Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How can the pathological examination of a mucosectomy specimen be improved?

  • Published:
Acta Endoscopica

Conclusion

The risk of lymph node metastasis has to be smaller than the risk of a surgical procedure to perform local endoscopic resection of curative intention. Depending on the site within the gastrointestinal tract low and high risk groups can be identified. Criteria differ somewhat with the location. For histological work up enbloc resections are the most preferable specimen since the status of resection could be demonstrated histologically. The method of endoscopic resection for early neoplasms is widespread in the colon but is limited to centres in the oesophagus and partially in the stomach. Because of possible complications it is good to have a surgeon close by and for diagnostic purposes a close communication with your pathologist.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. SOETIKNO RM, GOTODA T, NAKANISHI Y et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 567–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. SOEHENDRA N, BINMOELLER KF, BOHNACKER S et al. Endoscopic snare mucosectomy in the oesophagus without any additional equipment: a simple technique for resection of flat early cancer. Endoscopy 1997; 29: 380–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. INOUE H. Endoscopic mucosal resection for the entire gastrointestinal mucosal lesions. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N America 2001; 11: 459–78.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. ONO H, KONDO H, GOTODA T et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection for treatment of early gastric cancer. Gut 2001; 48: 225–29.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. ELL C, MAY A, GOSSNER L et al. Endoscopic mucosection of early cancer and high-grade dysplasia in Barrett’s oesophagus. Gastroenterology 2000; 118: 670–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. TANABE S, KOIZUMI W, MITOMI H et al. Clinical outcome of endoscopic aspiration mucosectomy for early stage gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 708–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. YAMAMOTO H, YUBE T, ISODA et al. A novel method of endoscopic mucosal resection using sodium hyaluronate. Gastrointest Endosc 1999; 50: 251–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. MIYAMOTO S, MUTO M, HAMAMOTO Y et al. A new technique for endoscopic mucosal resection with an insulated tip electrosurgical knife improves the completeness of resection of intramucosal gastric neoplasms. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 55: 576–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. MIYASHITA M, TAJIRI T, MARUYAMA H et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection scissors for the treatment of early gastric cancer. Endoscopy 2003; 35: 611–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. VIETH M, ELL C, GOSSNER L et al. Histological analysis of endoscopic resection specimens and early neoplasia. Endoscopy 2004; 36: 776–81.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. KASHIMURA H, WATANABE H, YOICHI Ajioka Y, NISHIKURA K, IIRI T, ASAKURA H. The risk factors for nodal micrometastasis of submucosal invasive gastric carcinoma with special reference to assessment of the indication for endoscopic treatment. Gastric Cancer 1999; 2: 33–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. YOKOYAMA J, AJIOKA Y,Watababe H, ASAKURA H. Lymph node metastasis and micrometastasis of submucosal invasive colorectal carcinoma: an indicator of the curative potential of endoscopic treatment. Acta Medica Biologica 2002; 50: 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  13. WATANABE H, KOMUKAI S, AJIOKA Y, NISHIKURA K, HASHIDATE H, KIJIMA H. Histopathology of m3 and sm1 invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus with special reference to endoscopic resection. Stomach and Intestine 1998; 33: 1001–9.

    Google Scholar 

  14. DEINLEIN P, REULBACH U, STOLTE M, VIETH M. Risk factors for lymphatic metastasis from pT1 colorectal adenocarcinoma. Pathologie 2003; 24: 387–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. VIETH M, STOLTE M. The distinction of high grade dysplasia and invasive carcinoma In: Diversity of gastric carcinoma. Kaminishi, Takubo et al (eds) Springer Verlag Tokyo 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Vieth M, Stolte M. Pathology of early upper GI cancers. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2005 (in press).

  17. WESTERTERP M, KOPPERT LB, BUSKENS CJ, TILANUS HW, ten KATE FJW, BERGMANN JHGM, SIERSMA PD, van DEKKEN H, van LANSCHOT JJB. Outcome of surgical treatment of early adenocarcinoma of the esopahgus or gastro-esophageal junction. Virchows Arch 2005; 446: 497–504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. EVK Evangelisches Krankenhaus Düsseldorf, Medizinische Klinik, Kirchfeldstr. 40, 40217, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Brigitte Schumacher

  2. Institut für Pathologie, Klinikum Bayreuth, Preuschwitzer Str. 101, 95445, Bayreuth, Germany

    M. Vieth

Authors
  1. Brigitte Schumacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Vieth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Schumacher, B., Vieth, M. How can the pathological examination of a mucosectomy specimen be improved?. Acta Endosc 35, 730–732 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03003332

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03003332

Keywords

Search

Navigation