| Literature DB >> 35310722 |
Yutaka Saito1, Akiko Ono2, Victoria Alejandra Jiménez García3, Yasuhiko Mizuguchi1, Izumi Hisada1, Hiroyuki Takamaru1, Masayoshi Yamada1, Masau Sekiguchi1, Mai Makiguchi1, Shigeki Sekine4, Seiichiro Abe1.
Abstract
Dye-based chromoendoscopy has long been used routinely for endoscopic diagnosis of gastrointestinal tumors including colorectal tumors in Japan. In the West, on the other hand, dye-based chromoendoscopy was not so commonly used. However, with the development of narrow band imaging (NBI), image-enhanced endoscopy diagnosis has rapidly increased in the West. The most critical difference between Japan and the West is the histopathological evaluation of the lesions, which determines a major cause of differences in diagnostic and treatment strategies. In the West, intramucosal adenocarcinoma is not diagnosed until the cancer has invaded submucosal layer. In Japan, on the other hand, cancer is mainly diagnosed based on nuclear and structural atypia, and thus intramucosal adenocarcinoma is diagnosed in lesions that correspond to high-grade adenoma in the West. In the West, since intramucosal carcinoma is not diagnosed by pathology, all benign adenomas are treated by piecemeal endoscopic resection, and only cancer invading the superficial submucosal layer is indicated for endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Because of the risk of lymph node metastasis in the deep submucosal invasion, the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines state that only superficial submucosal cancer is an indication for ESD. Unfortunately, it is impossible to selectively extract only superficial submucosal invasive cancer even with the use of magnified NBI and pit pattern observation. Therefore, we think that pathologists need to diagnose intramucosal adenocarcinoma with the potential to invade the submucosal layer based on the nuclear and structural atypia. Consequently, intramucosal adenocarcinoma and superficial submucosal cancers should be considered for en-bloc ESD.Entities:
Keywords: chromoendoscopy; endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR); endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD); intramucosal adenocarcinoma; laterally spreading tumors (LSTs)
Year: 2021 PMID: 35310722 PMCID: PMC8828232 DOI: 10.1002/deo2.66
Source DB: PubMed Journal: DEN open ISSN: 2692-4609
FIGURE 1(A) Endoscopic images of A laterally spreading tumor‐granular type (LST‐G) nodular mixed type located in the cecum. (a) White light image; An LST‐G nodular mixed type located in the cecum. (b) Narrow band imaging (NBI) revealed the tumor margin clearly. (c) Magnified NBI revealed a regular vessel and surface pattern and Japan NBI Expert Team (JNET) type 2A was diagnosed. (d) Indigo‐carmine dye was sprayed, and the tumor surface structure was clearly observed. (e) A magnified observation on the large nodule showed type IV pit pattern, and there was no endoscopic finding for submucosal invasion. (B) An en‐bloc resection was achieved due to the large tumor size of 75 × 65 mm. (a) The resected specimen was pined out and cut into 41 sections. Submucosal invasive cancer was diagnosed in the two red lines area. (b) Comparison between resected specimen and endoscopic pictures. Retrospectively reviewed, these submucosal invasion areas were difficult to predict before the treatment. (C) In section 11, the submucosal invasion was 1300μm from the tumor surface due to the destruction of muscularis mucosae
FIGURE 2Submucosal invasion rate and invasion pattern in laterally spreading tumor‐granular type (LST‐G). Sixteen % submucosal invasions were diagnosed multifocally outside the area of large nodule or depressed component even in LST‐G, and it was difficult to predict the submucosal invasion area before endoscopic resection even using JNET and maginifed pit pattern observation
FIGURE 3Pit pattern observation shows a higher diagnostic accuracy compared to the other endoscopic findings; however, it is important to understand the limitation of pit pattern observation specially for laterally spreading tumor‐granular type (LST‐G). The sensitivity of pit pattern observation to diagnose submucosal invasion was just 52% for LST‐G, and this means that half of submucosal invasive LST‐G shows non‐invasive pit pattern by magnified diagnosis
FIGURE 4Deep submucosal invasion rate in laterally spreading tumors (including adenoma, intramucosal, and submucosal invasive cancers) treated by surgery and endoscopic mucosal resection /endoscopic submucosal dissection. There was no submucosal invasion rate difference between rectum and colon (21% vs. 17%)