Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size Users Online: 271


 
 Table of Contents  
CASE REPORT
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 196-200

Carcinoma colon in a patient with eosinophilic gastroenteritis


Departments of Gastroenterology and Pathology, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, India

Date of Web Publication11-Feb-2019

Correspondence Address:
Piyush Ranjan
Department of Gastroenterology, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jde.JDE_48_17

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Eosinophilic gastroenteritis is an uncommon disease which can involve all layers of the gastrointestinal tract anywhere from the esophagus to colon. Clinical features depend upon the site of involvement and layer of GI tract involved. It is an inflammatory disease with remitting and relapsing course. We report a case which presented with discharging fecal fistula in lower abdomen after emergency laparotomy. Initial colonoscopy showed stricture with nodularity of the IC junction and biopsy showed features of eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Due to persistence of fistula he underwent right hemicolectomy with illeo-transverse anastomosis. Biopsy from surgical specimen showed well differentiated adenocarcinoma and eosinophilic infiltrate in muscularis. Surveillance colonoscopy done six months later showed ulcer at anastomotic site and biopsy showed features of eosinophilic colitis. The clinical course of this patient circumstantially indicates a linkage of eosinophilic colitis with carcinoma colon. This is the first reported case of association of eosinophilic colitis with carcinoma colon. We discuss in detail the clinical and pathological features of eosinophilic enteritis and possible mechanisms linking eosinophilc enteritis with carcinoma.

Keywords: Adenocarcinoma, colon cancer, eosinophilic gastroenteritis


How to cite this article:
Agarwal R, Ranjan P, Bhalla S. Carcinoma colon in a patient with eosinophilic gastroenteritis. J Dig Endosc 2018;9:196-200

How to cite this URL:
Agarwal R, Ranjan P, Bhalla S. Carcinoma colon in a patient with eosinophilic gastroenteritis. J Dig Endosc [serial online] 2018 [cited 2019 Aug 23];9:196-200. Available from: http://www.jdeonline.in/text.asp?2018/9/4/196/252100




  Introduction Top


Eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EG) is a heterogeneous disorder characterized by the presence of an eosinophilic infiltrate on histopathology involving one or multiple segments of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract from esophagus to the rectum.[1] It can involve all layers of GI tract (mucosa, submucosa, muscularis, and serosa).[2] Clinical features are dependent on the site and layer of GI tract involved. EG has a remitting and relapsing course in about 45% patients.[3],[4],[5] Stricture formation has been reported with EG.[6] Inflammatory conditions with remitting and relapsing course such as ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease predispose to carcinoma. Despite being remitting relapsing inflammatory disease EG, there is only one case report of association of EG with gastric cancer.[7]

We report a case of EG leading to adenocarcinoma colon. This is the first case report suggesting an association between EG and adenocarcinoma of colon.


  Case Report Top


This 42-year-old male who had undergone exploratory laparotomy a month ago for acute abdomen for suspected appendicular perforation presented to us with complaints of passage of small amount (<50 ml/day) of feculent discharge from lower margin of previous laparotomy site. A computed tomography sinogram was done [Figure 1] which showed thickening of anterior abdominal wall at surgical site with small bowel loops adherent to the abdominal wall and contrast lined tract extending from terminal ileal loop to skin suggestive of enterocutaneous fistula. Colonoscopy was done which showed multiple nodules in the cecum with narrowing of ileocecal junction [Figure 2]. Biopsy showed eosinophilia in lamina propria (>30/hpf) with focal cryptitis with absence of any epithelioid cells, granuloma, or malignant cells [Figure 3]. Except mild anemia, other hematological and biochemical parameters were normal. On review of history, he had intermittent small-volume diarrhea without blood, pain abdomen, poor appetite, and weight loss for the past 4 years. There was no history of allergy, atopy, or asthma. Mantoux test was positive (26 mm of induration at 48 h) but GENE probe assay for tuberculosis was negative. Antisaccharomyces cerevisiae antibody was negative.
Figure 1: Computed tomography sinogram showing thickening of anterior abdominal wall with loops adherent to the abdominal wall and contrast lined tract extending from terminal ileal loop to the skin (red arrow) suggestive of enterocutaneous fistula

