Cargando…
Colorectal submucosa thickness in specimens obtained by EMR versus ESD: a retrospective pilot study
Accurate histopathology is the mainstay for reliable classification of resected early colorectal cancer lesions in terms of potential risk of lymph node metastasis. In particular, thickness of resected submucosa is important in cases of submucosal invasive cancer. Nevertheless, little is known about...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
2022
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9187424/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35692930 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1816-6381 |
_version_ | 1784725166506377216 |
---|---|
author | Clees, Natalie Várnai-Händel, Alinda D. Hildenbrand, Ralf Grund, Karl-E. Metter, Klaus Dumoulin, Franz Ludwig |
author_facet | Clees, Natalie Várnai-Händel, Alinda D. Hildenbrand, Ralf Grund, Karl-E. Metter, Klaus Dumoulin, Franz Ludwig |
author_sort | Clees, Natalie |
collection | PubMed |
description | Accurate histopathology is the mainstay for reliable classification of resected early colorectal cancer lesions in terms of potential risk of lymph node metastasis. In particular, thickness of resected submucosa is important in cases of submucosal invasive cancer. Nevertheless, little is known about the quality and thickness of submucosal tissue obtained using different endoscopic resection techniques. In this small pilot study, we performed morphometric analysis of submucosal thickness in specimens obtained from right-sided colorectal lesions using endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) versus endoscopic submucosal resection (ESD). Comparative measurements showed significant differences in submucosal area ≥ 1000 μm and minimum submucosal thickness per tissue section analyzed (EMR vs. ESD: 91.2 % ± 6.6 vs. 47.1 % ± 10.6, P = 0.018; 933.7 µm ± 125.1 vs. 319.0 µm ± 123.6, P = 0.009). In contrast, no significant differences were observed in variation coefficient and mean maximum submucosal thickness. Thus, unexpectedly, in this small retrospective pilot study, specimens obtained using EMR had a better preserved submucosal layer than those obtained using ESD – possibly due to the different methods of specimen acquisition. The findings should be kept in mind when attempting to resect lesions suspicious for submucosal invasive cancer. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9187424 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Georg Thieme Verlag KG |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91874242022-06-11 Colorectal submucosa thickness in specimens obtained by EMR versus ESD: a retrospective pilot study Clees, Natalie Várnai-Händel, Alinda D. Hildenbrand, Ralf Grund, Karl-E. Metter, Klaus Dumoulin, Franz Ludwig Endosc Int Open Accurate histopathology is the mainstay for reliable classification of resected early colorectal cancer lesions in terms of potential risk of lymph node metastasis. In particular, thickness of resected submucosa is important in cases of submucosal invasive cancer. Nevertheless, little is known about the quality and thickness of submucosal tissue obtained using different endoscopic resection techniques. In this small pilot study, we performed morphometric analysis of submucosal thickness in specimens obtained from right-sided colorectal lesions using endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) versus endoscopic submucosal resection (ESD). Comparative measurements showed significant differences in submucosal area ≥ 1000 μm and minimum submucosal thickness per tissue section analyzed (EMR vs. ESD: 91.2 % ± 6.6 vs. 47.1 % ± 10.6, P = 0.018; 933.7 µm ± 125.1 vs. 319.0 µm ± 123.6, P = 0.009). In contrast, no significant differences were observed in variation coefficient and mean maximum submucosal thickness. Thus, unexpectedly, in this small retrospective pilot study, specimens obtained using EMR had a better preserved submucosal layer than those obtained using ESD – possibly due to the different methods of specimen acquisition. The findings should be kept in mind when attempting to resect lesions suspicious for submucosal invasive cancer. Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2022-06-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9187424/ /pubmed/35692930 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1816-6381 Text en The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Clees, Natalie Várnai-Händel, Alinda D. Hildenbrand, Ralf Grund, Karl-E. Metter, Klaus Dumoulin, Franz Ludwig Colorectal submucosa thickness in specimens obtained by EMR versus ESD: a retrospective pilot study |
title | Colorectal submucosa thickness in specimens obtained by EMR versus ESD: a retrospective pilot study |
title_full | Colorectal submucosa thickness in specimens obtained by EMR versus ESD: a retrospective pilot study |
title_fullStr | Colorectal submucosa thickness in specimens obtained by EMR versus ESD: a retrospective pilot study |
title_full_unstemmed | Colorectal submucosa thickness in specimens obtained by EMR versus ESD: a retrospective pilot study |
title_short | Colorectal submucosa thickness in specimens obtained by EMR versus ESD: a retrospective pilot study |
title_sort | colorectal submucosa thickness in specimens obtained by emr versus esd: a retrospective pilot study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9187424/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35692930 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1816-6381 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cleesnatalie colorectalsubmucosathicknessinspecimensobtainedbyemrversusesdaretrospectivepilotstudy AT varnaihandelalindad colorectalsubmucosathicknessinspecimensobtainedbyemrversusesdaretrospectivepilotstudy AT hildenbrandralf colorectalsubmucosathicknessinspecimensobtainedbyemrversusesdaretrospectivepilotstudy AT grundkarle colorectalsubmucosathicknessinspecimensobtainedbyemrversusesdaretrospectivepilotstudy AT metterklaus colorectalsubmucosathicknessinspecimensobtainedbyemrversusesdaretrospectivepilotstudy AT dumoulinfranzludwig colorectalsubmucosathicknessinspecimensobtainedbyemrversusesdaretrospectivepilotstudy |