Is routine histological evaluation an accurate test for Helicobacter pylori infection?

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of routine histology for Helicobacter pylori infection, with histology by an expert pathologist, and to compare histology with the rapid urease test (RUT), 13C-urea breath test, IgG serology and culture of antrum and corpus specimens, in a consecutive series of untreated patients presenting for upper oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy.

One-hundred and fifteen consecutive patients underwent multiple tests for H. pylori infection: rapid urease test, 13C-urea breath test, IgG serology and histology and culture on antrum and corpus biopsy specimens. Histology was first evaluated by the pathologists in a routine examination, and then blindly reviewed by an expert pathologist with a special interest in gastrointestinal pathology. The patients were considered to be H. pylori-positive if two or more tests were positive.

Eighty-one patients (70.4%) were found to be H. pylori positive. 13C-urea breath test and IgG serology showed the best sensitivity and specificity (100%). Both the antral and body cultures, and the rapid urease test had the highest specificity (100%). Histological diagnosis after re-evaluation by an expert pathologist showed a high sensitivity (98. 8%) and specificity (100%), and was better than routine histology (sensitivity 92.6%; specificity 90.3%). The accuracy of the rapid urease test was greater than that of routine histology, and the combination of these two tests improved the sensitivity of H. pylori detection to up to 100%.

All diagnostic tests usually utilised in clinical practice have a sensitivity higher than 90%. In patients who were not pre-treated with antisecretory agents or antibiotics, the sensitivity of histological diagnosis, however, seems to be influenced by the accuracy of the histological examination. The sensitivity of routine histology, but not of revised histological diagnosis, is improved by an additional rapid urease test.