Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_1267_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
15.09.2026
Размер:
15 Мб
Скачать
☆
10 Fibrosis inUlcerative Colitis
4. Whitlow CB.Ulcerative proctitis. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2004;17(1):21–7.
5. Conrad K, Roggenbuck D, Laass MW. Diagnosis and classication of ulcerative colitis.
Autoimmun Rev. 2014;13(4-5):463–6.
6. Feuerstein JD, Cheifetz AS. Ulcerative colitis: epidemiology, diagnosis, and management.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89(11):1553–63.
7. Kornbluth A, Sachar DB, Practice Parameters Committee of the American College of
Gastroenterology. Ulcerative colitis practice guidelines in adults: American College of Gastroenterology, Practice Parameters Committee. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(3):501–23; quiz 524.
8. Cosnes J, et al. Epidemiology and natural history of inammatory bowel diseases.
Gastroenterology. 2011;140(6):1785–94.
9. Langan RC, et al. Ulcerative colitis: diagnosis and treatment. Am Fam Physician.
2007;76(9):1323–30.
10. Latella G, et al. Can we prevent, reduce or reverse intestinal brosis in IBD? Eur Rev Med
Pharmacol Sci. 2013;17(10):1283–304.
11. Rothfuss KS, Stange EF, Herrlinger KR.Extraintestinal manifestations and complications in
inammatory bowel diseases. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12(30):4819–31.
12. Levine JS, Burakoff R. Extraintestinal manifestations of inammatory bowel disease.
Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;7(4):235–41.
13. Johnson LA, etal. Novel Rho/MRTF/SRF inhibitors block matrix-stiffness and TGF-β–induced
brogenesis in human colonic myobroblasts. Inamm Bowel Dis. 2014;20(1):154–65.
14. Molodecky NA, etal. Increasing incidence and prevalence of the inammatory bowel diseases
with time, based on systematic review. Gastroenterology. 2012;142(1):46–54 e42; quiz e30.
15. Ponder A, Long MD.A clinical review of recent ndings in the epidemiology of inammatory
bowel disease. Clin Epidemiol. 2013;5:237–47.
16. Takahashi H, etal. Second peak in the distribution of age at onset of ulcerative colitis in rela-
tion to smoking cessation. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;29(8):1603–8.
17. Latella G, Rieder F. Intestinal brosis: ready to be reversed. Curr Opin Gastroenterol.
2017;33(4):239–45.
18. Gumaste V, Sachar DB, Greenstein AJ.Benign and malignant colorectal strictures in ulcerative
colitis. Gut. 1992;33(7):938–41.
19. Rogler G. Pathogenesis of strictures in ulcerative colitis: a eld to explore. Digestion.
2011;84(1):10–1.
20. Yamagata M, etal. Submucosal brosis and basic-broblast growth factor-positive neutrophils
correlate with colonic stenosis in cases of ulcerative colitis. Digestion. 2011;84(1):12–21.
21. Ordás I, etal. Ulcerative colitis. Lancet. 2012;380(9853):1606–19.
22. Latella G, etal. Results of the 4th scientic workshop of the ECCO (I): pathophysiology of
intestinal brosis in IBD.J Crohns Colitis. 2014;8(10):1147–65.
23. Spehlmann ME, etal. Epidemiology of inammatory bowel disease in a German twin cohort:
results of a nationwide study. Inamm Bowel Dis. 2008;14(7):968–76.
24. Taurog JD, etal. The germfree state prevents development of gut and joint inammatory dis-
ease in HLA-B27 transgenic rats. J Exp Med. 1994;180(6):2359–64.
25. Khor B, Gardet A, Xavier RJ. Genetics and pathogenesis of inammatory bowel disease.
Nature. 2011;474(7351):307–17.
26. Rieder F, Fiocchi C.Intestinal brosis in IBD—a dynamic, multifactorial process. Nat Rev
Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;6(4):228–35.
27. Ippolito C, et al. Fibrotic and vascular remodelling of colonic wall in patients with active
ulcerative colitis. J Crohns Colitis. 2016;10(10):1194–204.
