Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 221198

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"



Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018




Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."



Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018




Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."



Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018




Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."



Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
Lucknow
On Sep 2018




Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."



Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata




Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
Muzaffarnagar.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".



Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
Bengaluru.
On Aug 2018




Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".



Dr. Mamta Gupta
Consultant
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018




Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.


Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."



Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011




Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."



Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011
Anuradha

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.


Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2023 | Month : March | Volume : 17 | Issue : 3 | Page : EC17 - EC21 Full Version

Intestinal Metaplasia in Barrett’s Oesophagus: A Clinicopathological Study


Published: March 1, 2023 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2023/62387.17597
Jaya Bagchi Samaddar, Dwaipayan Samaddar, Kalyan Khan

1. Clinical Tutor/Demonstrator, Department of Pathology, North Bengal Medical College, Siliguri, West Bengal, India. 2. Associate Professor, Department of Surgery, North Bengal Medical College, Siliguri, West Bengal, India. 3. Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, Jalpaiguri Government Medical College, Siliguri, West Bengal, India.

Correspondence Address :
Dr. Kalyan Khan,
Flat No. 11, Bela Apartment Netaji Subhas Road, Siliguri-734001, West Bengal, India.
E-mail: kkhan2001@gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction: The incidence of Oesophageal Adenocarcinoma (EAC) has increased at a faster rate than any other cancer in the developed nations. Despite advances in treatment, five year survival rate for EAC is <15%. Till date, Barrett’s Oesophagus (BE) is the only known precursor of EAC increasing its risk by greater than 30 to 60 fold. Most important risk factor for development of dysplasia and EAC is specialised Intestinal Metaplasia (IM) in BE.

Aim: To find the association between clinical, endoscopic and histopathological features and presence of IM in patients with endoscopically suspected BE.

Materials and Methods: This was an institution based descriptive study with a cross-sectional design conducted in the Departments of Pathology and Surgery, in a tertiary care centre of North Bengal for four years (2017-2021), among patients attending Surgery and Medicine Outpatient Department (OPDs) or Inpatient Department (IPDs), suspected on clinical basis and subsequent endoscopic detection of BE utilising Prague criteria. Periodic Acid-Schiff (PAS) and Alcian Blue (pH 2.5) stains were used to detect complete or incomplete IM and results were analysed using appropriate statistical software.

Results: Among 120 cases included in the study, 72 (60%) had Short Segment Barrett’s Oesophagus (SSBE) and 48 (40%) Long Segment Barrett’s Oesophagus (LSBE). Hiatal hernia was significantly more frequent in LSBE patients (32 out of 48) compared to patients with SSBE (24 out of 72). The associations of tobacco and alcohol abuse with microscopically proven BE were statistically significant with p-values of 0.005 and 0.004, respectively. The association of IM with the increasing length of Columnar Lined Oesophagus (CLE) was statistically significant (p-value=0.004).

Conclusion: Tobacco and alcohol abuse, presence of hiatal hernia (particularly in LSBE patients) were significantly associated with BE. Increasing length of CLE is more commonly associated with IM. Incomplete IM was observed more commonly in LSBE cases whereas complete IM was detected more frequently in cases diagnosed as SSBE by endoscopy.

Keywords

Columnar lined oesophagus, Endoscopy, Oesophageal adenocarcinoma

The EAC are persistent gastroesophageal reflux induced cancers. Globally, the number of deaths due to EAC is approximately half the number of deaths from breast cancer and one-third the deaths from colorectal cancer. The mechanism of carcinogenesis is believed to pass through columnar metaplasia, IM in the columnar epithelium, and an increasing degree of dysplasia to adenocarcinoma (1). As per the Montreal Workshop consensus, histologically proven metaplastic columnar epithelium with qualifier about the existence or absence of IM is designated as BE (2). Risk and incidence rate of EAC in patients with BE is 30 to 60 times and over 100 times that of the general population, respectively. Most important risk factor for development of dysplasia and EAC is specialised IM in BE (3). Evidence also suggests increased association of EAC related mutations with IM (4),(5),(6). Endoscopic biopsy and histomorphological study are the screening methods available for diagnosing BE, the definitive precursor of EAC.

But despite such global concerns, there are few studies in India (7),(8),(9),(10),(11) and to the best of our knowledge no study involving sub-Himalayan North Bengal population, pertaining to BE and its clinicopathological aspects, thus inspiring this study to fill up the lacuna. The clinical, endoscopic and pathological findings were studied in patients with endoscopically suspected BE. Presence of IM was also detected using special stains.

Material and Methods

The present study was an institution based descriptive study with cross-sectional design conducted in the Departments of Pathology and Surgery in a Tertiary Care Centre of Sub-Himalayan North Bengal Region over a period of four years (2017-2021), among patients attending Surgery and Medicine OPDs or IPDs and suspected to have BE on a clinical basis and subsequent endoscopy. The study was performed after obtaining prior approval from the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC) (NBMC/IEC 2016-17/03, dt. 12/11/16).

Inclusion criteria: Only endoscopically suspected BE cases with proper informed consent was included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: EAC diagnosed cases were excluded from the study.

Study Procedure

All relevant clinical data of patients undergoing upper Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) was collected from surgery/medicine OPD/IPDs. After endoscopy, if BE was suspected using Prague C&M criteria (C-circumferential and M-maximal extent of CLE in cm. from gastroesophageal junction) (1), then endoscopic and histopathologic findings were recorded. Haematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) stained slides were studied under the microscope and examined for columnar metaplasia. The presence of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection was detected by rapid urease test.

Histological typing of the metaplastic epithelium was done subsequently. All the slides were treated with PAS and Alcian Blue (pH 2.5) stains and examined to detect the presence of foveolar cells containing neutral mucin, and acidic goblet cells containing sialomucin and sulfomucin. IM was further categorised into incomplete or complete. Presence of goblet cells with negative Alcian Blue (pH 2.5)-PAS stain in columnar-type cells was defined as Complete IM. Incomplete IM or Specialised Columnar Epithelium (SCE) was diagnosed by the presence of goblet cells, with Alcian Blue (pH 2.5)-PAS stain positive acidic mucins in goblet and adjacent columnar-appearing cells. Microscopic oesophagitis/GERD was defined as lamina propria papillae extending into the upper third of the oesophageal stratified squamous mucosa with basal cell hyperplasia with or without the infiltration of inflammatory cells. Other histological findings were examined if present, like dysplasia (low grade, high grade and indefinite for dysplasia) of intestinal and gastric type, EAC or any other heterotopic tissue. The final histopathological observation was based on consensus reached following judgement and scrutiny separately by three senior faculty members of the Department of Pathology.

Statistical Analysis

The outcome was tabulated and analysed using appropriate statistical software (SPSS version 24.0, IBM, USA). Paired t-test, Independent sample t-test and Chi-square test were used to calculate p-value. A p-value <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

Results

Among the study population of 120 cases, 72 patients had microscopically confirmed BE (Table/Fig 1). The rest 48 cases were diagnosed histopathologically to have reflux oesophagitis/GERD. Of the 120 cases, 80 (66.7%) were male and 40 (33.3%) were female, with a mean age of 58.13 years. Patients aged ≥60 years were 64 (53.4%), whereas 56 patients (46.7%) belonged to the age group of 50-59 years. Among these 72 patients with microscopically confirmed BE, 64 (88.9%) cases revealed IM.

Out of 120 patients, 64 (53.3%) were obese, 76 (63.3%) were tobacco abuser and 48 (40%) alcoholic. Eighty four (70%) patients were residents of urban areas whereas 36 (30%) patients were from rural and semi-urban areas. All of the urban patients with BE in the present study were alcoholic and obese. All the 120 cases studied, had reflux symptoms like heartburn, retrosternal pain, epigastric pain and odynophagia. The mean duration of symptoms was 7.03 years. All patients were on proton pump inhibitors for varying durations (mean 3.8 years). Out of 120 patients in the present study, 44 were reported to have GERD and/or oesophagitis on histopathology amounting to 36.67% of the study population. Out of 72 patients having histologically confirmed BE, 36 (50%) had been associated with microscopic evidence of GERD and/or oesophagitis.

Among the 72 cases microscopically proved to have BE, 60 (83.4%) patients had history of tobacco abuse and 44 (61.2%) patients were alcoholic. Whereas out of 48 patients whose oesophageal biopsies were negative for BE, only 16 (33.4%) had tobacco abuse history and 04 (8.4%) patients were detected as alcoholic. Hence, in the present study, the associations of microscopically proven BE with tobacco and alcohol abuse were found to be statistically significant with p-values of 0.005 and 0.004, respectively (Table/Fig 2).

In the present study, hiatal hernia was detected by endoscopy in 56 (46.67%) patients. All these 56 patients with hiatal hernia were in the microscopically confirmed BE group. Hiatal hernia was not detected in any of the patients who were negative for microscopic evidence of BE. The association of microscopically proven BE with hiatal hernia was found to be statistically significant (p-value=0.001) (Table/Fig 3).

Of the 120 patients with endoscopically suspected BE, 72 (60%) had SSBE [Table/Fig-4-6] whereas the rest 48 (40%) were diagnosed with LSBE (Table/Fig 5) on endoscopy. Out of 48 LSBE patients, 32 (66.7%) cases were diagnosed by endoscopy to have hiatal hernia whereas out of 72 SSBE patients, hiatal hernia was detected in 24 (33.4%) cases. Hence, hiatal hernia was found to be significantly more frequent in LSBE patients compared to those with SSBE.

The presence of H. pylori infection obtained by rapid urease test was positive in 12 patients (10%) and negative in 108 patients (90%) out of the 120 endoscopically suspected BE. Among the 72 cases of microscopically proven BE, none was detected positive for H. pylori. Whereas out of the 48 patients where microscopically no evidence of BE was found, 12 cases were urease test positive. The association of microscopically proven BE with absence of H. pylori was found to be statistically significant (p-value=0.025) (Table/Fig 2).

Out of 72 patients diagnosed endoscopically as SSBE, 28 (38.9%) cases were found to have histologically confirmed IM; whereas 44 (91.7%) out of 48 patients with endoscopic diagnosis of LSBE had histologically confirmed IM. The association of IM with the increasing length of CLE was statistically significant (p-value=0.004) (Table/Fig 4).

Among the 72 microscopically diagnosed BE cases, total 64 (88.9%) patients were detected to have IM. Out of these 64 cases incomplete IM was detected in 40 patients, whereas complete IM was detected in 24 patients. Among the 40 patients diagnosed with Incomplete IM, endoscopic detection of LSBE and SSBE were in 36 and 04 patients, respectively. In case of complete IM, out of 24 patients, endoscopic LSBE and SSBE were in 04 and 20 cases, respectively (Table/Fig 7).

Out of 48 LSBE patients in the present study, 16 (33.4%) had dysplasia including four Indeterminate for Dysplasia (IDP) (8.4%), four High-grade Dysplasia (HDP) (8.4%) and eight Low-grade Dysplasia (LDP) (16.7%), whereas out of 18 SSBE patients, 8 (44.4%) had IDP. Microscopically, incomplete metaplasia is shown in (Table/Fig 8).

Discussion

In the present study, the patients with endoscopically suspected BE mostly belonged to the sixth decade (36.67%) with a mean age of 58.13 years. Abrams JA et al., and Edelstein ZR et al., also demonstrated that BE was usually detected during the sixth decade of life or later (12),(13). Gashi Z et al., performed an epidemiological study in relation to BE on 58 patients and showed that the mean age was 50.4±2.4 (SD) years and the most populated group was 50-59 years which corroborates well with those of the present study (14). The gender distribution of the present study shows that male patients constituted 66.7% of patients and females constituted the rest. Yachimski P et al., showed that M:F ratio for BE was approximately 2:1 (15). Gashi Z et al., also found that males (60%) were significantly more affected (14).

Obesity was associated in 53.4% of patients in the present study. In the published literature, GERD, BE and EAC have all been associated with obesity. It is thought to be due to increased GE sphincter gradient (16), intraabdominal pressure (17) and increased incidence of hiatal hernia in obese patients (18). A retrospective case-control study showed a direct relationship between mean visceral adipose tissue and BE (19). A similar correlation between BMI and BE was found in a study by Stein DJ et al., (20). In the present study, 63.3% of the patients were tobacco abusers and 40% were alcoholics. In microscopically proven BE, 83.3% were tobacco abusers (p-value 0.005) and 61.1% were alcoholics (p-value 0.004). Ronkainen J et al., and Kim JH et al., had found both alcohol and smoking to be significant risk factors but others have shown no significant importance of the same (21),(22). Robertson CS et al., Eloubeidi MA et al., and Ritenbaugh C et al., found no such association (23),(24),(25).

