Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Apr 21;19(15):2419-24.
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i15.2419.

Exposure to gastric juice may not cause adenocarcinogenesis of the esophagus

Affiliations

Exposure to gastric juice may not cause adenocarcinogenesis of the esophagus

Peng Cheng et al. World J Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Aim: To determine the effects of gastric juice on the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC).

Methods: A animal model of duodenogastroesophageal reflux was established in Sprague-Dawley rats undergoing esophagoduodenostomy. The development of EAC and forestomach adenocarcinoma was investigated 40 wk after the treatment. Intraluminal pH and bile of the forestomach were measured.

Results: There were no significant differences in pH (t = 0.117, P = 0.925) or bile (χ² = 0.036, P = 0.85) in the forestomach before and 40 wk after esophagoduodenostomy. There were also no significant differences between the model and controls during esophagoduodenostomy or 40 wk after esophagoduodenostomy. The incidence of intestinal metaplasia (88%) and intestinal metaplasia with dysplasia and adenocarcinoma (28%) in the esophagus in the model was higher than in the controls 40 wk after surgery (χ² = 43.06, P < 0.001 and χ² = 9.33, P = 0.002, respectively) and in the forestomach in the model (χ² = 32.05, P < 0.001 and χ² = 8.14, P = 0.004, respectively). The incidence rates of inflammation in the esophagus and forestomach were 100% and 96%, respectively (χ² = 1.02, P = 0.31) in the model, which was higher than in the esophageal control (6.8%) (χ² = 42.70, P < 0.001).

Conclusion: Gastric juice exposure may not cause intestinal metaplasia with dysplasia or adenocarcinoma of the forestomach and may not be related to EAC.

Keywords: Esophageal adenocarcinoma; Gastric juice; Gastroesophageal reflux; Intestinal metaplasia; Pathogenesis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Gross specimens changes in the esophagus and forestomach mucosa in the sham-operated and model groups. A, B: Gross esophageal specimens of the sham-operated group (A) and animal model group (B); C, D: Gross forestomach specimens of the sham-operated group (C) and animal model group (D).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Changes in the esophagus and forestomach mucosa in the sham-operated and model groups under light microscope (200×). A: Normal esophagus in the sham-operated group; B: Esophagitis and Barrett’s esophagus in the model group; C: Intestinal metaplasia with dysplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma in the model group; D: Normal forestomach in the sham-operated group; E, F: Inflammation in the forestomach of the model group.

Similar articles

References

    1. Lagergren J. Adenocarcinoma of oesophagus: what exactly is the size of the problem and who is at risk? Gut. 2005;54(Suppl 1):i1–i5. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hongo M, Nagasaki Y, Shoji T. Epidemiology of esophageal cancer: Orient to Occident. Effects of chronology, geography and ethnicity. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;24:729–735. - PubMed
    1. Pohl H, Welch HG. The role of overdiagnosis and reclassification in the marked increase of esophageal adenocarcinoma incidence. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:142–146. - PubMed
    1. Lee IS, Choi SC, Shim KN, Jee SR, Huh KC, Lee JH, Lee KJ, Park HS, Lee YC, Jung HY, et al. Prevalence of Barrett’s esophagus remains low in the Korean population: nationwide cross-sectional prospective multicenter study. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;55:1932–1939. - PubMed
    1. Theisen J, Peters JH, Stein HJ. Experimental evidence for mutagenic potential of duodenogastric juice on Barrett’s esophagus. World J Surg. 2003;27:1018–1020. - PubMed

MeSH terms