Comparing the Continuous Geboes Score With the Robarts Histopathology Index: Definitions of Histological Remission and Response and their Relation to Faecal Calprotectin Levels.


Journal

Journal of Crohn's & colitis
ISSN: 1876-4479
Titre abrégé: J Crohns Colitis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101318676

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
10 Feb 2020
Historique:
pubmed: 11 9 2019
medline: 25 11 2020
entrez: 11 9 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The histological status of ulcerative colitis [UC] patients in clinical and endoscopic remission has gained space as an important prognostic marker and a key component of disease monitoring. Our main aims were to compare two histological indexes-the continuous Geboes score [GS] and the Robarts Histopathology index [RHI]-regarding their definitions of histological remission and response, and the ability of faecal calprotectin [FC] levels to discriminate between these statuses. This was an analysis of three prospective cohorts including 422 patients previously enrolled in other studies. The two continuous scores [GS and RHI] were shown to be significantly correlated [correlation coefficient of 0.806, p < 0.001] and particularly close regarding their definition of histological response: 95% and 88% of all patients classified as having/not having [respectively] histological response according to RHI also did so according to GS. Moreover, median FC levels in patients with histological response were lower than those in patients without histological response [GS: 73.00 vs 525.00, p < 0.001; RHI: 73.50 vs 510.00, p < 0.001]; a similar trend was observed when FC levels of patients in histological remission were compared to those of patients with histological activity [GS: 76.00 vs 228.00, p < 0.001; RHI: 73.50 vs 467.00, p < 0.001]. FC levels allowed us to exclude the absence of histological remission [according to RHI] and absence of histological response [according to RHI and GS], with negative predictive values varying from 82% to 96%. However, optimization of the FC cut-off to exclude the absence of histological remission, as for the continuous GS, falls within values that resemble those of the healthy population. The continuous GS and RHI histological scores are strongly correlated in their definitions of histological response. An absence of histological remission could only be excluded at physiological levels of FC.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND AIMS OBJECTIVE
The histological status of ulcerative colitis [UC] patients in clinical and endoscopic remission has gained space as an important prognostic marker and a key component of disease monitoring. Our main aims were to compare two histological indexes-the continuous Geboes score [GS] and the Robarts Histopathology index [RHI]-regarding their definitions of histological remission and response, and the ability of faecal calprotectin [FC] levels to discriminate between these statuses.
METHODS METHODS
This was an analysis of three prospective cohorts including 422 patients previously enrolled in other studies.
RESULTS RESULTS
The two continuous scores [GS and RHI] were shown to be significantly correlated [correlation coefficient of 0.806, p < 0.001] and particularly close regarding their definition of histological response: 95% and 88% of all patients classified as having/not having [respectively] histological response according to RHI also did so according to GS. Moreover, median FC levels in patients with histological response were lower than those in patients without histological response [GS: 73.00 vs 525.00, p < 0.001; RHI: 73.50 vs 510.00, p < 0.001]; a similar trend was observed when FC levels of patients in histological remission were compared to those of patients with histological activity [GS: 76.00 vs 228.00, p < 0.001; RHI: 73.50 vs 467.00, p < 0.001]. FC levels allowed us to exclude the absence of histological remission [according to RHI] and absence of histological response [according to RHI and GS], with negative predictive values varying from 82% to 96%. However, optimization of the FC cut-off to exclude the absence of histological remission, as for the continuous GS, falls within values that resemble those of the healthy population.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
The continuous GS and RHI histological scores are strongly correlated in their definitions of histological response. An absence of histological remission could only be excluded at physiological levels of FC.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31504348
pii: 5560115
doi: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjz123
doi:

Substances chimiques

Biomarkers 0
Leukocyte L1 Antigen Complex 0

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

169-175

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation (ECCO). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Auteurs

Fernando Magro (F)

Department of Gastroenterology, Faculty of Medicine, Centro Hospitalar São João, Porto, Portugal.
Department of Biomedicine, Unity of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.

Joanne Lopes (J)

Department of Pathology, Centro Hospitalar São João, Porto, Portugal.

Paula Borralho (P)

Institute of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.

Susana Lopes (S)

Department of Gastroenterology, Faculty of Medicine, Centro Hospitalar São João, Porto, Portugal.

Rosa Coelho (R)

Department of Gastroenterology, Faculty of Medicine, Centro Hospitalar São João, Porto, Portugal.

José Cotter (J)

Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira, Guimarães, Portugal.

Francisca Dias de Castro (F)

Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital da Senhora da Oliveira, Guimarães, Portugal.

Helena Tavares de Sousa (H)

Department of Gastroenterology, Centro Hospitalar do Algarve - Portimão Unit, Portimão, Portugal.
ABC - Algarve Biomedical Centre, University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal.

Marta Salgado (M)

Department of Gastroenterology, Centro Hospitalar do Porto, Hospital de Santo António, Portugal.

Patrícia Andrade (P)

Department of Gastroenterology, Faculty of Medicine, Centro Hospitalar São João, Porto, Portugal.

Ana Isabel Vieira (AI)

Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal.

Pedro Figueiredo (P)

Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Garcia de Orta, Almada, Portugal.

Paulo Caldeira (P)

Department of Gastroenterology, Centro Hospitalar do Algarve, Faro, Portugal.

A Sousa (A)

Department of Gastroenterology, Centro Hospitalar do Algarve, Faro, Portugal.

Maria A Duarte (MA)

Department of Gastroenterology, Divino Espírito Santo Hospital, Ponta Delgada, Portugal.

Filipa Ávila (F)

Department of Gastroenterology, Divino Espírito Santo Hospital, Ponta Delgada, Portugal.

João Silva (J)

Department of Gastroenterology, Instituto Português do Oncologia de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.

Joana Moleiro (J)

Department of Gastroenterology, Instituto Português do Oncologia de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.

Sofia Mendes (S)

Department of Gastroenterology, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.

Sílvia Giestas (S)

Department of Gastroenterology, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.

Paula Ministro (P)

Department of Gastroenterology, Centro Hospitalar Tondela-Viseu, Viseu, Portugal.

Paula Sousa (P)

Department of Gastroenterology, Centro Hospitalar Tondela-Viseu, Viseu, Portugal.

Raquel Gonçalves (R)

Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital de Braga, Braga, Portugal.

Bruno Gonçalves (B)

Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital de Braga, Braga, Portugal.

Ana Oliveira (A)

Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Fernando Fonseca, Amadora, Portugal.

Cristina Chagas (C)

Department of Gastroenterology, Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Ocidental, Lisbon, Portugal.

Marilia Cravo (M)

Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Beatriz Ângelo, Loures, Portugal.

Cláudia Camila Dias (CC)

Department of Community Medicine, Information and Health Decision Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
CINTESIS - Centre for Health Technology and Services Research, Porto, Portugal.

Joana Afonso (J)

Department of Biomedicine, Unity of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
MedInUP, Centre for Drug Discovery and Innovative Medicines, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.

Francisco Portela (F)

Department of Gastroenterology, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.

Mafalda Santiago (M)

CINTESIS - Centre for Health Technology and Services Research, Porto, Portugal.

Karel Geboes (K)

Department of Pathology, University Hospital of KU Leuven and UZ Gent, Leuven, Belgium.

Fátima Carneiro (F)

Department of Pathology, Centro Hospitalar São João, Porto, Portugal.
Institute of Molecular Pathology and Immunology of the University of Porto (Ipatimup), University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH