4.7 Article

Columnar-lined oesophagus without intestinal metaplasia: results from a cohort with a mean follow-up of 7 years

Journal

ALIMENTARY PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
Volume 36, Issue 3, Pages 282-289

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2012.05170.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background The definition of Barrett's oesophagus lacks consensus, particularly the requirement of intestinal metaplasia for diagnosis. Scarce information exists on the prevalence and natural history of columnar-lined oesophagus without intestinal metaplasia. Aim To evaluate the demographics and natural history of columnar-lined oesophagus without intestinal metaplasia =2 cm in length. Methods Patients with columnar-lined oesophagus =2 cm in length and no intestinal metaplasia in biopsy specimens from two consecutive endoscopies with at least a 1-year interval were prospectively followed. A cohort of Barrett's oesophagus patients was used as a control. Results Columnar-lined oesophagus without intestinal metaplasia (n = 15) had a similar gender distribution, reflux symptoms prevalence and length as those of Barrett's oesophagus (n = 205). Patients were significantly younger (28.6 vs. 60 years, P < 0.0001) and accounted for 48% of patients aged <40 years in the two cohorts, but only 1% of those aged >40 years (P < 0.001). Patient distribution in both cohorts in 5 age brackets (019, 2029, 3039, 4049, and >50 years) was significantly different, except for patients aged 4049 years. Intestinal metaplasia was documented in 60% of the cohort after a mean follow-up of 7.1 years. Conclusions Columnar-lined oesophagus without intestinal metaplasia =2 cm is infrequent in the setting of a systematic biopsy protocol, is associated with a younger age in comparison with Barrett's oesophagus, and appears to be an intermediate step between squamous and intestinal lining of the oesophagus.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available