Proposed criteria to differentiate heterogeneous eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders of the esophagus, including eosinophilic esophageal myositis

AIM To define clinical criteria to differentiate eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorder (EoGD) in the esophagus. METHODS Our criteria were defined based on the analyses of the clinical presentation of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), subepithelial eosinophilic esophagitis (sEoE) and eosinophilic esophageal myositis (EoEM), identified by endoscopy, manometry and serum immunoglobulin E levels (s-IgE), in combination with histological and polymerase chain reaction analyses on esophageal tissue samples. RESULTS In five patients with EoE, endoscopy revealed longitudinal furrows and white plaques in all, and fixed rings in two. In one patient with sEoE and four with EoEM, endoscopy showed luminal compression only. Using manometry, failed peristalsis was observed in patients with EoE and sEoE with some variation, while EoEM was associated with hypercontractile or hypertensive peristalsis, with elevated s-IgE. Histology revealed the following eosinophils per high-power field values. EoE = 41.4 +/- 7.9 in the epithelium and 2.3 +/- 1.5 in the subepithelium; sEoE = 3 in the epithelium and 35 in the subepithelium (conventional biopsy); EoEM = none in the epithelium, 10.7 +/- 11.7 in the subepithelium (conventional biopsy or endoscopic mucosal resection) and 46.8 +/- 16.5 in the muscularis propria (peroral esophageal muscle biopsy). Presence of dilated epithelial intercellular space and downward papillae elongation were specific to EoE. Eotaxin-3, IL-5 and IL-13 were overexpressed in EoE. CONCLUSION Based on clinical and histological data, we identified criteria, which differentiated between EoE, sEoE and EoEM, and reflected a different pathogenesis between these esophageal EoGDs.