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...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
2022-06-01
|
| Series: | Endoscopy International Open |
| Online Access: | http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/a-1816-6381 |
| _version_ | 1818471052644188160 |
|---|---|
| author | Natalie Clees Alinda D. Várnai-Händel Ralf Hildenbrand Karl-E. Grund Klaus Metter Franz Ludwig Dumoulin |
| author_facet | Natalie Clees Alinda D. Várnai-Händel Ralf Hildenbrand Karl-E. Grund Klaus Metter Franz Ludwig Dumoulin |
| author_sort | Natalie Clees |
| collection | DOAJ |
| 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T21:45:53Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-f805f1fd61f140f69e5d2e6672392a32 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2364-3722 2196-9736 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T21:45:53Z |
| publishDate | 2022-06-01 |
| publisher | Georg Thieme Verlag KG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Endoscopy International Open |
| spelling | doaj.art-f805f1fd61f140f69e5d2e6672392a322022-12-22T02:28:34ZengGeorg Thieme Verlag KGEndoscopy International Open2364-37222196-97362022-06-011006E721E72610.1055/a-1816-6381Colorectal submucosa thickness in specimens obtained by EMR versus ESD: a retrospective pilot studyNatalie Clees0Alinda D. Várnai-Händel1Ralf Hildenbrand2Karl-E. Grund3Klaus Metter4Franz Ludwig Dumoulin5Department of Medicine and Gastroenterology, Gemeinschaftskrankenhaus Bonn. Academic Teaching Hospital, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany Institute für Pathology Bonn-Duisdorf, Bonn, GermanyInstitute für Pathology Bonn-Duisdorf, Bonn, GermanyInstitute for Experimental Surgical Endoscopy, Tübingen University, Tübingen, GermanyClinic for Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Diabetology, Göppingen, GermanyDepartment of Medicine and Gastroenterology, Gemeinschaftskrankenhaus Bonn. Academic Teaching Hospital, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany 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.http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/a-1816-6381 |
| spellingShingle | Natalie Clees Alinda D. Várnai-Händel Ralf Hildenbrand Karl-E. Grund Klaus Metter Franz Ludwig Dumoulin Colorectal submucosa thickness in specimens obtained by EMR versus ESD: a retrospective pilot study Endoscopy International Open |
| 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 | http://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/a-1816-6381 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT natalieclees colorectalsubmucosathicknessinspecimensobtainedbyemrversusesdaretrospectivepilotstudy AT alindadvarnaihandel colorectalsubmucosathicknessinspecimensobtainedbyemrversusesdaretrospectivepilotstudy AT ralfhildenbrand colorectalsubmucosathicknessinspecimensobtainedbyemrversusesdaretrospectivepilotstudy AT karlegrund colorectalsubmucosathicknessinspecimensobtainedbyemrversusesdaretrospectivepilotstudy AT klausmetter colorectalsubmucosathicknessinspecimensobtainedbyemrversusesdaretrospectivepilotstudy AT franzludwigdumoulin colorectalsubmucosathicknessinspecimensobtainedbyemrversusesdaretrospectivepilotstudy |