Hiatal hernia distorts the anatomy that normally protects against reflux by reducing LES tone and decreasing the peristaltic activity (7). In the present study, out of 48 LSBE, 32 (66.7%) had hiatal hernia. Out of 72 SSBE patients, 24 (33.3%) had hiatal hernia. Thus, hiatal hernia was more related to LSBE patients. In microscopically proven BE, 77.8% cases were diagnosed by endoscopy to have hiatal hernia (p-value=0.001). Westhoff B et al., showed that in 50 patients with GERD who developed BE, 63% had hiatal hernia (8). Gashi Z et al., found that all the LSBE patients in their study had hiatal hernia whereas 35% of SSBE had the same (14).

Out of 120 patients in the present study, 44 (36.67%) of cases were detected to have GERD and/or oesophagitis on histopathology. Of the 72 patients having histologically confirmed BE, 50% were associated with microscopic evidence of GERD and/or oesophagitis. Shaheen N and Ransohoff DF reported that BE was strongly associated with reflux symptoms. They also concluded that 5-15% of patients with long term reflux symptoms will have BE of some length with varying duration of time (26).

H. pylori is supposed to have a protective role against BE. But it is a risk factor for peptic ulcer disease and gastritis. H. pylori decreases gastric reflux disease through the activity of urease (27). Gashi Z et al., reported a lower prevalence of H. pylori infection among patients with BE (15.5%) as compared to GERD and control patients (14). Blot W et al., reported a reduced risk of EAC and BE among individuals infected with H. pylori in particular of CagA type (9). The results of the present study were in concordance with that of the published studies.

Of the 120 patients with endoscopic BE, 48 (40%) patients were reported as LSBE and 72 (60%) as SSBE. Gashi Z et al., in their study found that out of 58 patients, 35 (60.3%) patients had SSBE and 23 (39.7%) patients had LSBE which is almost similar to the present study (14). According to Rastogi A and Sharma P observed prevalence of SSBE was higher than that of LSBE. The demographics and the symptom profile of patients evaluated in their study varied significantly from those of the present study (28).

Of the 48 patients with LSBE in the present study, 44 (91.7%) patients had IM, while 04 (8.4%) patients were negative for IM. On the other hand, out of 72 SSBE patients, 28 (38.9%) had IM and the rest 44 (61.2%) were negative for IM. This finding was statistically significant having a p-value of 0.004, which demonstrates that IM was more prevalent in LSBE cases in the present study. In relation to LSBE, 36 (75%) patients had incomplete IM and 04 (8.33%) had complete IM and the rest 08 (16.7%) had no IM. In case of SSBE, only 04 (5.6%) patients had incomplete IM, 20 (27.8%) had complete IM and rest 48 (66.7%) patients had either Indeterminate for Barrett’s (IDB) (55.6%) or IDP (11.2%). In the IDP group, 04 patients (5.6%) had IM. Spechler SJ et al., noted that the frequency of finding specialised IM increased from 15% of patients with no CLE visible in the oesophagus to 90% of patients with greater than 3 cm of oesophageal CLE (10). In another study by Eloubeidi MA and Provenzale D IM increased from 25% of patients with less than 3 cm of CLE to 50% in patients with 3-5 cm of CLE and to >65% in patients with greater than 5 cm of CLE (24). Gashi Z et al., showed that 91.3% of patients with LSBE had microscopically confirmed IM while 45.7% of patients with SSBE had confirmed IM (14). All these findings are at par with those of the present study.

In a study on North Indians, by Wani IR et al., reported that prevalence of specialised IM was more in LSBE cases (29). The predominant form of IM in BE was incomplete IM which corroborates with findings of the present study (30). Incomplete IM was less differentiated and therefore more likely to be a precursor of dysplasia. In practice, incomplete and complete IM may exist adjacent to each other and their identification may purely be a result of sampling. Hence, subtypes of IM are not generally mentioned in pathology reports (31). As suggested by de Meester SR, a practical approach may be to consider that patients with LSBE nearly always have or will develop IM and these patients should be considered to have microscopically confirmed BE along with shorter length CLE who show IM on histopathology (32).

Limitation(s)

Considering the magnitude of problem of BE, the sample size of this present study was a limitation. Prospective short and long-term follow-up of the cases detected with BE would have allowed comment regarding natural outcome of such cases in this particular study population. This study, not being a population based study; the actual burden of disease, especially in asymptomatic patients could not be assessed. Ancillary Immunohistochemistry or molecular studies were also warranted for subcellular level observations and establishing scientific rationale behind the associations observed in this study.

Conclusion

The present study revealed that microscopically confirmed BE was more common in endoscopically detected LSBE than in SSBE cases. The association of BE with alcohol and tobacco abuse, hiatal hernia and absence of H. pylori infection was statistically significant. IM was detected more in LSBE than SSBE having a significant statistical association. Incomplete IM was observed more commonly in LSBE cases whereas complete IM was detected more frequently in cases diagnosed as SSBE by endoscopy.

References

1.
Chandrasoma PT. A new histology-based method: Diagnostic atlas of gastroesophageal reflux disease. 1st edn. Academic Press 2011: Pp. 5-7.
2.
Vakil N, van Zanten SV, Kahrilas P, Dent J, Jones R. The montreal definition and classification of gastroesophageal reflux disease: A global evidence-based consensus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:1900-20. [crossref] [PubMed]
3.
Cossentino MJ, Wong RK. Barrett’s oesophagus and risk of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Semin Gastrointest Dis. 2003;14(3):128-35.
4.
Jin RU, Mills JC. Are gastric and oesophageal metaplasia relatives? The case for Barrett’s stemming from SPEM. Dig Dis Sci. 2018;63:2028-41. [crossref] [PubMed]
5.
Bandla S, Peters JH, Ruff D, Chen SM, Li CY, Song K, et al. Comparison of cancer-associated genetic abnormalities in columnar-lined oesophagus tissues with and without goblet cells. Ann Surg. 2014;260:72-80. [crossref] [PubMed]
6.
Spechler SJ, Sharma P, Souza RF, Inadomi JM, Shaheen NJ. American gastroenterological association medical position statement on the management of barrett’s oesophagus. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:1084-91. [crossref] [PubMed]
7.
Gordon C, Kang JY, Neild PJ, Maxwell JD. The role of the hiatus hernia in gastro-oesophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2004;20(7):719-32. [crossref] [PubMed]
8.
Westhoff B, Brotze S, Weston A, McElhinney C, Cherian R, Mayo MS, et al. The frequency of Barrett’s oesophagus in high-risk patients with chronic GERD. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;61(2):226-31. [crossref] [PubMed]
9.
Blot W, McLaughlin J, Fraumeni JF. Oesophageal cancer. In: Schottenfeld D, Fraumeni J, eds. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006:697-706. [crossref]
10.
Spechler SJ, Zeroogian JM, Wang HH. The frequency of specialised intestinal metaplasia at the squamocolumnar junction varies with the extent of columnar epithelium lining the espophagus. Gastroenterology. 1995;108:A224. [crossref]
11.
Anaparthy R, Gaddam S, Kanakadandi V, Alsop BR, Gupta N, Higbee AD, et al. Association between length of barrett’s oesophagus and risk of high-grade dysplasia or adenocarcinoma in patients without dysplasia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11(11):1430-36. [crossref] [PubMed]
12.
Abrams JA, Fields S, Lightdale CI, Neugut AI. Racial and ethnic disparities in the prevalence of Barrett’s oesophagus among patients who undergo upper endoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6(1)30-34. [crossref] [PubMed]
13.
Edelstein ZR, Bronner MP, Rosen SN, Vaughan TL. Risk factors for Barrett’s oesophagus among patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease: A community clinic-based case-control study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(4):834-42. [crossref] [PubMed]
14.
Gashi Z, Ivkovski L, Shabani R, Bakalli A. The histopathological correlation with clinical and endoscopic evidence in patients with Barrett’s oesophagus. J Gastroint Dig Syst. 2011;S3:001. [crossref]
