Evaluation of the quality of endoscopically obtained esophageal biopsies in the dog

Summary

Objective: An important premise for obtaining diagnostically relevant histology specimens is an appropriate biopsy technique. Goal of this study was to determine if biopsies of adequate quality can be obtained from the canine esophagus at the gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) during routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Material and methods: Over the course of one year, 58 dogs undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy because of the presence of esophageal (n = 22) or gastrointestinal (n = 36) clinical signs were prospectively included. Five biopsies were repeatedly collected from the same dorsal and ventral locations of the GEJ, fixated individually in 4% neutral buffered formaldehyde, and evaluated histopathologically after standard preparation and haematoxylin and eosin staining. The presence of esophageal squamous epithelium with a basal cell layer and lamina propria mucosae in conjunction with foveolar columnar epithelium and cardiac glands, and the absence of fundic glands in one specimen, respectively, was judged as an adequately sampled biopsy. Results: Adequately sampled biopsies were reported in 45 out of 58 dogs, with 31 samples originating from the dorsal GEJ, 36 samples originating from the ventral GEJ, and with 22 samples originating from both sites, respectively. The incidence of adequately sampled biopsies increased significantly over time (r = 0,22; p < 0,05), with these biopsies being reported significantly more often during the last 6 months compared to the first 6 months of the study (p = 0,03). Histopathological evaluation of the esophageal squamous epithelium showed fibrosis, inflammation, elongation of the stromal papillae, and increased thickness of the basal cell layers in 14 out of 58 dogs. Stromal papillae of the ventral esophageal epithelium were significantly elongated in dogs with esophageal clinical signs compared to dogs with gastrointestinal clinical signs (p = 0,03). Conclusion and clinical relevance: After an initial learning phase adequate esophageal biopsies from the GEJ can be obtained in canine patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, and histological lesions can be found in these biopsies.

Zusammenfassung

Gegenstand und Ziel: Eine geeignete Biopsietechnik ist eine wesentliche Voraussetzung zur Gewinnung von histologisch adäquatem und diagnostisch relevantem Probenmaterial. Ziel dieser Studie war zu ermitteln, ob beim Hund bei Routinegastroskopien Bioptate geeigneter Qualität aus dem Ösophagus und vom gastroösophagealen Übergang gewonnen werden können. Material und Methoden: Im Lauf eines Jahres wurden 58 Hunde, bei denen wegen ösophagealer (n = 22) und gastrointestinaler (n = 36) Symptome eine Indikation zur Gastroskopie bestand, prospektiv untersucht. Aus dem gastroösophagealen Übergang wurden dorsal und ventral jeweils fünf Bioptate entnommen, in zwei getrennte Probenbehälter gegeben, in 4%igem neutral gepuffertem Formalin fixiert und nach Standardpräparation und Hämatoxilin-Eosin-Färbung histopathologisch ausgewertet. Qualitätsmerkmal für eine adäquat entnommene Probe war das Vorliegen von Plattenepithel des Ösophagus mit Basalzellschicht und Lamina propria mucosae und von foveolärem Zylinderepithel mit Kardiadrüsen bei Fehlen von Fundusdrüsen. Ergebnisse: In geeigneter Weise am gastroösophagealen Übergang entnommene Bioptate fanden sich bei 45 von 58 Hunden, wobei 31 Proben aus dem dorsalen gastroösophagealen Übergang, 36 aus dem ventralen gastroösophagealen Übergang und 22 aus beiden Lokalisationen zugleich stammten. Die Anzahl adäquat gewonnener Bioptate nahm mit der Studiendauer signifikant zu (r = 0,22; p < 0,05). In den zweiten 6 Monaten der Studie lag ihre Zahl signifikant höher als in den ersten 6 Monaten (p = 0,03). Die histopathologische Untersuchung des ösophagealen Plattenepithels ergab bei 14 von 58 Hunden Fibrose, Entzündung, Verlängerung der Stromapapillen und Verbreiterung der Basalzellschicht. Die Stromapapillen des ventralen ösophagealen Plattenepithels waren bei Hunden mit ösophagealen Symptomen signifikant länger als bei Hunden mit gastrointestinalen Symptomen (p = 0,03). Schlussfolgerungen und klinische Relevanz: Nach einer Lernphase können bei Hunden während der Gastroskopie adäquate Bioptate aus dem Bereich des gastroösophagealen Übergangs gewonnen werden, in denen sich histopathologisch strukturelle Läsionen nachweisen lassen.

Key words

Gastroscopy - canine - specimen - gastro-esophageal junction - histology - morphometry

Schlüsselwörter

Gastroskopie - kanin - Gewebeproben - gastroösophagealer Übergang - Histologie - Morphometrie

