4.6 Article

Histological Risk Factors to Predict Clinical Relapse in Ulcerative Colitis With Endoscopically Normal Mucosa

期刊

JOURNAL OF CROHNS & COLITIS
卷 12, 期 11, 页码 1288-1294

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjy092

关键词

Ulcerative colitis; histological mucosal healing; pathology; endoscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims: The current goal of treatment for ulcerative colitis [UC] is endoscopic and ultimately histological mucosal healing. However, there is no consensus on the definition of histological mucosal healing. We evaluated histological risk factors for clinical relapse in UC patients with endoscopically normal mucosa to focus on the importance of histological evaluation. Methods: Patients with UC who underwent colonoscopy confirming Mayo endoscopic subscore [MES] <= 1 with biopsies were enrolled into this retrospective cohort. Three expert pathologists evaluated the presence or absence of chronic inflammatory cell infiltrate, breaches in the surface epithelium, crypt abscesses, mucin depletion, crypt architectural irregularities and basal plasmacytosis. Clinical relapse was defined as partial Mayo score >= 3 or modification of induction treatment. Prediction models of clinical relapse were generated, especially in patients with MES 0. Results: A total of 194 UC patients were enrolled. Histological abnormalities existed more frequently in patients with MES 1 than those with MES 0, while the vast majority of patients still possessed at least one abnormality. There was no significant difference in time to relapse between MES 0 and 1. Crypt architectural irregularities and mucin depletion were associated with time to relapse in patients with MES <= 1. In patients with MES 0, the presence of mucin depletion was the only factor significantly and independently associated with the risk of relapse (hazard ratio, 2.18 [1.16-5.82]; p = 0.03). Conclusions: Mucin depletion was shown to be a histological risk factor for clinical relapse in UC patients with MES 0.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据