15.
Yachimski P, Lee RA, Tramontano A, Nishioka NS, Hur C. Secular trends in patients diagnosed with Barrett’s oesophagus. Digestive Diseases and Sciences. 2010;55(4):960-66. [crossref] [PubMed]
16.
Mercer CD, Wren SF, DaCosta LR, Beck IT. Lower oesophageal sphincter pressure and gastroesophageal pressure gradients in excessively obese patients. J Med. 1987;18(3-4):135-46.
17.
El-Serag HB, Tran T, Richardson P, Ergun G. Anthropometric correlates of intragastric pressure. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2006;41(8):887-91. [crossref] [PubMed]
18.
Pandolfino JE, El-Serag HB, Zhang Q, Shah N, Ghosh SK, Kahrilas PJ. Obesity: A challenge to oesophagogastric junction integrity. Gastroenterology. 2006;130(3):639-49. [crossref] [PubMed]
19.
El-Serag HB, Kvapil P, Hacken-Bitar J, Kramer JR. Abdominal obesity and the risk of Barrett’s oesophagus. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100(10):2151-56. [crossref] [PubMed]
20.
Stein DJ, El-Serag HB, Kuczynski J, Kramer JR, Sampliner RE. The association of body mass index with Barrett’s oesophagus. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;22(10):1005-10. [crossref] [PubMed]
21.
Ronkainen J, Aro P, Storskrubb T, Johansson SE, Lind T, Vieth M, et al. Prevalence of Barrett’s oesophagus in the general population: An endoscopic study. Gastroenterology. 2005;129(6):1825-31. [crossref] [PubMed]
22.
Kim JH, Rhee PL, Lee JH, Lee H, Choi YS, Son HJ, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of Barrett’s oesophagus in Korea. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;22(6):908-12. [crossref] [PubMed]
23.
Robertson CS, Mayberry JF, Nicholson DA, James PD, Atkinson M. Value of endoscopic surveillance in the detection of neoplastic change in Barrett’s oesophagus. Br J Surg. 1988;75(8):760-63. [crossref] [PubMed]
24.
Eloubeidi MA, Provenzale D. Does this patient have Barrett’s oesophagus? The utility of predicting Barret’s oesophagus at the index endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94(4):937-43. [crossref] [PubMed]
25.
Ritenbaugh C, Sampliner R, Aickin M, Garewal H, Meyskens F. Risk factors for Barrett’s oesophagus: A life history approach to behavioural assessment in the distant past. Eur J Cancer Prev. 1995;4(6):459-68. [crossref] [PubMed]
26.
Shaheen N, Ransohoff DF. Gastroesophageal reflux, Barrett oesophagus, and oesophageal cancer clinical applications. JAMA. 2002;287(15):1982-86. [crossref] [PubMed]
27.
Sharma P, Vakil N. Review article: Helicobacter pylori and reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003;17(3):297-305. [crossref] [PubMed]
28.
Rastogi A, Sharma P. Short-segment Barrett’s oesophagus and adenocarcinoma. Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2006;2(2)134-39.
29.
Wani IR, Showkat HI, Bhargav DK, Muezza S. Prevalence and risk factors for Barrett’s oesophagus in patients with GERD in Northern India; Do methylene blue-directed biopsies improve detection of Barrett’s oesophagus compared the conventional method? Middle East J Dig Dis. 2014;6(4):228-36.
30.
Gordon IO, Goldblum JR. Oesophagus. In: Mills SE, ed. Sternberg’s diagnostic surgical pathology. 6th edn. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer 2015: Pp. 1385.
31.
Bhardwaj A, McGarrity TJ, Stairs DB, Mani H. Barrett’s oesophagus: Emerging knowledge and management strategies. Patholog Res Int. 2012;2012:814146. Doi: 10.1155/2012/814146,p7. [crossref] [PubMed]
32.
DeMeester SR. Letter to the editor regarding “Definition of Barrett’s oesophagus: Time for a rethink-is intestinal metaplasia dead? The American Journal of Gastroenterology. 2010;105(5):1201-03.[crossref] [PubMed]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2023/62387.17597

Date of Submission: Dec 19, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Jan 19, 2023
Date of Acceptance: Feb 18, 2023
Date of Publishing: Mar 01, 2023

AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. Yes

PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Dec 20, 2022
• Manual Googling: Feb 11, 2023
• iThenticate Software: Feb 17, 2023 (14%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)
  • www.omnimedicalsearch.com