Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun 10;10(6):E721-E726.
doi: 10.1055/a-1816-6381. eCollection 2022 Jun.

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

Affiliations

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

Natalie Clees et al. Endosc Int Open. .

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Representative examples of digital measurements from analyzed slices (H&E stain). a Measurement of submucosal thickness from an EMR specimen. b Measurement of submucosal thickness from an ESD specimen. c Measurement of submucosal area from an EMR specimen. d Measurement of submucosal area from an ESD specimen.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Results of digital measurements of specimens by EMR vs. ESD given as box and whisker plots, a variation coefficient, b fraction of submucosal areal > 1000 µm, c mean minimum submucosal thickness, d mean maximum submucosal thickness .

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. - PubMed
    1. 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. - PubMed
    1. Draganov P V, Wang A Y, Othman M O et al.AGA Institute Clinical Practice Update: Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;17:16–2.5E12. - PubMed
    1. Ichimasa K, Kudo S E, Miyachi H et al.Risk stratification of T1 colorectal cancer metastasis to lymph nodes: current status and perspective. Gut Liver. 2021;15:818–826. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kouyama Y, Kudo S E, 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. - PubMed