Skip to main content
Log in

La collaboration entre l’endoscopiste et l’anatomo-pathologiste

The collaboration between the endoscopist and the pathologist

  • Published:
Acta Endoscopica

Résumé

Une collaboration étroite entre l’endoscopiste et son pathologiste est la condition indispensable d’un diagnostic précis. Elle impose à chacun des partenaires des contraintes, fastidieuses au début, mais très rapidement compréhensibles et enrichissantes.

En bref ces contraintes peuvent s’énoncer de la façon suivante:

  • — Le diagnostic endoscopique final est différé, ce qui nécessite une rapidité de circulation des informations et une organisation adaptée à leur collecte (supports informatiques).

  • — Les informations relatives aux biopsies — transmises en flacons séparés — sont fournies sur des supports graphiques de façon à pouvoir localiser les prélèvements par rapport aux lésions et aux segments digestifs étudiés.

  • — Le compte rendu endoscopique fournit les données cliniques et celles d’examens complémentaires et de traitements.

Le pathologiste se réfère aux relevés topographiques pour apprécier la validité des prélèvements et l’interprétation de chaque biopsie.

Le diagnostic final du pathologiste exprime en des termes codifiés la probabilité des diagnostics envisagés. Les cas litigieux font l’objet de confrontations, documents à l’appui, auxquelles participent des candidats spécialistes qui se familiarisent avec les méthodes et l’organisation de la collaboration histo-endoscopique.

Summary

A close collaboration between the endoscopist and his pathologist is an essential condition for an accurate diagnosis. Nevertheless, this imposes on each of the partners certain obligations which are painstaking at the outset, but which become very quickly comprehensible and rewarding.

Briefly, these constraints can be summed up as follows:

  • — The final endoscopic diagnosis is delayed, and thus a rapid flow of information is required as well as an appropriate organization for collecting it (computer-based).

  • — The information concerning the biopsies — sent in individual flasks — are provided together with graphical data which localizes the sites where the samples were taken with regard to the lesion and the segment of the digestive tract being studied.

  • — The report of the endoscopy must provide the clinical data as well as that of any complementary examinations and/or treatment.

The pathologist refers to the topographical data to assess the relevance of the tissue sample and the interpretation of each biopsy.

The final diagnosis of the pathologist provides, in codified terms, various diagnoses with a scale of probability. The contentious cases are collated at meetings at which trainees have the opportunity to get accustomed to the methods and the organization of this histo-endoscopic collaboration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Références

  1. MISIEWICZ J.J., TYTGAT G.N.J., GOODWIN C.S., PRICE A.B., SIPPONEN P., STRICKLAND R.G.et al. — The Sydney System: a new classification of gastritis. Proceedings of the 9th World Congress of Gastroenterology. Sydney, Australia, 1990, 1–10.

  2. MAINGUET P., JOURET A., HAOT J. — Le «Sydney System», nouvelle classification des gastrites. Application pratique.Gastroenterol. Clin. Biol., 1993,17, T13-T17.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. DEBONGNIE J.C., LEGROS G., BEYEART C. — Méthodologie des prélèvements endoscopiques pour examen cytologique.Acta Endosc., 1985,15, 343–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. GOLDMAN H., MING S. — General concepts and methods of examination. In: Pathology of the gastrointestinal tract. Saunders (Ed.), 1992, 3–13.

  5. MAINGUET P., JOURET A. — Surveillance endoscopique de l’endobrachyœsophage.Acta Endosc., 1992,22 (5), 511–526.

    Google Scholar 

  6. JOURET A., HAOT J., MAINGUET P., DEBONGNIE J.-C. — Estimation de la valeur diagnostique du granulome et du microgranulome dans la maladie de Crohn gastrique.Acta Endosc., 1990,20 (2), 93–98.

    Google Scholar 

  7. MAINGUET P., HAMICHI L., DEBONGNIE J.-C., JOURET A., HAOT J., ROBERT A. — Etude prospective du rendement des biopsies endoscopiques dans le diagnostic différentiel des ulcérations gastriques.Acta Endosc., 1990,20 (5), 527–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. GEBOES K., ECTORS N., D’HAENS G., RUTGEERTS P. — The value of ileal biopsies in the diagnosis of IBD. In: Tytgat GNJ, Bartelsman JFWM and Deventer SJH van, editors. Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Falk Symposium 85. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Acad. Publis. 1995, 115–121.

    Google Scholar 

  9. BELLASSAI J., NOËL H., MAINGUET P., HAOT J. — Possibilités et limites du diagnostic de lymphome primitif sur biopsies gastriques endoscopiques.Acta Endosc., 1982,12 (5–6), 443–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. MAINGUET P., JOURET A., HAOT J. — Les gastropathies nodulaires et à gros plis.Gastroenterol. Clin. Biol., 1992,16, 22–28.

    Google Scholar 

  11. HAOT J., BOGOMOLETZ W., JOURET A., MAINGUET P. — Ménétrier’s disease with lymphocytic gastritis: an unusual association with possible pathogenic implications.Human Pathol., 1991,Vol. 22, no 4 (april 1991).

  12. DEBONGNIE J.-C., HAOT J., MAINGUET P. — L’apport de la jéjunoscopie dans le diagnostic de la maladie coeliaque et de ses complications.Acta Gastroent. Belg., 1986, Vol.XLIX, 442–449

    Google Scholar 

  13. JOURET A., MAINGUET P., HAOT J., DEBONGNIE J.-C. — Comparative lymphocytic intraepithelial counts in gastrointestinal mucosa of celiacs, varioliform gastritis and normal subjects.Acta. Gastroent. Belg., 1990,53, A68.

    Google Scholar 

  14. KARTTUNEN T., NIEMELA S. — Lymphocytic gastritis and celiac disease.J. Clin. Pathol., 1990,43, 436–439.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. TALBOT C., PRICE A. — The clinician’s role and the pathologist report.In: Biopsy pathology and colorectal disease. Chapman & Hall (Ed), 1987, 1–5.

  16. WOLBER R., OWEN D., DELBUONO L., APPELMAN H., FREEMAN H. — Lymphocytic gastritis in patients with celiac sprue or prue-like intestinal disease.Gastroenterology, 1990,98, 310–315.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. COOPER H.S. — The role of the pathologist in the management of patients with endoscopically removed malignant colorectal polyps.In: Pathology Annual, Rosen PP, Fecher RE (Ed.), 1988,23, 25–43.

  18. HAGGITT R.C., GLOTZBACH R.E., SOFFER E.E., WRUBLE L.D. — Prognostic factors in colorectal carcinomas arising in adenomas: implications for lesions removed by endoscopic polypectomy.Gastroenterology, 1985,89, 328–336.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. MAINGUET P., JOURET A. — Colon cancer prevention: role of the endoscopy. Review of the new histopathological techniques.Acta Endosc., 23 (4), 311–324.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

About this article

Cite this article

Mainguet, P., Jouret, A. La collaboration entre l’endoscopiste et l’anatomo-pathologiste. Acta Endosc 26, 67–77 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02965791

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02965791

Mots-clés

Key-words

Navigation