Top

Techniques in Coloproctology

Published in:

01-11-2018 | Original Article

Optimal processing of ESD specimens to avoid pathological artifacts

Authors: L. Reggiani Bonetti, R. Manta, M. Manno, R. Conigliaro, G. Missale, G. Bassotti, V. Villanacci

Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology | Issue 11/2018

Abstract

Background

En bloc endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been recently introduced as a treatment for precancerous/neoplastic gastrointestinal conditions. The aim of the present study was histological assessment of en bloc ESD specimens.

Methods

Fifty-three ESD specimens were positioned over a cellulose acetate support (40 specimens; 12 from the upper gastrointestinal tract and 28 from the lower gastrointestinal tract) or pinned with nails on polystyrene or cork (13 specimens; 7 from the upper gastrointestinal tract and 6 from the lower gastrointestinal tract). We cut consecutive 2 mm-thick sections stained with hematoxylin and eosin. From the first and the last sections, we obtained a second slide, after a 180° rotation and re-embedding. The quality of ESD samples was scored as inadequate, suboptimal and adequate, based on the amount of crushing, shearing and stretching artifacts that were scored from 0 (absent) to 2 (diffuse or maximum). From the sum of these we obtained a global artifact score (GAS).

Results

Removed lesions were: adenocarcinoma (5 cases), neuroendocrine tumor (NET) G1 (1 case), premalignant conditions, including adenomatous polyps (41 cases) and hyperplastic lesions (6 cases). A positive deep surgical margin was found in 8/53 cases (15%): high- and low-grade dysplastic glands were detected in 5 cases, low-grade adenocarcinoma in 2, and NET cells in 1. Dysplastic glands were detected in the lateral surgical margins of 12 ESD specimens (23%). Among the ESD specimens positioned on the cellulose acetate support, apart from the modifications due to electrocoagulation, 2 (5%) showed shearing modifications. In the group of ESD specimens fixed with nails, 5 (38%) showed shearing, 10 (77%) crushing artifacts, 11 (85%) stretching and 11 (85%) multiple holes caused by the nails. On the basis of these data all histological specimens from ESD on cellulose acetate were adequate (GAS 0–1).However, in the group of ESD fixed with nails, 1 was adequate (GAS 0), 11 suboptimal (GAS 2–5) and 1 inadequate (GAS 6).

Conclusions

Specific devices including cellulose support and adequate sampling blocks can be helpful to perform accurate histological assessment of ESD specimens after en bloc ESD for precancerous/neoplastic gastrointestinal lesions, with complete analysis of the status of the margins and the entirely en bloc evaluation of the lesion.

Nagata K, Shimizu M (2012) Pathological evaluation of gastrointestinal endoscopic submucosal dissection materials based on Japanese guidelines. World J Gastrointest Endosc 4:489–499CrossRef

Trecca A, Marinozzi G, Villanacci V et al (2014) Experience with a new device for pathological assessment of colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection. Tech Coloproctol 18:1117–1123CrossRef

Uraoka T, Parra-Blanco A, Yahagi N (2013) Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: is it suitable in western countries? J Gastroenterol Hepatol 28:406–414CrossRef

Pimentel-Nunes P, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Ponchon T et al (2015) Endoscopic submucosal dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 47:829–854CrossRef

Repici A, Hassan C, Pagano N et al (2013) High efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal laterally spreading tumors larger than 3 cm. Gastrointest Endosc 77:96–101CrossRef

Iacopini F, Bella A, Costamagna G et al (2012) Stepwise training in rectal and colonic endoscopic submucosal dissection with differentiated learning curves. Gastrointest Endosc 76:1188–1196CrossRef

Villanacci V, Cengia G, Cestari R et al (2012) Is it possible to improve the histological yield of oesophageal endoscopic mucosectomies? Dig Liver Dis 44:179–180CrossRef

Vieth M, Quirke P, Lambert R et al (2011) Quality assurance in pathology in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: annotations of colorectal lesions. Virchows Arch 458:21–30CrossRef

Partecipants in the Paris workshop (2003) No author list. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 58:S3–S43CrossRef

10.

Schlemper RJ, Riddell RH, Kato Y et al (2000) The Vienna classification of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. Gut 47:251–255CrossRef

11.

Yokoi C, Gotoda T, Hamanaka H et al (2006) Endoscopic submucosal dissection allows curative resection of locally recurrent early gastric cancer after prior endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc 64:212–218CrossRef

12.

Woods KL, Anand BS, Cole RA et al (1999) Influence of endoscopic biopsy forceps characteristics on tissue specimens: results of a prospective randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc 49:177–183CrossRef

13.

Oka S, Tanaka S, Kaneko I et al (2006) Advantage of endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with EMR for early gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 64:877–883CrossRef

14.

Cheung DY, Park SH (2016) How to interpret the pathological report before and after endoscopic submucosal dissection of early gastric cancer. Clin Endosc 49:327–331CrossRef

15.

Shigita K, Oka S, Tanaka S et al (2017) Long-term outcomes after endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial colorectal tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 85:546–553CrossRef

16.

Tamegai Y, Saito Y, Masaki N et al (2007) Endoscopic submucosal dissection: a safe technique for colorectal tumors. Endoscopy 39:418–422CrossRef

17.

Dessain A, Snauwaert C, Baldin P et al (2017) Endoscopic submucosal dissection specimens in early colorectal cancer: lateral margins, macroscopic techniques, and possible pitfalls. Virchows Arch 470:165–174CrossRef

18.

Fujimoto A, Goto O, Nishizawa T et al (2017) Gastric ESD may be useful as accurate staging and decision of future therapeutic strategy. Endosc Int Open 5:E90–E95CrossRef

19.

Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH et al (2010) WHO classification of tumours of the digestive system (ed 4). International Agency on Research of Cancer, Lyon

20.

Tanaka S, Oka S, Chayama K (2008) Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: present status and future perspective, including its differentiation from endoscopic mucosal resection. J Gastroenterol 43:641–651CrossRef

21.

Villanacci V, Bassotti G, Bonetti RL et al (2017) Toward optimal processing of endoscopic submucosal dissection specimens. Virchows Arch 470:475–477CrossRef

22.

Oka S, Tanaka S, Kaneko I et al (2006) Endoscopic submucosal dissection for residual/local recurrence of early gastric cancer after endoscopic mucosal resection. Endoscopy 38:996–1000CrossRef

23.

Kikuchi R, Takano M, Takagi K et al (1995) Management of early invasive colorectal cancer. Risk of recurrence and clinical guidelines. Dis Colon Rectum 38:1286–1295CrossRef

24.

Mojtahed A, Shimoda T (2011) Proper pathological preparation and assessment of endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection specimens. Techn Gastrointest Endoscopy 13:95–99CrossRef

25.

Lauwers GY, Ban S, Mino M et al (2004) Endoscopic mucosal resection for gastric epithelial neoplasm: a study of 39 cases with emphasis on the evaluation of specimens and recommendations for optimal pathologic analysis. Mod Pathol 17:2–8CrossRef

Title: Optimal processing of ESD specimens to avoid pathological artifacts
Authors: L. Reggiani Bonetti
R. Manta
M. Manno
R. Conigliaro
G. Missale
G. Bassotti
V. Villanacci
Publication date: 01-11-2018
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology / Issue 11/2018
Print ISSN: 1123-6337
Electronic ISSN: 1128-045X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-018-1887-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Optimal processing of ESD specimens to avoid pathological artifacts

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2018

7th Educational Meeting “Anal fistula: news and dilemmas” Rome, 20 November, 2018

Systematic review of outcomes following pelvic exenteration for the treatment of primary and recurrent locally advanced rectal cancer

Transanal extended rectal surgery with lateral pelvic lymph node dissection

CO2 embolism can complicate transanal total mesorectal excision

Rectal trauma injuries: outcomes from the U.S. National Trauma Data Bank

Management of some extra-peritoneal rectal injuries without fecal diversion may be feasible, but high-quality evidence is still needed