Digestive System
Online Learning Platform

We need to differenciate between non dysplastic (the majority of Barrett's do not have any dysplasia, just metaplasia) versus dysplastic changes (proliferative changes that is characterized by a loss in the uniformity of individual cells in a tissue and loss in the architectural orientation )

The overall yearly incidence of  eosphageal adenocarcinoma in non dysplasitc  is 0.3% (. This is approximate and based on a metanalysis, although we know that factors such a age, smoking or obesity increase the overall risk of adenocarcinoma in Barrett's patients, and equally, the risk lowers when short segment (<3cm) - down to 0.19 % per year)

9.1% is the overall incidence of progression (to either HGD or adenoca) in those who already present low grade dysplasia, up to   9.1% per patient/year  with pooled annual incidence of adenocarcinoma of 0.54% per year

Check the guidelines

Difficult question, but summarizes the (sometimes) difficult scores.
Montreal classification is easy - A for Age  L for location and B for phenotype.  There is ileal and colonic involvement so it is L3 (Ileocolonic) Small p is added when it is perianal disease (abscesses, ulcers or fistulae , but not skin tags or fissures)

The HBI takes into account the general well being , Abdominal pain   Number of liquid stools per day, Abdominal mass and extrainestinal Complications ( arthralgia, uveitis, erythema nodosum, aphthous ulcers, pyoderma gangrenosum ,anal fissure , new fistula or abscess)

<5 Remission   5-7 Mild disease  8-16 Moderate disease  >16 Severe disease

Her score is 9 (Moderate) But this could be guessed based on her level of pain, stools and absence of systemic inflamamtory reponse.

Check the HBI score

Scores of 8-14 represent Hazardous or Harmful range. In those cases, the recommendation is to explain to the patient that they may be drinking too much on occasions, and the likely negative impact the alcohol can cause as it is carcinogenic, can help developing cardiovascular disease, can cause dependence and can put you or others at risk.

Any  score of 15 or above associates high risk (drinking could cause harm and it is important a clear determination to cut down or stop alcohol). Any score of 20 or above indicates likely dependence and needs referral to specialist and supervised detoxification

It is expected that up to 1 in 2 patients who are positive in faecal inmunochemistry test  (FIT) can have pathology (polyps or cancer) This can be seen in  results such as the QUALISCOPIA group or the UK bowel screening  report

For standard colonoscopies,  ASGE  and ESGE  agree that it should be an overall > 25% (for men ≥30%, for women ≥20%)

The  BSG minimum standard is slightly lower to > 15% (aspirational 20%)

Based on this metanalysis of real life Colonoscopy findings in >3.5 million patients, this percentage are pooled to real life colonoscopies

This rate is for standard colonoscopies, does not take into account FIT/FOBT  positive patients (Positive faecal blood patients in bowel screening) in which the aspirational should be at least 40-50% of adenoma or cancer detection. (See report from bowel screening in the UK)

The lower cutoff for FIB 4   >1.3.  Less than 1.3 rules out advanced fibrosis, and >1.3 needs further investigations.

In elderly patients (>65 yo) this threlsholds has low especificity (many false positive patients who do not really have advanced fibrosis) therefore the cutoff proposed in those is 2 (Fib 4 <2 rules out significant fibrosis)

>2.67 is the upper threshold for advanced fibrosis. Patients scoring this have high chance of advance fibrosis and should be referred to liver clinic

Paquet (Or Modified Paquet that contains 3 categories insted of 4) is the classification used for esophageal varices. Zargar is used for caustic injury

EREFS (EoE reference endoscopic score) is used to grade Eosinophilic esophagitis.

Kodsi is used for staging Candidiasis:

Grade I, a few raised white plaques up to 2 mm in size without edema or ulceration.

Grade II, multiple raised white plaques greater than 2 mm in size without ulceration.

Grade III, confluent, linear, and nodular elevated plaques.

Grade IV, finding of grade III with increased friability of the mucous membranes and occasional narrowing of the lumen

Check AGA guidelines and ESGE, BSG  and Asia Pacific and  international consensus group

This is a Forrest III (clean based) duodenal ulcer in a healthy and stable patient. (Rebleeding risk <5% )

Patient could be discharged if stable and toleranting oral diet (AGA recommends in low risk endoscopic findings considerning discharge in stable cases with stable vitals and Hb and  no other reason for hospitalization).  PPI should be initiated orally, but given it is a low risk finding (F-III) only standard dose would be enough.  If it was a high risk such as Forrest I-IIa, then 72h of  IV PPI (Or oral high dose PPI in selected cases) is recommended as well as keeping the patient under observation.

In high risk (Forrest I-IIb) American and International guidelines advise commencing a two week course of twice daily high dose PPI,  based on a trial that showed 40 mg esomeprazole BD significantly reduced rebleeding compared  40 mg esomeprazole once daily  ( 10.8% v 28.7%,)

So the endoscopist gave good advice in general. So why is it false then? Because:

•  ESGE recommends in bleeding secondary to peptic ulceration,H pylori test at index endoscopy.   In the event of a negative result,  like this case, advise  retesting within four weeks and eradication of H pylori if positive (given the low-ish sensitivity of clotest or histology in acute bleeding, about 0.7)
• Do not forget iron replacement, either orally or if patient does not tolerate, then iron infusion to correct the anaemia.
• Smoke cessation is advised too!  Especially if Hpylori is really negative, then smoking could be a main trigger factor.