Clinical significance and management of Barrett’s esophagus with epithelial changes indefinite for dysplasia

Table 1 Histopathologic criteria for Barrett’s esophagus with epithelial change indefinite for dysplasia

Ref.	Criteria
Reid et al[2], 1988; Montgomery et al[7], 2001	The architecture may be moderately distorted. Nuclear abnormalities are less marked than those seen in dysplasia. Other features that may lead to a diagnosis of IND include more numerous dystrophic goblet cells, more extensive nuclear stratification, diminished or absent mucus production, increased cytoplasmic basophilia, and increased mitoses
Sonwalkar et al[9], 2010	Preserved gland architecture, mild crypt distortion, minimal nuclear stratification and slight nuclear atypia or enlargement
Kestens et al[15], 2015	When a diagnosis of genuine dysplasia cannot be made. This is often due to the co-occurrence of inflammatory changes or when evaluation of surface maturation is not possible
Sinh et al[16], 2015	Cytologic changes similar to those seen in LGD but with surface maturation or presence of inflammation
Duits et al[13], 2015	Downgraded from BE LGD to BE IND by an expert pathology panel
Horvath et al[12], 2015	The presence of architectural and cytologic atypia in small and mal-oriented biopsy specimen or those with inflammation or ulceration exceeding those expected for reactive changes. In some cases, it is due to basal dysplasia with surface maturation

BE: Barrett’s esophagus; BE IND: Barrett’s esophagus with epithelial change indefinite for dysplasia; LGD: Low-grade dysplasia.