Click here to view
Figure 2: Preoperative colonoscopic picture showing multiple nodules in the cecal area (blue arrow) with narrowing of ileocecal junction

Click here to view
Figure 3: High-power view of preoperative biopsy from cecal nodules showing dense eosinophilic infiltrates (black arrow) (>30/hpf) and focal eosinophilic cryptitis (red arrow)

Click here to view


In view of ileocecal stricture and persistent fistula, he was operated and right hemicolectomy with ileotransverse anastomosis was done. Histopathology of the resected specimen showed a well-differentiated adenocarcinoma with tumor infiltrating the muscularis (pT2), proximal and distal margins were tumor free, and lymph nodes were free of any malignancy. Eosinophil counts were raised in the muscularis layer of the resected specimen (>30/hpf) [Figure 4]a and [Figure 4]b.
Figure 4: (a) Microscopic examination of surgical resected specimen showing disorganized glandular architecture (black arrow) with well-differentiated tumor extending into muscle coat (red arrow). (b) High-power view of surgical resected specimen showing eosinophilic infiltrates in muscle layer (black arrows)

Click here to view


The diagnosis considered was colonic malignancy with perforation and subsequently fecal fistula formation and stricture. Postoperatively, the patient recovered well and received 12 cycles of chemotherapy comprising oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil.

Six months postsurgery, surveillance colonoscopy was done which showed ulcers at the anastomotic site with normal colonic mucosa [Figure 5]. Biopsy from these ulcers showed a dense inflammation of lymphocytes, plasma cells, and eosinophils (>20/hpf) in lamina propria, with no evidence of any granuloma or malignancy [Figure 6]. His peripheral eosinophil count was normal. In view of persistent tissue eosinophilia in the absence of any other underlying cause, a diagnosis of EG was made. He was started on prednisolone and showed a good clinical response in the symptoms of intermittent diarrhea which he had previously.
Figure 5: Surveillance colonoscopy after ileotransverse anastomosis and chemotherapy showing superficial ulcers (black arrow) at the anastomotic site

Click here to view
Figure 6: Histological sections of anastomotic site ulcers showing numerous eosinophilic infiltrates (black arrows) up to lamina propria

Click here to view


The presence of eosinophils in cecal stricture before surgery, demonstration of eosinophils in operated specimen, and recurrence of anastomotic ulcers with features of EG suggests that EC was the underlying predisposing factor, leading to carcinoma colon in this patient.


  Discussion Top


First reported by Kaijser in 1937,[8] EG is rare, with an approximate incidence of 1/100,000. It commonly occurs between the second and sixth decades of life.[9] The stomach (26%–81%) and small intestine (28%–100%) are the predominantly affected areas, but the esophagus, large intestine, and rectum are also affected.[10] EG has been classified on the basis of depth of infiltration by Klein into mucosal EG, muscular EG, and serosal EG.[11] Mucosal involvement is the most common (57.5%), followed by muscular (30%) and serosal (12.5%).[9] Another study has reported the distribution of EG as 44% (19/43) mucosal, 12% (5/43) muscular, and 39% (31/43) serosal.[12]

The current accepted criteria for diagnosis of EG are as follows:

  1. Presence of recurrent GI symptoms
  2. Biopsies with a histopathology showing predominant eosinophilic infiltration with sheets of eosinophils
  3. Absence of parasitic or extraintestinal diseases that may cause eosinophilia.[9]


Clinical presentation depends on the layer of GI tract and the site involved. Mucosal EG presents with abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhea, anemia, or protein-losing enteropathy. Muscular EG presents as intestinal obstruction, intussusception, and gastric outlet obstruction. Rarely, it may present as intestinal strictures. Serosal EG typically presents as ascites.[13]

Klein et al. postulated that direct contact of the allergen with the mucosa initiates an antigen–antibody reaction, which leads to release of various cytokines and particularly eotaxin which acts as a chemotactic signal for eosinophils. Thus, the disease initiation occurs primarily in the mucosal layer and as the disease activity progresses, deeper layers get involved and there is transmural involvement. However, in some patients, it is seen that the mucosal layer may not be involved and other layers show involvement. It is hypothesized that initially all layers may be involved but after a point of time due to undefined immunological preference the eosinophils remain limited to a particular layer/layers. Thus, although the term mucosal, muscular, and serosal layers are used, it does not indicate a specific or limited involvement of a particular layer but signifies the predominant layer of involvement of the disease and the inflammatory process with the possibility that transmural involvement may exist.[11],[12] In a recent study of 59 patients, the distribution of mucosal, muscular, and serosal disease was 52, 3, and 4, respectively.[14] To explain the predominant mucosal involvement, it is postulated that EG involves an inward–outward pathway in which there is initial involvement of the mucosa, and as the disease progresses the deeper layers of the gut wall get involved. Earlier, the clinical suspicion for this disease entity was low, and the diagnosis was usually made on surgically resected biopsies when specimens were removed for features of obstruction or when patients presented with ascites. In view of higher suspicion now and ease of taking endoscopic biopsies which are predominantly mucosal likely the disease spectrum is shifting toward mucosal disease.[14]

Our patient had involvement of both mucosal and muscular layer as both endoscopic and operative biopsies showed eosinophilic infiltrate. Stricture formation and obstruction is the hallmark of muscular layer involvement.

Endoscopic findings in patients with EG are not specific and include erythema, focal erosions, ulcerations, and pseudopolyps. Endoscopic abnormalities in EG are most striking in the mucosal form and include thickening of folds, erythema, and friability.[15] Histological criteria for diagnosis in terms of number of eosinophils/hpf may vary according to the site of disease. Eosinophilic esophagitis (EE) is defined as eosinophil count more than 15/hpf, but in small bowel, a higher cutoff is taken as eosinophil count may be up to 30 eosinophils/hpf in the appendix, terminal ileum, cecum, and proximal colon.[16] Degranulated eosinophils are noted in the intestinal mucosa accompanying histologic damage in EG. Diagnosis of EG may be elusive because of patchy disease distribution or the mucosa being spared altogether in muscular EG. Laparoscopy or open surgical exploration may be required for establishing the diagnosis of muscular disease. Serosal EG may be diagnosed by ascitic fluid examination. The fluid composition in serosal eosinophilic enteritis is mostly protein rich (median, 43 g/L; range, 30–86 g/L), with high leukocyte count (median, 6200/mm3; range, 1300–20,500/mm3) and a large proportion of eosinophils (median, 78%; range, 39%–96%).[13]

EG is associated with asthma and allergies in 40%–50% of the cases. Association with peripheral eosinophilia is seen in about 80% of the cases but is not a prerequisite for diagnosis. In the mucosal and serosal types of the disease, a history of atopy is common and does not occur in the muscular type.[17] Mucosal eosinophilic infiltrates can be seen in parasitic infections, Helicobacter pylori infestation, connective tissue disorders, vasculitis, intestinal polyps, hypereosinophilia syndrome, inflammatory bowel disease, celiac disease, and post solid organ transplantation with immunosuppression. Our patient did not have any history of allergies or asthma. There was no peripheral eosinophilia. Antinuclear antibodies were negative. Immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase was negative. Serology testing for H. pylori was negative.

EG is a chronic inflammatory relapsing and remitting disease. Three different patterns of disease course are observed – (1) single flare, (2) recurrent flares, and (3) continuous disease activity. Reported relapse rates vary among studies from 18% to 45%.[3],[4],[5] In a study of 43 patients and a median follow-up of 13.1 years, spontaneous remission was observed in 40%, and relapse rates were 33% of all patients and 60% of patients who required corticosteroid therapy.[12] Risk of clinical relapse is lower with patients who have an initial spontaneous remission as compared with patients who need treatment at diagnosis. Hypereosinophilia at diagnosis is associated with increased risk of clinical relapses. Higher risks of relapses are associated with mucosal disease, proximal small intestinal disease, and extensive disease. It has been observed that mucosal disease has a more continuous course, and muscular disease has a recurring course and serosal usually present with a single flare.[12]

