» Articles » PMID: 28834808

Histologic Grade 1 Is Associated With Increased Nonrelapsed Mortality in Lower Gastrointestinal Graft Versus Host Disease

Abstract

Histologic confirmation is considered a standard practice to diagnose gastrointestinal graft versus host disease (GI GVHD) and is often used in making treatment decisions. A histologic grade is often determined in cases that are diagnosed with GI GVHD. Although extensive crypt loss (histologic grade 4) is associated with high nonrelapse mortality (NRM), the prognostic value for the more common grade 1 is poorly understood. As clinical decisions are made on the degree of histologic evidence, it is important to establish its prognostic significance. Therefore, we evaluated 309 patients who underwent endoscopic biopsy for suspected GI GVHD within 6 months posttransplant between 2009 and 2012. The presence of histologic grade 1 was associated with increased NRM (hazard ratio=2.7, P=0.02) when compared with one of negative biopsy in patients with lower but not isolated upper GI GVHD. Multivariate competing-risk regression analysis confirmed the independent impact of histologic grade 1 in patients with early clinical stages of lower GI GVHD (stage 0 to 2) (hazard ratio=2.7, P=0.044). When compared with advanced histologic grades, histologic grade 1 did not lessen the adverse outcome for patients with advanced lower GI GVHD (stage 3 to 4) (cumulative incidence NRM of 84%). In conclusion, the presence of histologic grade 1 is associated with increased NRM in patients presenting with lower GI GVHD (stages 0 to 2) and is sufficient evidence for decision to initiate therapy. At the same time, histologic grade 1 does not lessen the markedly adverse impact of advanced lower GI GVHD (stage 3 to 4) and is not synonymous with "mild" GVHD.

Citing Articles

Impact of the histologic grade of acute gastrointestinal graft-versus-host disease on outcomes in pediatric patients treated with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Kim E, Kwon Y, Choe Y, Kim M, Yoo K Front Med (Lausanne). 2023; 10:1231066.

PMID: 37614955 PMC: 10442571. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1231066.


Endoscopic Approach in the Diagnosis of Gastrointestinal Acute Graft Versus Host Disease in Children.

Faraci M, Giardino S, Madeo A, Coccia C, Arrigo S, Pierri F JPGN Rep. 2023; 3(1):e163.

PMID: 37168750 PMC: 10158456. DOI: 10.1097/PG9.0000000000000163.


Round-Robin test for the histological diagnosis of acute colonic Graft-versus-Host disease validating established histological criteria and grading systems.

Hippe K, Kreft A, Reu-Hofer S, Rosenwald A, Ferrazzi F, Daniel C Virchows Arch. 2023; 483(1):47-58.

PMID: 37165134 PMC: 10326090. DOI: 10.1007/s00428-023-03544-3.


An investigation of the diagnostic, predictive, and prognostic impacts of three colonic biopsy grading systems for acute graft versus host disease.

Kreft A, Hippe K, Wagner-Drouet E, Ries I, Kandulski A, Buttner-Herold M PLoS One. 2021; 16(8):e0256543.

PMID: 34437603 PMC: 8389423. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256543.

References
1.
Garnett C, Apperley J, Pavlu J . Treatment and management of graft-versus-host disease: improving response and survival. Ther Adv Hematol. 2013; 4(6):366-78. PMC: 3854558. DOI: 10.1177/2040620713489842. View

2.
Ferrara J, Levine J, Reddy P, Holler E . Graft-versus-host disease. Lancet. 2009; 373(9674):1550-61. PMC: 2735047. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60237-3. View

3.
Ma C, Maluf H, Liu T . Acute graft-versus-host disease is more prevalent and severe in the lower than the upper gastrointestinal tract. Hum Pathol. 2015; 46(10):1480-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.humpath.2015.06.005. View

4.
Ross W, Ghosh S, Dekovich A, Liu S, Ayers G, Cleary K . Endoscopic biopsy diagnosis of acute gastrointestinal graft-versus-host disease: rectosigmoid biopsies are more sensitive than upper gastrointestinal biopsies. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007; 103(4):982-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01639.x. View

5.
Sultan M, Ramprasad J, Jensen M, Margolis D, Werlin S . Endoscopic diagnosis of pediatric acute gastrointestinal graft-versus-host disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2012; 55(4):417-20. DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e31825048eb. View