Evidence Hub

Sponge cytology combined with endoscopy in patients with long-segment Barrett’s esophagus: A retrospective case series and literature review

Ling Sun, J.-Ao Wen, Q.-Zhi Hao, Wuri N-Bai, Yu Fan, Man Quan, F.-Pang Hui

Journal of International Medical Research, 2025

Abstract

This study summarized the clinical characteristics and endoscopic findings in patients with long-segment Barrett’s esophagus through a retrospective analysis of the clinical data of three patients with long-segment Barrett’s esophagus. Data from patients, including demographic characteristics, medical history, endoscopy findings, pathological diagnosis, and esophageal sponge cytology results were analyzed, and a literature review was performed. Three patients were included; all were male with a mean age of 67.3 ± 7.1 years. Symptoms encompassed heartburn (3/3), acid reflux (2/3), belching (1/3), retrosternal pain (1/3), abdominal distension (1/3), and dysphagia (1/3). Risk factors included alcohol use (3/3), consumption of pickled and hot foods or beverages (3/3), smoking (1/3), and familial esophageal disease history (1/3). Endoscopically, Prague C & M criteria measurements were C13M15, C4M10, and C6M7, with long-segment Barrett’s esophagus lesions spanning the upper/middle/lower esophagus; all showed circumferential involvement and coexisted with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Concurrently, two patients presented with all the following three conditions: hiatal hernia, chronic atrophic gastritis, and Helicobacter pylori infection. Pathologically, one patient showed early intramucosal adenocarcinoma, whereas two had intestinal metaplasia. Sponge cytology identified grade 3 atypical cells in one patient and grade 2 hyperplasia in two patients. In conclusion, long-segment…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free