Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Optimal processing of ESD specimens to avoid pathological artifacts

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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 77:96–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 458:21–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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–S43

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 64:212–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 49:177–183

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 470:165–174

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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–E95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  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 43:641–651

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 38:996–1000

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 38:1286–1295

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 17:2–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Pathology of Modena Az., Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico di Modena, Modena, Italy

    L. Reggiani Bonetti

  2. Endoscopy Unit Ospedale Baggiovara, (NOCSAE), Baggiovara, Italy

    R. Manta & R. Conigliaro

  3. Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Carpi Hospital, Modena, Italy

    M. Manno

  4. Endoscopy Unit Spedali Civili, Brescia, Italy

    G. Missale

  5. Gastroenterology and Hepatology Section, Department of Medicine, University of Perugia School of Medicine, Perugia, Italy

    G. Bassotti

  6. Institute of Pathology Spedali Civili, Brescia, Italy

    V. Villanacci

  7. Department of Diagnostic Medicine and Public Health, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia Section of Pathology, Via del Pozzo 71, 41100, Modena, Italy

    L. Reggiani Bonetti

Authors
  1. L. Reggiani Bonetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Manta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Manno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Conigliaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. Missale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. G. Bassotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. V. Villanacci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Reggiani Bonetti.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

For this retrospective study, no ethical approvation was required at the moment of the study design.

Informed consent

No personal data of the patients are mentioned; no further diagnostic insigths were tested; no changes in original diagnosis have been producted.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reggiani Bonetti, L., Manta, R., Manno, M. et al. Optimal processing of ESD specimens to avoid pathological artifacts. Tech Coloproctol 22, 857–866 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-018-1887-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-018-1887-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation