Ağustos 2012

61-65

Yasemin Yuyucu KARABULUT 1 , Berna SAVAŞ2 , Arzu ENSARİ 2

1 Çankır› Devlet Hastanesi, Çankırı Ankara Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi 2 Patoloji Anabilim Dalı, Ankara

Reflux esophagitis (RE) RE is defined as the inflammation of the lower esophagus du-e to damage caused by acid reflux resulting from lower esop-hageal sphincter dysfunction (1). RE occurs at all ages and in both sexes, though there is a slight male predominance. Cli-nically, RE may present as nonerosive reflux disease (NERD) including patients with normal endoscopy with or without positive pH monitoring, as erosive reflux disease (ERD) inc-luding patients with positive endoscopy, or as complicated RE comprising ulcers, strictures, hemorrhage, Barrett’s esop-hagus, and adenocarcinoma (4,5). Typical symptoms are he-artburn and regurgitation occurring more frequently after a fatty meal (6). Epigastric pain, chronic hoarseness and prot-racted hiccups are less frequently observed, while there is a large group of asymptomatic patients (6,10). RE is a multifac-torial disorder, with different abnormalities predominating in different patients. Predisposing factors include i) decreased esophageal sphincter pressure, ii) diminished esophageal cle-arance resulting from defective peristalsis, iii) delayed gastric emptying or abnormal gastric contractility, iv) decreased sali-vary flow, and v) increased gastric acid production (1,2). Esophageal dysmotility contributes to decreased clearance of the refluxed material, thereby leading to an increased muco-sal contact time. The composition and length of time of mu-cosal contact of the reflux material determine the severity of the disease (1,6). RE involves the most distal part of the esop-hagus, and the gastroesophageal junction in particular. Even though most patients with RE have classic endoscopic fin-dings of erythema, mucosal edema, erosions, or ulcers, many patients with typical reflux symptoms have normal or nearly normal endoscopy (i.e. NERD) (6). In contrast to RE, eosi-nophilic esophagitis (EoE) involves not only the distal esop-hagus; the mid and upper esophagus are also frequently in-volved (7). RE is associated with a variety of histologic featu-res, representing changes from secondary to acid injury and mucosal healing (2,5). Histopathologic features of acid reflux are nonspecific and include epithelial hyperplasia, balloon cells, basal cell hyperplasia, papillary elongation, vascular congestion, inflammatory cell infiltration comprising lymphocytes, neutrophils and eosinophils, and dilated inter-cellular spaces (DIS) representing epithelial edema (3,8). Se-veral investigators have developed grading schemes for each of these histologic criteria in an attempt to correlate with di-sease severity and also to aid in the differential diagnosis (7,9,10). Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) EoE is a chronic inflammatory disorder characterized by eo-sinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa associated with a history of atopy or allergy (9). EoE was first described in a case report in 1978 by Landres et al. (11). Attwood and colleagues (12) subsequently presented the first detailed study of EoE in 1993, describing intense eosinophilic infiltra-tion in the esophageal mucosa of 12 patients presenting with severe dysphagia and absence of acid reflux. Eosinophil infil-tration of the esophageal mucosa is the cardinal pathologic fe-ature, although it may occur secondary to several unrelated diseases such as eosinophilic gastroenteritis, hypereosinophi-lic syndrome, drug exposure, parasitic and fungal infections, RE, esophageal leiomyomatosis, and scleroderma (7,13,14). EoE shows an age predilection of children and young adults, with a male predominance (9,13). Progressive dysphagia typically described as intermittent and mostly induced with solid foods (15) and food impaction are the most common presenting symptoms in adult patients with EoE (13,16), while children typically present with feeding refusal, food in-tolerance, vomiting, abdominal pain, and failure to thrive (15,17). EoE involves not only the distal esophagus; the mid and upper esophagus are also frequently involved. Despite the lack of a pathognomonic endoscopic sign for EoE, red furrows, white exudates, “crepe paper” mucosa (i.e. fragile mucosa), corrugated rings, and severe stenosis are the most characteristic endoscopic findings (15,18). They seem to be related to the architectural changes resulting from chronic inflammation leading to fibrosis (15). In contrast to reflux di-sease, patients with EoE have normal pH monitoring and usually do not respond to acid suppression (12,16). Accor-ding to the criteria of FIGERS (First International Gastrointes-tinal Eosinophil Research Symposium), the diagnosis of EoE relies upon clinical and histological exclusion of RE and other causes of mucosal eosinophilia (19). Therefore, ambulatory pH monitoring, endoscopy and biopsy appear to be the most valuable procedures for the diagnosis of EoE (15,18). A different pathogenetic mechanism is involved in EoE, which seems to be linked to allergic responses to food or air-borne allergens, but cases have also been reported in which patients have EoE without detectable food allergies by patch or prick skin testing (14,20). This indicates that EoE could al-so be associated with immune dysregulation, and these tests might not reflect hypersensitivity driven by discrete antigens (20). The mechanism is believed to be mediated through ac-tivation of Th2 lymphocytes leading to an increased produc-tion of proallergenic interleukins (IL), especially IL-4, IL-5 and IL-13. While IL-5 promotes maturation of eosinophils and migration from the bone marrow into the circulating blo-od stream, IL-4 and IL-13 upregulate the production of eota-xin 3 by the epithelium, a chemokine responsible for attrac-ting the eosinophils into the esophagus (13). As a result, ma-ture eosinophils accumulate in the esophagus, are activated and degranulate, releasing multiple cytotoxic agents. Though the mechanism of fibrogenesis is still unclear, IL-5, by indu-cing fibroblast-myofibroblast transdifferentiation, may be the critical molecule for tissue fibrosis as well as smooth muscle hyperplasia that leads to esophageal stricture formation in Eo-E (14). In EoE, biopsies show marked eosinophilic infiltrate at diffe-rent levels of the esophagus. However, the presence of an in-creased number of eosinophils in the esophageal squamous epithelium is a nonspecific finding that may be seen in seve-ral disorders, including RE, infections, drugs, and Crohn’s di-sease (9,14). In order to distinguish EoE from other causes of mucosal eosinophilia, major and minor histologic criteria for the diagnosis of EoE have been described (18). Major features include epithelial eosinophilia >15 eosinophils/high-power fi-eld (hpf) and “microabscesses”, described as clustering of 4 or more eosinophils and superficial layering of eosinophils. Mi-nor criteria include basal cell hyperplasia, papillary elongati-on, spongiosis (intercellular edema), which is currently known as DIS, and inflammatory cell infiltration (14,18,26). Infectious esophagitis Infection is an important cause of esophagitis, especially in immunocompromised hosts. It can occur under various clini-cal settings including gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), advanced age, immunodeficiency states, chronic al-coholism, diabetes, and motility disorders (2). C. albicans, cytomegalovirus (CMV), and herpes simplex virus (HSV) are the most frequently observed causative agents of infectious esophagitis (1,2). Bacterial esophagitis The presence of bacteria within esophageal specimens does not always imply the presence of an infection. Organisms can be swallowed or carried into the esophagus by the endosco-pe. Bacteria lying freely on the surface or in the lumen are un-likely to be pathogens. Mostly, bacteria are found in biopsies from patients with CMV, HSV, or Candida esophagitis (1). Bacterial esophagitis, on the other hand, is defined as the pre-sence of bacterial invasion of the esophageal epithelium or deeper layers with no concomitant fungal or viral infection (1,2). It usually involves the previously damaged mucosa, by GERD, radiation, chemotherapy, or nasogastric intubation (1,21). The commonest causes of bacterial esophagitis inclu-de Staphylococcus aureus, epidermidis, and Streptococcus strains (21). Bacterial esophagitis presents with odynophagia, dysphagia, chest pain, or upper gastrointestinal bleeding. The most significant complications are perforation, fistulas and sepsis; the risk correlates with the severity of esophagitis. Bac-teria can be found on Gram-stained sections in the vicinity of ulcers