Published online Nov 26, 2018. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v6.i14.753
Peer-review started: July 13, 2018
First decision: July 24, 2018
Revised: September 4, 2018
Accepted: October 17, 2018
Article in press: October 16, 2018
Published online: November 26, 2018
Processing time: 136 Days and 21.3 Hours
According to the American Gastroenterological Association guidelines, the definition of Barrett’s esophagus (BE) includes the histological finding of intestinal metaplasia (IM) in the esophagus. BE is clinically important because it is a major risk factor for the development of esophageal malignancy. Therefore, early detection of BE, especially those with dysplastic tissue, attracted recent research interests.
The standard for diagnosing BE is endoscopic evaluation performed with the Seattle biopsy protocol. However, some in this field consider disadvantages of the Seattle protocol as being relatively inefficient, time-consuming and providing low diagnostic rates. In Western countries, reportedly only half of endoscopists follow the Seattle protocol for biopsy of BE patients.
The aim of this study is to investigate the benefits of the Seattle protocol in the diagnosis of Chinese individuals with BE.
Subjects enrolled were cases of Taichung Veterans General Hospital with endoscopically-suspected esophageal metaplasia. These patients first received the narrow-band imaging (NBI)-targeted biopsy and later the Seattle protocol-guided biopsy, within a period from October 2012 to December 2014. Cases without initial pathologic patterns of IM and then appearance or loss of IM tissue were designated as Group A or B, respectively. Those with initial pathologic patterns of IM, which then persisted or were lost were designated as Group C or D, respectively.
The number of cases for each group was as follows: A: 20, B: 78, C: 31 and D: 14. The distribution of the Prague criteria M levels of Group A was significantly higher than Group B (P = 0.174). The sensitivity of IM detection was 69.2% for the NBI-targeted biopsy and 78.5% for the Seattle protocol-guided biopsy. The difference was not significant (P = 0.231). The number of detectable dysplasia increased from one case via the NBI-targeted biopsy to five cases via the Seattle protocol-guided biopsy, including one case of adenocarcinoma.
The Seattle protocol improved the IM detection in the subjects with higher Prague criteria M levels, and it disclosed more cases with dysplastic tissues.
In the future, the prospective studies in the selected BE patients should be conducted to evaluate the usefulness of the Seattle protocol in clinical practice.