28. Latella G, Rieder F.Time to look underneath the surface: ulcerative colitis-associated brosis.
J Crohns Colitis. 2015;9(11):941–2.
29. de Bruyn JR, et al. Development of brosis in acute and longstanding ulcerative colitis. J
Crohns Colitis. 2015;9(11):966–72.
30. Manetti M, etal. Telocytes are reduced during brotic remodelling of the colonic wall in ulcer-
ative colitis. J Cell Mol Med. 2015;19(1):62–73.
155
156
31. Maul J, Zeitz M.Ulcerative colitis: immune function, tissue brosis and current therapeutic
considerations. Langenbeck’s Arch Surg. 2012;397(1):1–10.
32. Torres J, et al. Ulcerative colitis as a progressive disease: the forgotten evidence. Inamm
Bowel Dis. 2012;18(7):1356–63.
33. Gordon IO, etal. Fibrosis in ulcerative colitis: mechanisms, features, and consequences of a
neglected problem. Inamm Bowel Dis. 2014;20(11):2198–206.
34. Rieder F, etal. Wound healing and brosis in intestinal disease. Gut. 2007;56(1):130–9.
35. Bettenworth D, Rieder F.Pathogenesis of intestinal brosis in inammatory bowel disease and
perspectives for therapeutic implication. Dig Dis. 2017;35(1-2):25–31.
36. Speca S, etal. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of intestinal brosis. World J Gastroenterol.
2012;18(28):3635–61.
37. Wynn TA.Cellular and molecular mechanisms of brosis. J Pathol. 2008;214(2):199–210.
38. Latella G, etal. Mechanisms of initiation and progression of intestinal brosis in IBD.Scand
J Gastroenterol. 2015;50(1):53–65.
39. Johnson LA, et al. Intestinal brosis is reduced by early elimination of inammation in a
mouse model of IBD: impact of a “Top-Down” approach to intestinal brosis in mice. Inamm Bowel Dis. 2012;18(3):460–71.
40. Heller F, etal. Interleukin-13 is the key effector Th2 cytokine in ulcerative colitis that affects epi-
thelial tight junctions, apoptosis, and cell restitution. Gastroenterology. 2005;129(2):550–64.
41. Fonseca-Camarillo G, et al. Interleukin 17 gene and protein expression are increased in
patients with ulcerative colitis. Inamm Bowel Dis. 2011;17(10):E135–6.
42. Sponheim J, et al. Inammatory bowel disease-associated interleukin-33 is preferentially
expressed in ulceration-associated myobroblasts. Am J Pathol. 2010;177(6):2804–15.
43. Lawrance IC, Maxwell L, Doe W.Altered response of intestinal mucosal broblasts to pro-
brogenic cytokines in inammatory bowel disease. Inamm Bowel Dis. 2001;7(3):226–36.
44. Simmons JG, etal. IGF-I and TGF-beta1 have distinct effects on phenotype and proliferation
of intestinal broblasts. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2002;283(3):G809–18.
45. Theiss AL, et al. Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) alpha increases collagen accumula-
tion and proliferation in intestinal myobroblasts via TNF receptor 2. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(43):36099–109.
46. Hormi K, Lehy T.Transforming growth factor-alpha invivo stimulates epithelial cell prolifera-
tion in digestive tissues of suckling rats. Gut. 1996;39(4):532–8.
47. Kumagai S, etal. Platelet-derived growth factor and its receptors are expressed in areas of both
active inammation and active brosis in inammatory bowel disease. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2001;195(1):21–33.
48. Rieder F, etal. Intestinal brosis and liver brosis: consequences of chronic inammation or
independent pathophysiology? Inamm Intest Dis. 2016;1(1):41–9.
49. Andoh A, et al. Intestinal subepithelial myobroblasts in inammatory bowel diseases. J
Gastroenterol. 2002;37(Suppl 14):33–7.
50. Fiocchi C, Lund PK. Themes in brosis and gastrointestinal inammation. Am J Physiol
Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2011;300(5):G677–83.
51. Rieder F, Fiocchi C.Intestinal brosis in inammatory bowel disease- current knowledge and
future perspectives. J Crohns Colitis. 2008;2(4):279–90.
52. Bainbridge P.Wound healing and the role of broblasts. J Wound Care. 2013;22(8):407–8,
410-12.
53. Witte MB, Barbul A. General principles of wound healing. Surg Clin North Am.
1997;77(3):509–28.
54. Lawrance IC, Maxwell L, Doe W.Inammation location, but not type, determines the increase
in TGF-β1 and IGF-1 expression and collagen deposition in IBD intestine. Inamm Bowel Dis. 2001;7(1):16–26.
55. Leeb SN, etal. Reduced migration of broblasts in inammatory bowel disease: role of inam-
matory mediators and focal adhesion kinase. Gastroenterology. 2003;125(5):1341–54.
F. Magro and T. António
10 Fibrosis inUlcerative Colitis
56. Lawrance IC, etal. Cellular and molecular mediators of intestinal brosis. J Crohns Colitis.
2015;11(12):1491–503.
57. Wells RG. The role of matrix stiffness in regulating cell behavior. Hepatology.
2008;47(4):1394–400.
58. Sonnenberg A, Genta RM.Epithelial dysplasia and cancer in IBD strictures. J Crohns Colitis.
2015;9(9):769–75.
59. Goulston SJ, McGovern VJ.The nature of benign strictures in ulcerative colitis. N Engl J Med.
1969;281(6):290–5.
60. Bassotti G, etal. Gastrointestinal motility disorders in inammatory bowel diseases. World J
Gastroenterol. 2014;20(1):37–44.
61. Fukudo S.Role of corticotropin-releasing hormone in irritable bowel syndrome and intestinal
inammation. J Gastroenterol. 2007;42(Suppl 17):48–51.
62. Neunlist M, etal. Changes in chemical coding of myenteric neurones in ulcerative colitis. Gut.
2003;52(1):84–90.
63. Vrees MD, etal. Abnormal motility in patients with ulcerative colitis: the role of inammatory
cytokines. Arch Surg. 2002;137(4):439–46.
64. Choi K, etal. Impaired integrity of DNA after recovery from inammation causes persistent
dysfunction of colonic smooth muscle. Gastroenterology. 2011;141(4):1293–301, 1301.e1-3.
65. La JH, etal. Visceral hypersensitivity and altered colonic motility after subsidence of inam-
mation in a rat model of colitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2003;9(12):2791–5.
66. Rieder F, Fiocchi C, Rogler G.Mechanisms, management, and treatment of brosis in patients
with inammatory bowel diseases. Gastroenterology. 2017;152(2):340–350.e6.
67. Trivedi PP, Jena GB. Role of alpha-lipoic acid in dextran sulfate sodium-induced ulcerative
colitis in mice: studies on inammation, oxidative stress, DNA damage and brosis. Food Chem Toxicol. 2013;59:339–55.
157
Chapter 11
Histopathology ofIntestinal Fibrosis
IlyssaO.Gordon
Abstract Fibrostenotic inammatory bowel disease classically refers to Crohn’s
disease, where stricture and submucosal brosis are frequent and dening histo­pathologic features. Descriptions of histologic brosis in ulcerative colitis have existed for over half a century, but are not currently part of the clinical diagnostic framework. Histologic scoring systems for brosis in inammatory bowel disease are varied and highlight the need for improved histopathologic correlation, given recent advances in our understanding of the pathophysiology of intestinal brosis.
Keywords Fibrosis · Histopathology · Muscularis mucosae · Submucosa · Stricture Inammatory bowel disease · Histologic brosis score
11.1 Histopathology ofFibrosis inCrohn’s Disease
Submucosal brosis is a pathologic hallmark of Crohn’s disease. Normal submuco­sal collagen and adipose tissue are replaced by brous tissue which contracts the submucosal area (Fig. 11.1). Strictures are areas of marked submucosal brosis, along with hyperplasia of the muscularis mucosae, which can become so thick as to obliterate the submucosa [1] (Fig. 11.2). Expansion of the muscularis mucosae, including hyperplasia, architectural disarray, and collagen deposition, accounts for about half of the increased wall thickness of an ileal stricture in Crohn’s disease [2]. Strictures also often contain hypertrophic nerves (Fig.11.3). Submucosal arteries and veins often have bromuscular hyperplasia in strictured areas [2] (Fig.11.4). Deeper in the bowel wall, muscularis propria hypertrophy can be seen, and along with disorganization and brosis, leads to an overall thickened muscularis propria, although this feature is not a diagnostic hallmark [3]. On gross examination, creep­ing fat or fat wrapping, is a common nding and a major pathologic feature, charac­terized by fat extending along the antimesenteric border.
I. O. Gordon Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA e-mail: gordoni@ccf.org
F. Rieder (ed.), Fibrostenotic Inammatory Bowel Disease,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90578-5_11
159© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018
160
Fig. 11.1 Submucosal brosis in Crohn’s disease. Fibrous tissue is present within the submucosal area (black star) (Masson Trichrome, original magnication 4×)
I. O. Gordon
Fig. 11.2 Stricture in Crohn’s disease. In addition to submucosal brosis, marked hyperplasia of the muscularis mucosae (black star) can obliterate the submucosal area. The dotted line demarcates the submucosa above from the muscularis propria below. (Masson Trichrome, original magnication 4×)
11 Histopathology ofIntestinal Fibrosis
Fig. 11.3 Stricture in Crohn’s disease. Hypertrophic nerves (black arrows) are present in the sub­mucosa of this ulcerated stricture (black star indicates ulcerated luminal surface) (Hematoxylin & Eosin, original magnication 4×)
161
Fig. 11.4 Stricture in Crohn’s disease. Fibromuscular hyperplasia of submucosal arteries and veins (Hematoxylin & Eosin, original magnication 10×)
162
I. O. Gordon
It is not known whether hyperplasia of the muscularis mucosae and nerves occur as a result of a prolic response following ulcerating injury (i.e. aberrant wound healing [4]) or if they develop in response to other factors, such as mesenchymal growth factors, related to inammation or gut bacteria; although a combination of these factors is most likely involved [5–7]. For example, intestinal broblasts express Toll-like receptor-4, which is acted upon by bacterial lipopolysaccharide (LPS) to activate a nuclear factor kappa B pathway, resulting in collagen contraction [7]. LPS also enhances connective tissue growth factor expression by decreasing expression of the transforming growth factor-beta inhibitor, smad-7 [7]. Other TLRs, including TLR-9, as well as chemokines, such as CXCL8, and cytokines also play a role in mesenchymal-bacterial interactions at the molecular level [6].
11.2 Histopathology ofFibrosis inUlcerative Colitis
Standard descriptions used in diagnostic pathology do not include brosis as a his­tologic feature of ulcerative colitis. Furthermore, as ulcerative colitis is dened as having pathologic features restricted to the mucosa and supercial submucosa, the presence of a stricture in UC is immediately concerning for an inltrative carci­noma, rather than a benign process. Looking to the published literature, however, 71% to 100% of all clinically detected strictures in UC patients were benign [8–10]. The risk of a stricture being due to malignancy is associated with longer duration of disease and location of the stricture, with rectal strictures being more common (68%), and therefore more often benign (90%), and strictures of the right colon being malignant 87–100% of the time [8, 11].
Histologic studies of benign strictures in UC have of necessity been performed on resection specimens. Goulston etal. compared the thickness of the muscularis mucosae and inner layer of muscularis propria in benign strictured and non­strictured UC areas, and found 40-fold and 20-fold thickening, respectively, as com­pared to non-strictured UC controls; concluding that brosis alone was insufcient to explain the stricture [11]. Other studies have described brosis along with mus­cular hypertrophy, including marked submucosal brosis in 20 of 28 benign UC strictures [12]. Microscopic examination of benign UC strictures has also revealed expansion of the submucosa by fat, which may be a factor contributing to luminal narrowing [13].
