Pathology is one of the tools for reaching a diagnosis. Like all procedures in medicine, the analysis of biopsies has some limitations. The diagnostic yield can be increased by using good quality samples, by optimizing the number of samples and sections, by optimal preparation of the samples and by confronting the findings with appropriate clinical information. Numbers of samples needed depend on the indication for the endoscopic procedures. When reading a biopsy, analysis can be improved with a systematic approach. This implies a proper knowledge of the normal histology and of potential artifacts. The pathologists should take note of the origin, the number, and the size of the samples and subsequently evaluate the architecture and cytological aspects of the specimen. The analysis can be improved by using a checklist or pro forma report.
Endoscopic biopsy Diagnostic yield Sampling Sampling error Diagnostic accuracy Orientation Optimal number of biopsies Number of biopsies Origin of biopsies Size of biopsies Architecture Sensitivity Specificity Artifact Bowel preparation Pseudolipomatosis Barium
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Bentley E, Jenkins D, Campbell F, Warren BF. How could pathologists improve the initial diagnosis of colitis? Evidence from an international workshop. J Clin Pathol. 2002;55:955–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Sandler RS, Cummings MS, Keku TO, et al. Disposable versus reusable forceps for colorectal epithelial cell proliferation in humans. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2000;9:1123–5.Google Scholar
Surawicz CM. Serial sectioning of a portion of a rectal biopsy detects more focal abnormalities. A prospective study of patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Dig Dis Sci. 1982;27:434–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Jenkins D, Balsitis M, Gallivan S, et al. Guidelines for the initial biopsy diagnosis of suspected chronic idiopathic inflammatory bowel disease. The British Society of Gastroenterology Initiative. J Clin Pathol. 1997;50:93–105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Terada T. Histopathological study of the rectum in 1,438 consecutive rectal specimens in a single Japanese hospital: 1. Benign lesions. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2013;26:349–57.Google Scholar
Rashid A, Hamilton SR. Necrosis of the gastrointestinal tract in uremic patients as a result of sodium polystyrene sulfonate (Kayexalate) in sorbitol: an under-recognized condition. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997;21:60–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Koteish A, Kannangai R, Abrahma SC, et al. Colonic spirochetosis in children and adults. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;120:828–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Swanson BJ, Limketkai BN, Liu TC, et al. Sevelamer crystals in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT): a new entity associated with mucosal injury. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37:1686–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Connor A, Tolan D, Hughes S, et al. Consensus guidelines for the safe prescription and administration of oral bowel-cleansing agents. Gut. 2012;61:1525–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Wexner SD, Beck DE, Baron TH, et al. A consensus document on bowel preparation before colonoscopy prepared by a task force from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;63(7):894–909.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Rejchrt S, Bures J, Siroky M, Kopacova M, Slezak L, Langr F. A prospective observational study of colonic mucosal abnormalities associated with orally administrated sodium phosphate for colon cleansing before colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59:651–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Croucher LJ, Bury JP, Williams EA, et al. Commonly used bowel preparations have significant and different effects upon cell proliferation in the colon: a pilot study. BMC Gastroenterol. 2008;8:54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar