Multiple Lugol‐unstained lesions predict higher cumulative risk of malignance in the esophagus

• Published in: Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology Vol. 38; no. 3; pp. 416 - 423
• Main Authors: Qi, Zifan, Liu, Mengfei, Zhou, Ren, Guo, Chuanhai, Liu, Anxiang, Yang, Haijun, Li, Fenglei, Duan, Liping, Shen, Lin, Wu, Qi, Wu, Nan, Liu, Zhen, Pan, Yaqi, Liu, Fangfang, Liu, Ying, Cai, Hong, He, Zhonghu, Ke, Yang
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Australia Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.03.2023
• Subjects: Barrett Esophagus; Biopsy; Coloring Agents; Dysplasia; Endoscopy; ESECC; Esophageal cancer; Esophageal Neoplasms - pathology; Esophagoscopy; Esophagus; Humans; Lesions; Regression analysis; Risk Factors; Screening; Surveillance; Screening; ESECC; Surveillance; Esophageal cancer
• ISSN: 0815-9319; 1440-1746; 1440-1746
• DOI: 10.1111/jgh.16075

Background and Aim The impact of the presence of multiple Lugol‐unstained lesions (LULs) in the esophagus on the risk of having severe dysplasia and above (SDA) lesions among asymptomatic individuals is unknown. Methods We collected demographic factors, behavioral variables, and features of LULs from 1073 participants who were biopsied at baseline endoscopic screening in a population‐based screening trial, and these individuals were followed over a median time of 7 years. Outcome events were defined as SDA identified at screening, at reexamination, or during follow‐up. “Multiple LULs” were defined as ≥ 2 LULs found in the entirety of the esophagus. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to assess the effect of “multiple LULs” on the cumulative risk of SDA. Results There were 147 SDA cases in the current study. After adjustment for potential risk factors and endoscopic features of LULs, the presence of “multiple LULs” slightly increased the cumulative risk of having SDA with no statistical significance (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.85, 1.88]). Further stratified analysis showed that this association was strong among subjects with small LULs (≤ 5 mm) (adjusted OR = 3.29; 95% CI [1.39, 7.79]). However, no such association was observed in subjects with larger LULs (adjusted OR = 0.99; 95% CI [0.63, 1.55], P interaction = 0.022). Conclusions The presence of “multiple small LULs (≤ 5 mm)” in chromoendoscopy indicates a higher cumulative risk of having SDA in the esophagus. We recommend biopsies be taken and surveillance be maintained at a more active level in individuals with relatively small but multiple LULs.