Min Jae Yang 1 , Sung Jae Shin 1 , Ki Seong Lee 1 , Kee Myung Lee 1 , Sun Gyo Lim 1 , Joon Koo Kang 1 , Jae Chul Hwang 1 , Soon Sun Kim 1 , Dakeun Lee 2 , Joo-Sung Kim 1 , Gil-Ho Lee 1 , Han Seok Ryu 1 , Byung Moo Yoo 1 , Kwang Jae Lee 1 , Young Bae Kim 2 , Jin Hong Kim 1 . Show Affiliations »
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopists sometimes face paradoxical cases in which the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) specimen reveals a non-neoplastic pathology result. The aims of the study were to determine the reasons for such results, and to compare the endoscopic characteristics of non-neoplastic and conventional neoplastic pathology groups after ESD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1186 gastric ESDs performed between February 2005 and December 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. The ESD specimens included 52 (4.4 %) that were confirmed as negative or indefinite for neoplasia. Patient characteristics and endoscopic and pathological data were reviewed and compared. RESULTS: Non-neoplastic pathology after ESD was due to complete removal of the lesion at biopsy in 45 cases (86.5 %), pathology overestimation in 5 (9.6 %), and incorrect localization of the original tumor with subsequent ESD performed at the wrong site in 2 (3.8 %). The mean length and surface area of the non-neoplastic lesions were 9.2 ± 2.6 mm and 49.6 ± 23.6 mm (2), respectively. Mean sampling ratios were 3.0 ± 1.5 mm/fragment and 16.3 ± 10.0 mm(2)/fragment. Compared with 1134 cases confirmed as neoplastic on the final ESD specimen, non-neoplastic cases showed a significantly smaller tumor size and surface area, and lower sampling ratios in a logistic regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders (P < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Complete lesion removal by biopsy, pathology overestimation, and incorrect localization of the original tumor with subsequent ESD at the wrong site were the main reasons for non-neoplastic results after ESD. Small tumor size and surface area, and low sampling ratios were associated with non-neoplastic pathology results after ESD. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopists sometimes face paradoxical cases in which the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) specimen reveals a non-neoplastic pathology result. The aims of the study were to determine the reasons for such results, and to compare the endoscopic characteristics of non-neoplastic and conventional neoplastic pathology groups after ESD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1186 gastric ESDs performed between February 2005 and December 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. The ESD specimens included 52 (4.4 %) that were confirmed as negative or indefinite for neoplasia . Patient characteristics and endoscopic and pathological data were reviewed and compared. RESULTS: Non-neoplastic pathology after ESD was due to complete removal of the lesion at biopsy in 45 cases (86.5 %), pathology overestimation in 5 (9.6 %), and incorrect localization of the original tumor with subsequent ESD performed at the wrong site in 2 (3.8 %). The mean length and surface area of the non-neoplastic lesions were 9.2 ± 2.6 mm and 49.6 ± 23.6 mm (2), respectively. Mean sampling ratios were 3.0 ± 1.5 mm/fragment and 16.3 ± 10.0 mm(2)/fragment. Compared with 1134 cases confirmed as neoplastic on the final ESD specimen, non-neoplastic cases showed a significantly smaller tumor size and surface area, and lower sampling ratios in a logistic regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders (P < 0.001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Complete lesion removal by biopsy, pathology overestimation, and incorrect localization of the original tumor with subsequent ESD at the wrong site were the main reasons for non-neoplastic results after ESD. Small tumor size and surface area, and low sampling ratios were associated with non-neoplastic pathology results after ESD. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Entities: Disease
Species
Mesh: See more »
Year: 2015
PMID: 25650637 DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1391375
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endoscopy ISSN: 0013-726X Impact factor: 10.093