CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2022; 10(06): E721-E726
DOI: 10.1055/a-1816-6381
Innovation forum

Colorectal submucosa thickness in specimens obtained by EMR versus ESD: a retrospective pilot study

Natalie Clees
1   Department of Medicine and Gastroenterology, Gemeinschaftskrankenhaus Bonn.
Academic Teaching Hospital, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
,
Alinda D. Várnai-Händel
2   Institute für Pathology Bonn-Duisdorf, Bonn, Germany
,
Ralf Hildenbrand
2   Institute für Pathology Bonn-Duisdorf, Bonn, Germany
,
Karl-E. Grund
3   Institute for Experimental Surgical Endoscopy, Tübingen University, Tübingen, Germany
,
Klaus Metter
4   Clinic for Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Diabetology, Göppingen, Germany
,
Franz Ludwig Dumoulin
1   Department of Medicine and Gastroenterology, Gemeinschaftskrankenhaus Bonn.
Academic Teaching Hospital, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Referred to by:

Thickness of colorectal submucosal (SM) layer in resected specimens: Is more better?Endosc Int Open 2022; 10(06): E727-E728
DOI: 10.1055/a-1830-7598

Abstract

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.



Publication History

Received: 18 December 2021

Accepted after revision: 30 March 2022

Article published online:
10 June 2022

© 2022. 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/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Pimentel-Nunes P, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Ponchon T. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 829-854
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y. et al. Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig Endosc 2020; 32: 219-239
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Draganov PV, Wang AY, Othman MO. et al. AGA Institute Clinical Practice Update: Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17: 16-25.e11
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Ichimasa K, Kudo SE, Miyachi H. et al. Risk stratification of T1 colorectal cancer metastasis to lymph nodes: current status and perspective. Gut Liver 2021; 15: 818-826
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kouyama Y, Kudo SE, Miyachi H. et al. Risk factors of recurrence in T1 colorectal cancers treated by endoscopic resection alone or surgical resection with lymph node dissection. Int J Colorectal Dis 2018; 33: 1029-1038
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ferlitsch M, Moss A, Hassan C. et al. Colorectal polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 270-297
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Kaltenbach T, Anderson JC, Burke CA. et al. Endoscopic removal of colorectal lesions-recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 1095-1129
    Google Scholar
  • 8 Russo P, Barbeiro S, Awadie H. et al. Management of colorectal laterally spreading tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7: E239-E259
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Meier B, Stritzke B, Kuellmer A. et al. Efficacy and safety of endoscopic full-thickness resection in the colorectum: results from the German Colonic FTRD Registry. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115: 1998-2006
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Gölder SK, Schaller T, Farin G. et al. Partially insulated cutting instruments for hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection - the Flat Adenoma Resection Instruments (FARIn). Endoscopy 2016; 48: E218-E219
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Metter K, Aepli P, Dumoulin FL. et al. Endoscopic submucosal resection (ESR) – a technique using novel devices for incision and resection of neoplastic lesions. Endoscopy 2021; DOI: 10.1055/a-1723-3194.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar