Pathological validity of esophageal endoscopy. How real is what we see? Myth or reality?

• Published in: Diseases of the esophagus 2004-01, Vol.17 (4), p.304-306
• Main Authors: Kanthan, R., Torkian, B., Kanthan, S. C.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adenocarcinoma - pathology; Barrett Esophagus - pathology; Biopsy - methods; Carcinoma, Squamous Cell - pathology; Diagnosis, Differential; Diagnostic Errors; endoscopy; esophageal biopsy; Esophageal Neoplasms - pathology; Esophagitis - pathology; Esophagoscopy; Female; Gastroesophageal Reflux - diagnosis; Gastroesophageal Reflux - pathology; Humans; Male; pathological validity; Reproducibility of Results; Retrospective Studies
• ISSN: 1120-8694; 1442-2050
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2050.2004.00430.x

SUMMARY  The purpose of this study was to characterize the spectrum of esophageal pathology at a provincial tertiary care hospital and to evaluate these findings with their respective endoscopic diagnoses. The pathology slides of 183 esophageal biopsies for the year 2000 were reviewed and classified as esophagitis, intestinal metaplasia, low or high grade dysplasia, adenocarcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma or normal. One hundred and fifteen cases (63%) had complete concordant results with respective endoscopic reports. Sixty‐eight cases (37%) had discordant results with inaccurate recognition of Barrett's esophagus in 9% and of esophagitis with a false positive in 16% and false negative in 7%. Although esophagoscopy remains a primary investigative tool in gastroesophageal diseases, evaluation of erythema, inflammation and esophagitis can be misleading. Pathologically confirmed esophagitis can occur in a ‘normal’ esophagus. Accurate endoscopic recognition of short‐segment Barrett's remains a diagnostic challenge.