• 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 Boeckxstaens GEE. The pathophysiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Alimentary Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2007; 26: 149-160.
• 3 Busch C. Zur Struktur der Speiseröhre des Hundes. Acta Anatomica 1980; 107: 339-360.
• 4 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.
• 5 Dent J. Microscopic esophageal mucosal injury in nonerosive reflux disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007; 05 (01) 4-16.
• 6 Dolwani S, Saleem H, Thompson IW, Allison MCA. Comparison of three types of biopsy forceps in the endoscopic surveillance of Barrett’s oesophagus. Endoscopy 2002; 34 (12) 946-949.
• 7 Edebo A, Vieth M, Tam W, Bruno M, van Berkel AM, Stolte M, Schoeman M, Tytgat G, Dent J, Lundell L. Circumferential and axial distribution of esophageal mucosal damage in reflux disease. Dis Esophagus 2007; 20 (03) 232-238.
• 8 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.
• 9 Evander A, Little AG, Riddel RH, Walther B, Skinner DB. Composition of the refluxed material determined the degree of reflux esophagitis in the dog. Gastroenterology 1987; 93: 280-286.
• 10 Frapier BL. Digestive system. In: Dellmann’s Textbook of Veterinary Histology. 6th edn. Eurell JA, Frappier BL. ed. Oxford: Blackwell; 2006: 170-212.
• 11 Gaskell CJ, Gibbs C, Pearson H. Sliding hiatus hernia with reflux oesophagitis in two dogs. J Small Anim Pract 1974; 15: 503-509.
• 12 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.
• 13 Glazer A, Walters P. Esophagitis and esophageal strictures. Compend Contin Educ Vet 2008; 05: 281-292.
• 14 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.
• 15 Gualtieri M. Esophagoscopy. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2001; 31: 605-630.
• 16 Gualtieri M, Cocci A, Olivero D, Monti S. Esophageal and gastric intestinal metaplasia in the dog and the cat: a retrospective study of 41 cases (2003–2007). Proceedings 18th ECVIM-CA Congress; Ghent: 2008: 217.
• 17 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.
• 18 Han E. Diagnosis and management of reflux esophagitis. Clin Tech Small Anim Pract 2003; 18: 231-238.
• 19 Haggitt RC. Histopathology of reflux-induced esophageal and supraesophageal injuries. Am J Med 2000; 108 Suppl 4a: 109S-111S.
• 20 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.
• 21 Hongo M. Minimal changes in reflux esophagitis: red ones and white ones. J Gastroenterol 2006; 41: 95-99.
• 22 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.
• 23 Kook PH, Kempf J, Reusch CE. Wireless ambulatory esophageal pH monitoring in healthy dogs and dogs with historical and clinical signs interpretated as gastroesophageal reflux. J Vet Intern Med 2012; 26: 1528.
• 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 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.
• 26 Lux CN, Archer TM, Lunsford KV. Gastroesophageal reflux and laryngeal dysfunction in a dog. JAVMA 2012; 09: 1100-1104.
• 27 Münster M, Kraft W. Esophagoscopy and gastroscopy in dogs and cats. Technics and indications. Tierärztl Prax 1990; 18: 53-60.
• 28 Münster M, Bilzer T, Dettmann K, Hörauf A, Vieth M. Assessment of the histological quality of endoscopic biopsies obtained from the canine gastroesophageal junction. Tierärztl Prax 2012; 40 (K): 318-324.
• 29 Münster M, Hörauf A, Lübke-Becker A, Grest P, Rütten M. Idiopathic esophagopathies resembling gastroesophageal reflux disease in dogs. Tierärztl Prax 2013; 41 (K): 173-179.
• 30 Pollara WM, Cecconello I, Zilberstein B, Iria K, Pinotti HW. Regeneration of esophageal epithelium in the presence of gastroesophageal reflux. Arg Gastroent 1983; 20 (02) 53-59.
• 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 Reusch C, Münster M, Kraft W. Perforierendes Ulkus als Komplikation einer Refluxösophagitis beim Hund - ein Fallbericht. Kleintierprax 1987; 32: 159-162.
• 33 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.
• 34 Simpson JW. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. In: BSAVA Manual of canine and feline Gastroenterology. 1st edn. Thomas D, Simpson JW, Hall EJ. eds. Shurdington: 1996: 26-27.
• 35 Stelzner F, Mallek D, Schneider B. Die Ösophagopexie ist die Grundlage jeder wirksamen Therapie der Refluxösophagitis. Zentralbl Chir 2004; 129: 345-349.
• 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 Gastroenterol 2003; 38: 1016-1022.
• 37 Tahara T, Shibata T, Nakamura M, Yonemura J, Okubo M, Yoshioka D, Kamiya Y, Arisawa T, Hirata I. Presence of minimal change esophagitis closely correlates with pathological conditions in the stomach. Dig Dis Sci 2012; 57: 958-966.
• 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 Vieth M. Structural abnormalities of endoscopy-negative reflux disease – real or perceived?. Digestion 2008; 78: 24-30.
• 40 Washabau RJ, Day MJ, Willard MD, Hall EJ, Jergens AE, Mansell J, Minami T, Bilzer TW. WSAVA International Gastrointestinal Standardization Group: Endoscopic, biopsy, and histopathologic guidelines for the evaluation of gastrointestinal inflammation in companion animals. J Vet Intern Med 2010; 24 (01) 10-26.
• 41 Wienbeck M, Barnert J. Epidemiology of reflux disease and reflux esophagitis. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 1989; 156: 7-13.
• 42 Willard MD, Lovering SL, Cohen ND, Weeks BR. Quality of tissue specimens obtained endoscopically from the duodenum of dogs and cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 2001; 219 (04) 474-479.
• 43 Willard MD, Mansell J, Fosgate GT, Gualtieri M, Olivero D, Lecoindre P, Twedt DC, Collett MG, Day MJ, Hall EJ, Jergens AE, Simpson JW, Else RW, Washabau RJ. Effect of sample quality on the sensitivity of endoscopic biopsy for detecting gastric and duodenal lesions in dogs and cats. J Vet Intern Med 2008; 22 (05) 1084-1089.
• 44 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 (01) 84-89.
• 45 Yerian L, Fiocca R, Mastracci L, Riddell R, Vieth M, Sharma P, Franzen S, Fernstrom P, Ruth M. Refinement and reproducibility of histologic criteria for the assessment of microscopic lesions in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: the Esohisto Project. Dig Dis Sci 2011; [phone].
• 46 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; 100 (10) 2299-2306.
• 47 Zoran DL. Gastroduodenoscopy in the dog and cat. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2001; 31: 631-656.