Burg J, Nafe B, Neurath MF, Galle PR. Minimal change esophagitis: prospective comparison of endoscopic and histological markers between patients with non-erosive reflux disease and normal controls using magnifying endoscopy. Dig Dis 2004; 02: 221-227.
24 Komanduri S, Swanson G, Keefer L, Jakate S. Use of a new jumbo forceps improves tissue acquisition of Barrett’s esophagus surveillance biopsies. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 1072-1078.
25 Kook PH, Wiederkehr D, Makara M, Reusch CE. Megaesophagus secondary to an esophageal leiomyoma and concurrent esophagitis. Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd 2009; 151: 497-501.
26 Leib MS, Dinnel H, Ward DL, Reimer ME, Towell TL, Monroe WE. Endoscopic balloon dilation of benign esophageal strictures in dogs and cats. J Vet Intern Med 2001; 15: 547-552.
27 Levine DS, Reid BJ. Endoscopic biopsy technique for acquiring larger mucosal samples. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 332-337.
28 Liebich HG. Rumpfdarm. In: Funktionelle Histologie der Haussäugetiere und Vögel, 5. Aufl. Liebich HG. Hrsg. Stuttgart: Schattauer; 2010: 209-214.
29 Lundell LR, Dent J, Bennett JR, Blum AL, Armstrong D, Galmiche JP, Johnson F, Hongo M, Richter JE, Spechler SJ, Tytgat GN, Wallin L. Endoscopic assessment of oesophagitis: clinical and functional correlates and further validation of the Los Angeles classification. Gut 1999; 02: 172-180.
30 Münster M, Kraft W. [Esophagoscopy and gastroscopy in dogs and cats. Technics and indications.] Tierarztl Prax 1990; 18: 53-60.
31 Pratschke KM, Fitzpatrick E, Campion D, McAllister H, Bellenger CR. Topography of the gastro-oesophageal junction in the dog revisited: possible clinical implications. Res Vet Sci 2004; 76: 171-177.
32 Ranen E, Dank G, Lavy E, Perl S, Lahav D, Orgad U. Oesophageal sarcomas in dogs: histological and clinical evaluation. Vet J 2008; 01: 78-84.
33 Reusch C, Münster M, Kraft W. Perforierendes Ulkus als Komplikation einer Refluxösophagitis beim Hund – ein Fallbericht. Kleintierprax 1987; 32: 159-162.
34 Schummer A. Rumpfdarm der Fleischfresser. Vorderdarm. In: Lehrbuch der Anatomie der Haustiere, Band 2, 4. Aufl. Nickel R, Schummer A, Seiferle E. Hrsg. Berlin, Hamburg: Parey; 1979: 99-101.
35 Sharma P, Dent J, Armstrong D, Bergman JJ, Gossner L, Hoshihara Y, Jankowski JA, Junghard O, Lundell L, Tytgat GN, Vieth M. The development and validation of an endoscopic grading system for Barrett’s esophagus: the Prague C & M criteria. Gastroenterology 2006; 05: 1392-1399.
36 Szentpali K, Eros G, Kaszaki J, Tiszlavicz L, Lázár G, Wolfárd A, Balogh A, Boros M. Microcirculatory changes in the canine esophageal mucosa during experimental reflux esophagitis: comparison of the effects of acid and bile. Scand J Gastroenterology 2003; 38: 1016-1022.
37 Turk DJ, Kozarek RA, Botoman VA, Patterson DJ, Ball TJ. Disposable endoscopic biopsy forceps: comparison with standard forceps of sample size and adequacy of specimen. J Clin Gastroenterol 1991; 01: 76-78.
38 Vaezi MF, Singh S, Richter JE. Role of acid and duodenogastric reflux in esophageal injury: a review of animal and human studies. Gastroenterology 1995; 108: 1897-1907.
39 van der Merwe LL, Kirberger RM, Clift S, Williams M, Keller N, Naidoo V. Spirocerca lupi infection in the dog: a review. Vet J 2008; 03: 294-309.
40 Vieth M. Structural abnormalities of endoscopy-negative reflux disease – real or perceived?. Digestion 2008; 78: 24-30.
41 Walter T, Chesnay AL, Dumortier J, Mège-LeChevallier F, Hervieu V, Guillaud O, Lapalus MG, Lépilliez V, Fumex F, Ponchon T, Scoazec JY. Biopsy specimens obtained with small-caliber endoscopes have comparable diagnostic performances than those obtained with conventional endoscopes: a prospective study on 1335 specimens. J Clin Gastroenterol 2010; 44: 12-17.
42 Wienbeck M, Barnert J. Epidemiology of reflux disease and reflux esophagitis. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 1989; 156: 7-13.
43 Willard MD, Moore GE, Denton BD, Day MJ, Mansell J, Bilzer T, Wilcock B, Gualtieri M, Olivero D, Lecoindre P, Twedt DC, Collett MG, Hall EJ, Jergens AE, Simpson JW, Else RW, Washabau RJ. Effect of tissue processing on assessment of endoscopic intestinal biopsies in dogs and cats. J Vet Intern Med 2010; 24: 84-89.
44 Willard MD, Weyrauch EA. Esophagitis. In: Kirk’s Current Veterinary Therapy XIII. Bonagura JD. ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2000: 607-610.
45 Zentilin P, Savarino V, Mastracci L, Spaggiari P, Dulbecco P, Ceppa P, Savarino E, Parodi A, Mansi C, Fiocca R. Reassessment of the diagnostic value of histology in patients with GERD, using multiple biopsy sites and an appropriate control group. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 10: 2299-2306.
46 Zoran DL. Gastroduodenoscopy in the dog and cat. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2001; 31: 631-656.