and erosions (22). Viral esophagitis Viral esophagitis is very common, particularly in immuno-compromised hosts. This includes HSV, CMV, Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), and human papilloma virus (HPV) (1). Herpes esophagitis Herpes esophagitis is primarily a disease of immunocompro-mised patients with solid organ or bone marrow transplants (23). Herpes esophagitis can be caused by either HSV type 1 or type 2. Primary infection is common in neonates with dis-seminated HSV, while in adults most cases represent reactiva-tion of latent HSV type (24). Patients typically present with acute- onset nausea and vomiting, fever, odynophagia, dysphagia, and chest pain (15,24). Oral herpetic blisters may suggest the diagnosis, though they are found in only one-fo-urth of the patients (23). Endoscopically, multiple vesicles, erosions and ulcers with an exudate can be seen (23). Histo-logically, characteristic lesions include the presence of multi-nucleated giant cells and intranuclear inclusions within the squamous epithelium (24). There are two types of herpetic intranuclear inclusions: large basophilic inclusions that fill the entire nucleus – Cowdry type B, and small eosinophilic inclusions with a clear halo around them – Cowdry type A. Inclusions are usually found at later stages of the disease and are located at the edge of an ulcer (24). When viral inclusions are absent due to sampling error, presence of mononuclear cell infiltrate including macrophages with convoluted nucle-i adjacent to the infected epithelium is a helpful diagnostic fe-ature. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) may be useful but is ra-rely necessary (24). Cytomegalovirus (CMV) esophagitis Immunocompromised hosts, particularly acquired immuno-deficiency syndrome (AIDS) patients and transplant recipi-ents, are at high risk for CMV esophagitis, which is usually ac-companied by systemic CMV infection (23). Patients with disseminated CMV infection have circulating cytomegalic inc-lusion-containing endothelial cells in their peripheral blood. Though clinical findings are similar to herpes esophagitis, en-doscopically, a single ulcer located in the distal esophagus is the most common finding in CMV esophagitis (25). The his-tologic diagnosis is made on biopsies from the ulcer base. Characteristic cytopathic effects include prominent eosinop-hilic intranuclear Cowdry type A inclusions and cellular en-largement, and occasional granular basophilic cytoplasmic inclusions are found in endothelial and stromal cells deep in the ulcer base (24). The classic inclusion has amphophilic staining with a clear halo around it giving the impression of an “owl’s eye” (25). These differ from HSV infection, since CMV inclusions are mostly found in the glandular epitheli-um, endothelial cells, and fibroblasts rather than the squamo-us epithelium. IHC may highlight infected cells without typi-cal CMV morphology. Clusters of macrophages in a perivas-cular distribution at the ulcer base, though smaller, are also found in CMV infection, similar to HSV esophagitis (25). Fungal esophagitis The affected patients are almost always immunocompromi-sed. Fungal esophagitis most commonly results from Candi-da species, although Histoplasma, Aspergillus, Paracoccidioi-des, and Cryptococcus can rarely cause esophagitis (1). Candidal esophagitis C. albicansis the predominant cause of fungal esophagitis (1). Patients present with acute odynophagia and/or dysphagia in immunocompromised patients (15,23). Most patients also have concomitant oropharyngeal candidiasis (1). Endoscopi-cally, whitish, raised, longitudinal, focal, or confluent plaqu-es or membranes cover a friable mucosa in the mid or distal part of the esophagus. Histologically, erosions and ulcers co-vered with necrotic squamous debris that contains budding spores and pseudohyphae without true branching and lying perpendicular to the surface epithelium, are seen (23). Inva-sion of the mucosal or submucosal blood vessels is a common feature. In the absence of pseudohyphae, oral contamination should be considered before making a diagnosis of candidal esophagitis (22,23). A periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) or methena-mine silver stain can be useful when no spores are seen on he-matoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained sections. Parakeratosis and acute inflammation characterized by the presence of ne-utrophils in the superficial mucosa may call attention to the presence of Candida (22). Esophagitis in AIDS patients Though Candida, HSV and CMV esophagitis are common in AIDS patients, a proportion present with large discrete ulcers defined as “giant esophageal ulcers” or “chronic idiopathic esophageal ulcers” in the mid or distal part of the esophagus. Evidence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has been confirmed in these ulcers with a combination of molecular techniques and IHC (23). Esophagitis and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) Esophageal involvement is an uncommon presentation of Crohn’s disease. When present, it is usually associated with extra-esophageal disease. The most common clinical presen-tation is with dysphagia (15,22). Endoscopic findings vary from erosions and aphthous ulcers to punched-out ulcers and strictures (21). Histology is rather nonspecific, with erosions, ulcers and mixed cellular inflammation within the mucosa and submucosa. Granulomas are found in one-third of the ca-ses. Ulcerative colitis may also involve the esophageal muco-sa especially in pediatric cases (21,22). Drug-related esophagitis The drugs that cause esophagitis comprise antibiotics, non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs, iron supplements, potassi-um chloride, ascorbic acid, azathioprine, and bisphosphona-tes (1). There is no characteristic finding for drug-induced esophagitis, since the injury results from either a complicati-on of the therapeutic action of the drug or from direct muco-sal injury caused by the drug, so-called “pill esophagitis” (22). Pill esophagitis was first described in a patient taking potassi-um chloride tablets (27). Pills lodge in the mid-esophagus at the level of the aortic arch or in the distal esophagus, where they have prolonged contact with the mucosa. This occurs when the drugs are taken with little or no water (22). The ma-in symptoms are sudden retrosternal pain and painful swallo-wing. Endoscopically, discrete punched-out ulcer is the cha-racteristic finding of pill esophagitis (27). Most are superfici-al ulcers that heal readily, except those formed by potassium chloride, which are deep and may even perforate (27). Besi-des ulcers and erosions, numerous eosinophils may be seen in the squamous epithelium resembling EoE (7). Remnants of the pill may be present at the base of the ulcer in some cases (27). Caustic esophagitis Caustic esophagitis results from ingestion of strong alkalis or acids either as a suicide attempt in adults or accidentally in children. Common agents include sodium carbonate, ammo-nium hydroxide and bleaches. Drain cleaners and detergents are also highly caustic. The extent of injury depends on the amount and type of the ingested agent and the duration of ex-posure (22). Dysphagia and odynophagia are the main symp-toms. Severe corrosive injury leads to hemorrhage, perforati-on and strictures. The entire mucosa can be separated and ex-truded in the form of a cast. Damage with alkalis is more se-vere than with acids since they penetrate the tissue (1). The degree of caustic burns can be graded according to the level of injury within the mucosa, in a similar manner as with skin burns (22). Radiation/chemotherapy esophagitis Patients receiving radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy for va-rious malignant tumors may develop esophagitis (1). The ex-tent of injury is determined by the type of treatment, durati-on, dose, and tissue sensitivity. The spectrum of injury ranges from acute self-limited esophagitis to perforation (22). Pati-ents present with dysphagia and chest pain similar to other causes of esophagitis. In acute cases, mucositis and ulcers can be found, while strictures and webs develop in chronic cases. Histologically, significant atypia with bizarre nucle-i and multinucleation is present (2). Lymphocytic esophagitis Lymphocytic esophagitis is a recently described variant of chronic esophagitis. It is characterized by extensive lymphocytosis mainly concentrated in the peripapillary zone of the squamous epithelium (1). Patients may have as many as 20-50 lymphocytes/hpf. It has been described in patients with GERD, celiac disease, Helicobacter pylorigastritis and Crohn’s disease. It may, however, represent a tissue reaction rather than a specific entity (22).

1. Noffsinger AE. Update on esophagitis. Controversial and underdiagno-sed causes. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009;133:1087-95. 2. Maguire A, Sheahan K. Pathology of oesophagitis. Histopathology 2012;60:864-79. 3. Takubo K, Honma NB, Aryal G, et al. Is there a set of histologic changes that are invariably reflux associated? Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005;129: 159-63. 4. Allende DS, Yerian LM. Diagnosing gastroesophageal reflux disease. The pathologist’s perspective. Adv Anat Pathol 2009;16:161-5. 5. Ismail-Beigi F, Horton PF, Pope CE 2nd. Histological consequences of gastroesophageal reflux in man. Gastroenterology 1970;58:163-74. 6. Nandurkar S, Talley NJ, Martin CJ, Ng T, Adams S. Esophageal histology does not provide additional useful information over clinical assessment in identifying reflux patients presenting for esophagogastroduodenos-copy. Dig Dis Sci 2000;45:217-24. 7. Mansoor A, Soetikno R, Ahmed A. The differential diagnosis of eosinop-hilic esophagitis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2000;30:242-4. 8. Van Malenstein H, Farre R, Sifrim D. Esophageal dilated intercellular spaces (DIS) and nonerosive reflux disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2008;103:1021-8. 9. Ireland-Jenkin K, Wu X, Heine RG, Cameron DJS, Catto-Smith AG, Chow XW. Oesophagitis in children: reflux or allergy? Pathology 2008;40:188-95. 10. Sabri MT, Hussain SZ, Shalaby TM, Orenstein SR. Morphometric histo-logy for infant gastroesophageal reflux disease: evaluation of reliability in 497 esophageal biopsies. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2007;44:27-34. 11. Landres RT, Kuster GG, Strum WB. Eosinophilic esophagitis in a patient with vigorous achalasia. Gastroenterology 1978;74:1298-301. 12. Atwood SEA, Smyrk TC, Demeester TR, Jones JB. Esophageal eosinop-hilia with dysphagia. A distinct clinicopathological syndrome. Dig Dis Sci 1993;38:109-16. 13. Moawad FJ, Veerappan GR, Wong RK. Eosinophilic esophagitis. Dig Dis Sci 2009;54:1818-28. 14. Antonioli DA, Furuta GT. Allergic eosinophilic esophagitis: a primer for pathologists. Semin Diagn Pathol 2005;22:266-72. 15. Yan BM, Shaffer EA. Eosinophilic esophagitis: a newly established cause of dysphagia. World J Gastroenterol 2006;12:2328-34. 16. Chang F, Anderson S. Clinical and pathological features of eosinophilic oesophagitis: a review. Pathology 2008;40:3-8. 17. Sprenger RA, Arends JW, Poley JW, Kuipers EJ, ter Borg F. Eosinophilic esophagitis: an enigmatic, emerging disease. Netherlands J Med 2009;67:8-12. 18. Odze RD. Pathology of eosinophilic esophagitis: what the clinician needs to know. Am J Gastroenterol 2009;104:485-90. 19. Liacouras CA, Bonis P, Putam PE, et al. Summary of the First Internatio-nal Gastrointestinal Eosinophil Research Symposium. J Pediatric Gastro-enterol Nutr 2007;45:370-91. 20. Genta RM, Spechler SJ, Souza RF. The twentieth eosinophil. Adv Anat Pathol 2007;14:340-3. 21. Tobin JM, Sinha B, Ramani P, Saleh AR, Murphy MS. Upper gastrointes-tinal mucosal disease in pediatric Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis: a blinded, controlled study. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2001;32:443-8. 22. Rueda-Pedreza ME. Non-neoplastic disorders of the esophagus. In: La-cobuzio-Donahue CA, Montgomery EA, eds. Gastrointestinal and liver pathology. Philadelphia, PA: Churchill Livingstone, Elsevier, 2011;14-32. 23. Werneck-Silva AL, Prado IB. Role of upper endoscopy in diagnosing op-portunistic infections in human immunodeficiency virus-infected pati-ents. World J Gastroenterol 2009;15:1050-6. 24. Greenson JK, Beschorner WE, Boinott JK, Yardley JH. Prominent mono-nuclear cell infiltrate is characteristic of herpes esophagitis. Hum Pathol 1991;22:541-9. 25. Baroco A, Oldfield EC. Gastrointestinal cytomegalovirus disease in the immunocompromised patient. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2008;10:409-16. 26. Ravelli AM, Villanaci V, Ruzzeneti N, et al. Dilated intercellular spaces: a major morphological feature of esophagitis. JPGN 2006;42:510-5. 27. Parfitt JR, Driman DK. Pathological effects of drugs on the gastrointesti-nal tract: a review. Hum Pathol 2007;38:527-36.