| Literature DB >> 27547815 |
Kenichi Takeda1, Shin-Ei Kudo1, Masashi Misawa1, Yuichi Mori1, Toyoki Kudo1, Kenta Kodama1, Kunihiko Wakamura1, Hideyuki Miyachi1, Eiji Hidaka1, Fumio Ishida1, Haruhiro Inoue2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Permeation of a vein or lymphatic vessel by a tumor is a key risk factor for lymph node metastasis. We examined the features of colorectal tumor vessel permeation using endocytoscopy, an ultra-high magnifying endoscopic system combined with a narrow-band imaging capability (EC-NBI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined 188 colorectal lesions using EC-NBI before treatment was started. We measured the diameters of tumor vessels on EC-NBI images. We used the tumor vessel diameter (the mean diameter of four tumor-associated vessels) and the variation in tumor vessel caliber (the difference between the maximum and minimum diameters of the vessels expressed as a proportion) to judge changes in vessel formation. We examined the relationship between these variables and the extent of venous or lymphatic vessel permeation (vessel invasion) established by immunohistochemical examination of the resected specimen using monoclonal antibodies against the CD34 and D2 - 40 antigens. We also analyzed the relationships between tumor vessel diameter, tumor vessel caliber variation, and depth of tumor invasion.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27547815 PMCID: PMC4990025 DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-101753
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Endosc Int Open ISSN: 2196-9736
Fig. 1Images obtained by endocytoscopy with narrow-band imaging (EC-NBI) at ultra-high magnification of approximately × 400 for each depth of tumor invasion. Microvessels are visible as dark brown lines on EC-NBI images (blue arrows). In EC-NBI images, we defined the mean diameter of four vessels as the ‘tumor vessel diameter’ and the proportional difference between the maximum and minimum vessel diameters as “tumor vessel caliber variation”. The yellow arrows in the panel showing the T3 lesion indicate the maximum diameter and the white arrows the minimum diameter of a vessel.
Fig. 2Study flow chart.
Differences in tumor vessel diameter and caliber variation between tumors in situ (Tis) and T1 – T3 carcinomas
| Tis (n = 64) | T1 – T3 (n = 85) |
| |
| Tumor vessel diameter (μm) | 20.6 ± 4.8 | 35.7 ± 7.9 | < 0.01 |
| Tumor vessel caliber variation | 0.273 ± 0.061 | 0.372 ± 0.088 | < 0.01 |
Relationship between tumor vessel diameter and caliber variation by depth of tumor invasion.
|
|
|
|
| Adenoma (n = 39) | 19.5 ± 4.2 | 0.277 ± 0.115 |
| Tis (n = 64) | 20.6 ± 4.8 | 0.273 ± 0.061 |
| T1 (n = 56) | 33.0 ± 7.2 | 0.342 ± 0.080 |
| T2 (n = 14) | 41.5 ± 8.1 | 0.415 ± 0.076 |
| T3 (n = 15) | 40.2 ± 5.6 | 0.440 ± 0.074 |
Relationship between tumor vessel permeation and tumor diameter or caliber variation in T1 – T3 carcinomas.
| v – (n = 47) | v + (n = 38) |
| ly – (n = 63) | ly + (n = 22) |
| |
| Tumor vessel diameter (μm) | 31.4 ± 5.8 | 40.9 ± 7.1 | < 0.01 | 34.0 ± 7.0 | 40.3 ± 8.8 | < 0.01 |
| Tumor vessel caliber variation | 0.307 ± 0.048 | 0.451 ± 0.053 | < 0.01 | 0.359 ± 0.080 | 0.408 ± 0.102 | 0.02 |
v, venous vessel permeation; ly, lymphatic vessel permeation.
Relationship between tumor vessel permeation, tumor vessel diameter and caliber variation by depth of tumor invasion.
| Tumor invasion depth | v – (n = 39) | v + (n = 17) |
| ly – (n = 47) | ly + (n = 9) |
| |
| T1 | Tumor vessel diameter (μm) | 30.3 ± 5.4 | 39.3 ± 6.8 | < 0.01 | 32.1 ± 6.4 | 37.5 ± 9.4 | 0.04 |
| Tumor vessel caliber variation | 0.301 ± 0.050 | 0.437 ± 0.049 | < 0.01 | 0.340 ± 0.074 | 0.354 ± 0.112 | 0.62 | |
| v – (n = 4) | v + (n = 10) |
| ly – (n = 10) | ly + (n = 4) |
| ||
| T2 | Tumor vessel diameter (μm) | 37.4 ± 4.8 | 43.1 ± 8.7 | 0.25 | 39.9 ± 6.1 | 45.5 ± 11.9 | 0.25 |
| Tumor vessel caliber variation | 0.328 ± 0.032 | 0.450 ± 0.057 | < 0.01 | 0.427 ± 0.077 | 0.385 ± 0.075 | 0.37 | |
| v – (n = 4) | v + (n = 11) |
| ly – (n = 6) | ly + (n = 9) |
| ||
| T3 | Tumor vessel diameter (μm) | 36.5 ± 3.6 | 41.5 ± 5.7 | 0.13 | 39.3 ± 4.7 | 40.8 ± 6.3 | 0.64 |
| Tumor vessel caliber variation | 0.345 ± 0.010 | 0.475 ± 0.053 | < 0.01 | 0.393 ± 0.064 | 0.471 ± 0.067 | 0.04 | |
v, venous vessel permeation; ly, lymphatic vessel permeation.
Fig. 3The relationship between tumor vessel caliber variation and the presence or absence of venous vessel permeation by depth of tumor invasion. Only T1, T2, and T3 tumors showed evidence of venous permeation. Tumor vessel variation was significantly greater when there was venous permeation for all three categories of carcinoma (*P < 0.01).
Fig. 4The relationship between tumor vessel caliber variation and the presence or absence of lymphatic vessel permeation by depth of tumor invasion. Only T1, T2, and T3 lesions showed evidence of lymphatic vessel permeation. Tumor vessel variation was significantly greater in T3 carcinomas when there was lymphatic permeation (**P < 0.05).
Fig. 5The relationship between tumor vessel diameter and venous permeation by depth of tumor invasion. Only T1, T2, and T3 tumors showed evidence of venous permeation. Tumor vessel diameter was significantly greater in T1 carcinomas when there was venous permeation (*P < 0.01).
Fig. 6The relationship between tumor vessel diameter and lymphatic vessel permeation by depth of tumor invasion. Only T1, T2, and T3 lesions showed evidence of lymphatic vessel permeation. Tumor vessel diameter was significantly greater in T1 carcinomas when there was lymphatic permeation (**P < 0.05).