Histologic and Endoscopic Findings Are Highly Correlated in a Prospective Cohort of Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.

Federica Di Vincenzo, Maria A Quintero, Joao M Serigado, Tulay Koru-Sengul, Rose Marie Killian, Julio Poveda, Jonathan England, Oriana Damas, David Kerman, Amar Deshpande, Maria T Abreu
{"title":"Histologic and Endoscopic Findings Are Highly Correlated in a Prospective Cohort of Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.","authors":"Federica Di Vincenzo, Maria A Quintero, Joao M Serigado, Tulay Koru-Sengul, Rose Marie Killian, Julio Poveda, Jonathan England, Oriana Damas, David Kerman, Amar Deshpande, Maria T Abreu","doi":"10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjae141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>The advantages of endoscopic vs histologic assessments of inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease remain unclear. We compared endoscopic and histologic inflammation in a prospective cohort. Furthermore, in patients with discordant findings, we compared the ability of endoscopy vs histology to predict disease course.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease (CD) patients underwent routine colonoscopies with intestinal biopsies, which included ratings of inflammation severity. Tetrachoric correlation analysis between the endoscopic and histologic inflammation ratings was performed. In postsurgical CD patients, major adverse outcomes (MAOs) were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis included 749 patients (60.2% CD patients), with 2807 biopsied segments. We found high concordance between endoscopist and pathologist inflammation ratings (0.84, 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.87, p < 0.0001). Only 12.5% of biopsied segments exhibited microscopic inflammation without endoscopic inflammation. Neo-terminal ileum (neo-TI) biopsies exhibited the highest discordance; UC colonic biopsies had the highest concordance. Postsurgical CD patients who completed the 48-month follow-up (n = 138) were included in the survival analysis. The probability of MAO-free survival was significantly higher in patients with a Rutgeerts score of i0 at baseline than in those with higher scores. Microscopic inflammation in the neo-TI did not predict a higher risk of MAOs (p = 1.00).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In a real-world setting, endoscopic inflammation predicted histologic inflammation with high accuracy. In patients with a Rutgeerts score of i0, microscopic inflammation in neo-TI biopsies did not predict more aggressive disease behavior over the next 4 years. These results have implications for the design of clinical trials, suggesting the use of endoscopic healing as an endpoint.</p>","PeriodicalId":94074,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Crohn's & colitis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Crohn's & colitis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjae141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aims: The advantages of endoscopic vs histologic assessments of inflammation in inflammatory bowel disease remain unclear. We compared endoscopic and histologic inflammation in a prospective cohort. Furthermore, in patients with discordant findings, we compared the ability of endoscopy vs histology to predict disease course.

Methods: Ulcerative colitis (UC) or Crohn's disease (CD) patients underwent routine colonoscopies with intestinal biopsies, which included ratings of inflammation severity. Tetrachoric correlation analysis between the endoscopic and histologic inflammation ratings was performed. In postsurgical CD patients, major adverse outcomes (MAOs) were recorded.

Results: The analysis included 749 patients (60.2% CD patients), with 2807 biopsied segments. We found high concordance between endoscopist and pathologist inflammation ratings (0.84, 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.87, p < 0.0001). Only 12.5% of biopsied segments exhibited microscopic inflammation without endoscopic inflammation. Neo-terminal ileum (neo-TI) biopsies exhibited the highest discordance; UC colonic biopsies had the highest concordance. Postsurgical CD patients who completed the 48-month follow-up (n = 138) were included in the survival analysis. The probability of MAO-free survival was significantly higher in patients with a Rutgeerts score of i0 at baseline than in those with higher scores. Microscopic inflammation in the neo-TI did not predict a higher risk of MAOs (p = 1.00).

Conclusions: In a real-world setting, endoscopic inflammation predicted histologic inflammation with high accuracy. In patients with a Rutgeerts score of i0, microscopic inflammation in neo-TI biopsies did not predict more aggressive disease behavior over the next 4 years. These results have implications for the design of clinical trials, suggesting the use of endoscopic healing as an endpoint.

炎性肠病患者前瞻性队列的组织学和内镜检查结果高度相关。
背景和目的:内窥镜与组织学评估炎症性肠病的优势尚不清楚。我们在前瞻性队列中比较了内窥镜和组织学炎症。此外,在结果不一致的患者中,我们比较了内窥镜检查与组织学检查预测病程的能力。方法:溃疡性结肠炎(UC)或克罗恩病(CD)患者接受常规结肠镜检查和肠道活检,其中包括炎症严重程度评分。对内窥镜和组织学炎症评分进行四分频相关性分析。在术后CD患者中,记录主要不良结局(MAOs)。结果:共纳入749例(60.2%)CD患者,2807个活检节段。我们发现内窥镜医生和病理学家的炎症评分高度一致(0.84,95%可信区间,0.81-0.87,p)。结论:在现实世界中,内窥镜炎症预测组织学炎症具有很高的准确性。在rutgerts评分为0的患者中,新ti活检中的显微镜下炎症并不能预测未来4年更具有侵袭性的疾病行为。这些结果对临床试验的设计具有启示意义,建议使用内窥镜治疗作为终点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信