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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Clees, Natalie, Várnai-Händel, Alinda D., Hildenbrand, Ralf, Grund, Karl-E., Metter, Klaus, Dumoulin, Franz Ludwig
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