Chronic inflammation in GI tract is a known risk factor for carcinogenesis.[18] It plays a major role in the development of colorectal cancer (CRC) in inflammatory bowel diseases.[19] The severity of inflammation correlates with risk of development of dysplastic changes.[20] Various case reports of coexistence of tuberculosis with colonic carcinoma have been reported in literature.[21],[22],[23] The proposed pathogenic mechanism is chronic inflammatory state due to ulcerated lesions of intestinal tuberculosis which leads to carcinogenesis. Schistosomiasis has been implicated in the development of colon cancer. The cause of tumorigenesis is postulated to be due to the either endogenously produced carcinogens, impairment of immunological surveillance by chronic immune modulation, symbiotic action of other infective agents, and the presence of schistosomal toxins.[24]

Muscular type of EE due to its recurrent nature and stricture formation may serve as a risk factor of GI cancer. Probably due to rarity of disease, there is only one case of cancer reported with EG. This is, to the best of our knowledge, the first case of carcinoma colon associated with EG. Our patient had eosinophils in the colonoscopic biopsies taken preoperatively. In the resected specimen there was infiltration of the eosinophils in the muscle layer and in the post surgical anastomotic site there were ulcerations which demonstrated tissue eosinophilia. These factors indicate that this patient had EG which lead to development of carcinoma colon.

Eosinophils are a rich source of proinflammatory cytokines which play both protective and pathological effects in the GI tract.[25] Eosinophil granules contain a crystalloid core composed of major basic protein-1 and 2 and a matrix composed of eosinophil cationic protein, eosinophil-derived neurotoxin, and eosinophil peroxidase. These cationic proteins have proinflammatory properties and are known to exert cytotoxic effects on epithelium.[26] Eosinophil-derived transforming growth factor-β is linked with epithelial growth, fibrosis, and tissue remodeling. Eosinophils also generate large amounts of the leukotriene C4, which is metabolized to LTD4 and LTE4. These three lipid mediators increase vascular permeability.[27]

In experiments with suspensions of cells from colonic carcinomas, it has been seen that colonic carcinomas contain large numbers of eosinophils.[28] The infiltration of tumors with eosinophils does not necessarily parallel peripheral blood eosinophilia, although the two phenomenons can occur together. Eosinophilic infiltration is an independent favorable prognostic influence on outcome of CRC.[29] Eosinophils play a role in the host interaction with the tumor, perhaps by promoting angiogenesis and connective tissue formation adjacent to the cancer.[30]


  Conclusion Top


EG is a rare disorder with a wide spectrum of clinical presentation. A high index of clinical suspicion is required for its diagnosis. Increasing luminal assessment due to ease of GI endoscopy and colonoscopy has led to increased diagnosis of mucosal EG. Like other inflammatory disorders, EG may be a predisposing factor development of GI malignancy. This is the first case report of carcinoma colon in EG and the second published case report of GI malignancy with EG.

