Routine morphometrical analysis can improve reproducibility of dysplasia grade in Barrett's oesophagus surveillance biopsies

Journal of Clinical Pathology

Volumn 55, Issue 12, 2002, Pages 910-916

  Baak, J P A ^a,b   Ten Kate, F J W ^c   Offerhaus, G J A ^c   Van Lanschot, J J ^c   Meijer, G A ^c  

^a STAVANGER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

^b VU UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^c ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

KI 67 ANTIGEN;

ARTICLE; BARRETT ESOPHAGUS; CELL NUCLEUS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DISEASE SEVERITY; DYSPLASIA; ESOPHAGUS BIOPSY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL EXPERT; MORPHOMETRICS; PATHOLOGIST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; TECHNIQUE;

BARRETT ESOPHAGUS; BIOPSY; CELL NUCLEUS; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; ESOPHAGEAL NEOPLASMS; FEASIBILITY STUDIES; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMMUNOENZYME TECHNIQUES; KI-67 ANTIGEN; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRECANCEROUS CONDITIONS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 0036903161     PISSN: 00219746     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jcp.55.12.910     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Spechler SJ, Goyal RK. The columnar-lined esophagus, intestinal metaplasia, and Norman Barrett. Gastroenterology 1996;110:614-21.
2. Sandick JW van, Lanschot JJB van, Kuiken BW, et al. Impact of endoscopic biopsy surveillance of Barrett oesophagus on pathological stage and clinical outcome of Barrett carcinoma. Gut 1998;43:216-22.
3. Montgomery E, Goldblum JR, Greenson JK, et al. Dysplasia as a predictive marker for invasive carcinoma in Barrett esophagus: A follow-up study based on 138 cases from a diagnostic variability study. Hum Pathol 2001;32:379-88.
4. Reid BJ, Haggitt RC, Rubin CE, et al. Observer variation in the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus. Hum Pathol 1988;19:166-78.
5. Sagan Ch, Flejou JF, Diebold MD, et al. Reproducibilite des criteres histologiques de dysplasie sur muqueuse de Barrett. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 1994;18:D31-4.
6. Polkowski W, Baak JPA, van Lanschot JJB, et al. Clinical decision making in Barrett's oesophagus can be supported by computerized immunoquantitation and morphometry of features associated with proliferation and differentiation. J Pathol 1998;184:161-8.
7. Montgomery E, Bronner MP, Goldblum JR, et al. Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus: A reaffirmation. Hum Pathol 2001;32:368-78.
8. Baak JPA. Manual of Quantitative Pathology. New York: Springer, 1991.
9. Jarvis LR, Whitehead R. Morphometric analysis of gastric dysplasia. J Pathol 1985;147:133-8.
10. Tosi P, Luzi P, Baak JPA. Gastric dysplasia: A stereological and morphometrical assessment. J Pathol 1987;152:83-94.
11. Meijer GA, Meuwissen SGM, Baak JPA. Classification of colorectal adenomas with quantitative pathology. Evaluation of morphometry, stereology, mitotic counts and syntactic structure analysis. Anal Cell Pathol 1995;9:311-23.
12. Hamilton PW, Thompson D, Sloan JM, et al. Knowledge-guided segmentation and morphometric analysis of colorectal dysplasia. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 1995;17:172-82.
13. Sandick JW van, Baak JPA, Lanschot JJB van, et al. Computerised quantitative pathology for the grading of dysplasia in surveillance biopsies of Barrett oesophagus. J Pathol 2000;190:177-83.
14. Gonzalez MV, Artimez ML, Rodrigo L, et al. Mutation analysis of the p53, APC, and p16 genes in the Barrett's oesophagus, dysplasia, and adenocarcinoma. J Clin Pathol 1997;50:212-17.