Descriptions of brosis in UC outside of the presence of strictures is also lacking [14]. In a study of UC proctocolectomy resections with dysplasia in an American center as compared to a Japanese center, lamina propria brosis in non-dysplastic areas was more prominent in American cases as compared to Japanese cases [15]. Interestingly, in control cases without dysplasia, there was no difference in lamina propria brosis in the two populations [15]. The authors suggested longer disease duration in the American group and differences in medications as possible explana­tions for the ndings [15]. One very early study from 1949 describes brosis in the wall of UC resections in the context of extensive ulceration [16]. This concept was
11 Histopathology ofIntestinal Fibrosis
163
also discussed in the 1950s and 1960s by Lumb etal. [17, 18]. Indeed, in the wound repair process after epithelial injury, including gut epithelial injury, it is generally accepted that brosis is part of the post-inammatory organization of granulation tissue [19, 20].
We described histologic patterns of lamina propria brosis and muscularis muco­sae alterations in non-strictured UC resections, and found these histologic features to be correlated with prior medication use and inammatory activity [21]. The most striking pattern of lamina propria brosis is a band of brosis between the base of the crypts and the muscularis mucosae, essentially replacing the more typical basal lymphoplasmacytosis (Fig.11.5). Similar to other studies nding alterations and thickening of the muscularis mucosae in UC, we have also seen altered muscularis mucosae with patterns of splaying, usually with interspersed brosis (Fig.11.6), as well as thickening of the muscularis mucosae, and nally splitting and even duplica­tion of the inner and outer layers of muscularis mucosae (Fig.11.7).
Regarding submucosal brosis in non-strictured UC resections, we observe this phenomenon in ulcerated areas (Fig.11.8) as well as in non-ulcerated areas. In non­ulcerated areas, brous bands within the submucosa typically form adjacent to the muscularis mucosae and muscularis propria and are otherwise perpendicular to the luminal ow (Fig.11.9). Submucosal brosis can be identied in diagnostic H&E
Fig. 11.5 Lamina propria brosis in ulcerative colitis. A band of brosis (black star) between the base of the crypts and the muscularis mucosae replaces the typical basal lymphoplasmacytosis (Hematoxylin & Eosin, original magnication 10×)
164
Fig. 11.6 Muscularis mucosae alterations in ulcerative colitis. Hyperplastic and splayed muscularis mucosae (black star) with interspersed brosis (blue) (Masson Trichrome, original magnication 4×)
I. O. Gordon
stained sections without the aid of a trichrome stain, and the degree of submucosal brosis is associated with the severity of intestinal inammation [22]. Apart from brosis associated with deep mucosal ulceration in fulminant disease, signicant changes in the muscularis propria are not typically seen.
11.3 Pathology Fibrosis Scoring Systems inInammatory
Bowel Disease
Fibrosis scoring systems in inammatory bowel disease are typically based on imaging and biomarkers [23]. Histologic scoring of brosis in Crohn’s disease orig­inated from studies in rodents [24, 25], as well as human studies comparing radio­graphic ndings with resection specimen ndings [26–29], and early studies examining resection specimen margins to determine factors associated with recur­rent disease [30, 31].
The earlier rat scoring system by Theiss etal. (Table11.1) is progressive and cumulative, and is based on evaluation of sections stained with Masson trichrome and Sirius red [24]. Progression starts from submucosal collagen deposition (score 1), and adds on mucosal collagen deposition (score 2), muscularis mucosae collagen deposition and disorganization (score 3), muscularis propria collagen
11 Histopathology ofIntestinal Fibrosis
165
Fig. 11.7 Muscularis mucosae alterations in ulcerative colitis. In these two cases of ulcerative colitis with mucosal healing, contrast the thin and nearly intact muscularis mucosae with splayed muscularis hyperplasia within the supercial submucosa (Top), with the thickened muscularis mucosae with duplication on the mucosal aspect (Bottom). [black bar demarcates the original two layers of muscularis mucosae, black star indicates the alteration] (Masson Trichrome, original magnication 4×)