Straightforward, unambiguous terminology can reduce the risk of labelling patients inappropriately
Whenever the definition of a diagnostic term is changed, a Pandora’s box of potential confusion is opened. Are all clinicians and research investigators using the same criteria? If a patient has been given a diagnostic label, does it refer to the old or the new definition? Barrett’s oesophagus has changed its definition more than once over the past five decades and is a prime example of how changing definitions causes confusion for clinicians and investigators alike.1,2 A solution to this problem lies in avoiding the potentially confusing term “Barrett’s oesophagus” altogether. Moreover, this is possible by using existing terminology without the need for any new definitions.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Spechler SJ, Goyal RJ. The columnar-lined esophagus, intestinal metaplasia, and Norman Barrett. Gastroenterology 1996; 110: 614-621.
- 2. Chandrasoma P. Controversies of the cardiac mucosa and Barrett’s oesophagus. Histopathology 2005; 46: 361-373.
- 3. Chandrasoma PT, Der R, Dalton P, et al. Distribution and significance of epithelial types in columnar-lined esophagus. Am J Surg Pathol 2001; 25: 1188-1193.
- 4. Offerhaus GJ, Correa P, van Eeden S, et al. Report of an Amsterdam working group on Barrett esophagus. Virchows Arch 2003; 443: 602-608.
- 5. Goldblum JR. Barrett’s esophagus and Barrett’s-related dysplasia. Mod Pathol 2003; 16: 316-324.
- 6. Fléjou JF. Barrett’s oesophagus: from metaplasia to dysplasia and cancer. Gut 2005; 54 Suppl 1: i6-i12.
- 7. Werner M, Fléjou JF, Hainaut P. Tumours of the oesophagus. Adenocarcinoma. In: Hamilton SR, Aaltonen LA, editors. World Health Organization classification of tumours: pathology and genetics of tumours of the digestive system. Lyon: IARCPress, 2000: 20-26.
- 8. Skinner DB, Walther BC, Riddell RH, et al. Barrett’s esophagus. Comparison of benign and malignant cases. Ann Surg 1983; 198: 554-565.
- 9. Sampliner RE. Practice guidelines on the diagnosis, surveillance, and therapy of Barrett’s esophagus. The Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of Gastroenterology. Am J Gastroenterol 1998; 93: 1028-1032.
- 10. Armstrong D. Review article: towards consistency in the endoscopic diagnosis of Barrett’s oesophagus and columnar metaplasia. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2004; 20 Suppl 5: 40-47.
- 11. Faller G, Borchard F, Ell C, et al. Histopathological diagnosis of Barrett’s mucosa and associated neoplasias: results of a consensus conference of the Working Group for Gastroenterological Pathology of the German Society for Pathology on 22 September 2001 in Erlangen. Virchows Arch 2003; 443: 597-601.
- 12. Playford RJ. New British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines for the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s oesophagus [commentary]. Gut 2006; 55: 442-443.
- 13. Hellier MD, Shepherd NA. Diagnosis of columnar-lined oesophagus. In: Watson A, Heading RC, Shepherd NA, editors. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of Barrett’s columnar-lined oesophagus. A report of the Working Party of the British Society of Gastroenterology. August 2005. http://www.bsg.org.uk/pdf_word_docs/Barretts_Oes.pdf (accessed Jan 2007).
- 14. Murray L, Watson P, Johnston B, et al. Risk of adenocarcinoma in Barrett’s oesophagus: population based study. BMJ 2003; 327: 534-535.
- 15. Murphy SJ, Johnston BT, Murray LJ. British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for the diagnosis of Barrett’s oesophagus: are we casting the net too wide [letter]? Gut 2006; 55: 1821-1822.
- 16. Riddell RH. The genesis of Barrett esophagus: has a histologic transition from gastroesophageal reflux disease-damaged epithelium to columnar metaplasia ever been seen in humans? Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005; 129: 164-169.
- 17. Sharma P, Weston AP, Morales T, et al. Relative risk of dysplasia for patients with intestinal metaplasia in the distal oesophagus and in the gastric cardia. Gut 2000; 46: 9-13.
- 18. Rogge-Wolf C, Seldenrijk CA, Das KM, et al. Prevalence of mabDAS-1 positivity in biopsy specimens from the esophagogastric junction. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 2979-2985.
- 19. DeMeester SR, Wickramasinghe KS, Lord RV, et al. Cytokeratin and DAS-1 immunostaining reveal similarities among cardiac mucosa, CIM, and Barrett’s esophagus. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 2514-2523.
- 20. Phillips RW, Frierson HF, Moskaluk CA. Cdx2 as a marker of epithelial intestinal differentiation in the esophagus. Am J Surg Pathol 2003; 27: 1442-1447.
- 21. Liu GS, Gong J, Cheng P. Distinction between short-segment Barrett’s esophageal and cardiac intestinal metaplasia. World J Gastroenterol 2005; 11: 6360-6365.
- 22. Glickman JN, Wang H, Das KM, et al. Phenotype of Barrett’s esophagus and intestinal metaplasia of the distal esophagus and gastroesophageal junction: an immunohistochemical study of cytokeratins 7 and 20, Das-1 and 45 MI. Am J Surg Pathol 2001; 25: 87-94.
- 23. Odze RD. Unraveling the mystery of the gastroesophageal junction: a pathologist’s perspective. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 1853-1867.
- 24. Kilgore SP, Ormsby AH, Gramlich TL, et al. The gastric cardia: fact or fiction? Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 921-924.
- 25. De Hertogh G, Van Eyken P, Ectors N, et al. On the existence and location of cardiac mucosa: an autopsy study in embryos, fetuses, and infants. Gut 2003; 52: 791-796.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.
None identified.