Declaration of patient consent

The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Khan S, Orenstein SR. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2008;37:333-48, v.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Kellermayer R, Tatevian N, Klish W, Shulman RJ. Steroid responsive eosinophilic gastric outlet obstruction in a child. World J Gastroenterol 2008;14:2270-1.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Chen MJ, Chu CH, Lin SC, Shih SC, Wang TE. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis: Clinical experience with 15 patients. World J Gastroenterol 2003;9:2813-6.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Lee CM, Changchien CS, Chen PC, Lin DY, Sheen IS, Wang CS, et al. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis: 10 years experience. Am J Gastroenterol 1993;88:70-4.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Jeon EJ, Lee KM, Jung DY, Kim TH, Ji JS, Kim HK, et al. Clinical characteristics of 17 cases of eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Korean J Gastroenterol 2010;55:361-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Jagtap SV, Nikumbh DB, Kshirsagar AY, Ahuja N. Unusual presentation of eosinophilic enteritis as multiple strictures of small intestine. Clin Pract 2012;2:e24.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Otowa Y, Mitsutsuji M, Urade T, Chono T, Morimoto H, Yokoyama K, et al. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis associated with multiple gastric cancer. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;24:727-30.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Kaijser R. Zur kenntnis der allergischen affektioner desima verdauungskanal von standpunkt desima chirurgen aus. Arch Klin Chir 1937;188:36-64.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Talley NJ, Shorter RG, Phillips SF, Zinsmeister AR. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis: A clinicopathological study of patients with disease of the mucosa, muscle layer, and subserosal tissues. Gut 1990;31:54-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Mueller S. Classification of eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2008;22:425-40.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Klein NC, Hargrove RL, Sleisenger MH, Jeffries GH. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Medicine (Baltimore) 1970;49:299-319.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Pineton de Chambrun G, Gonzalez F, Canva JY, Gonzalez S, Houssin L, Desreumaux P, et al. Natural history of eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;9:950-60.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Fenoglio LM, Benedetti V, Rossi C, Anania A, Wulhfard K, Trapani M, et al. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis with ascites: A case report and review of the literature. Dig Dis Sci 2003;48:1013-20.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Chang JY, Choung RS, Lee RM, Locke GR 3rd, Schleck CD, Zinsmeister AR, et al. A shift in the clinical spectrum of eosinophilic gastroenteritis toward the mucosal disease type. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;8:669-75.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Treiber GG, Weidner S. Eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;5:e16.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Lowichik A, Weinberg AG. A quantitative evaluation of mucosal eosinophils in the pediatric gastrointestinal tract. Mod Pathol 1996;9:110-4.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Gonsalves N. Food allergies and eosinophilic gastrointestinal illness. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2007;36:75-91, vi.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Ullman TA, Itzkowitz SH. Intestinal inflammation and cancer. Gastroenterology 2011;140:1807-16.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Itzkowitz SH, Yio X. Inflammation and cancer IV. Colorectal cancer in inflammatory bowel disease: The role of inflammation. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2004;287:G7-17.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Rutter M, Saunders B, Wilkinson K, Rumbles S, Schofield G, Kamm M, et al. Severity of inflammation is a risk factor for colorectal neoplasia in ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 2004;126:451-9.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Isaacs P, Zissis M. Colonic tuberculosis and adenocarcinoma: An unusual presentation. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1997;9:913-5.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Cömert FB, Cömert M, Külah C, Taşcilar O, Numanoǧlu G, Aydemir S, et al. Colonic tuberculosis mimicking tumor perforation: A case report and review of the literature. Dig Dis Sci 2006;51:1039-42.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Chakravartty S, Chattopadhyay G, Ray D, Choudhury CR, Mandal S. Concomitant tuberculosis and carcinoma colon: Coincidence or causal nexus? Saudi J Gastroenterol 2010;16:292-4.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
24.
H Salim OE, Hamid HK, Mekki SO, Suleiman SH, Ibrahim SZ. Colorectal carcinoma associated with schistosomiasis: A possible causal relationship. World J Surg Oncol 2010;8:68.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Zuo L, Rothenberg ME. Gastrointestinal eosinophilia. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am 2007;27:443-55.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Gleich GJ, Adolphson CR. The eosinophilic leukocyte: Structure and function. Adv Immunol 1986;39:177-253.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Phipps S, Ying S, Wangoo A, Ong YE, Levi-Schaffer F, Kay AB, et al. The relationship between allergen-induced tissue eosinophilia and markers of repair and remodeling in human atopic skin. J Immunol 2002;169:4604-12.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Brattain MG, Kimball PM, Pretlow TG 2nd, Pitts AM. Partial purification of human colonic carcinoma cells by sedimentation. Br J Cancer 1977;35:850-7.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Fernández-Aceñero MJ, Galindo-Gallego M, Sanz J, Aljama A. Prognostic influence of tumor-associated eosinophilic infiltrate in colorectal carcinoma. Cancer 2000;88:1544-8.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Samoszuk M. Eosinophils and human cancer. Histol Histopathol 1997;12:807-12.  Back to cited text no. 30
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5], [Figure 6]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Case Report
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed134    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded28    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal