|
|
|
2020, Volume 36, Number 2, Page(s) 109-115
|
|
|
DOI: 10.5146/tjpath.2019.01474 |
Pathologic Evaluation of Endoscopically Resected Non-Ampullary Duodenal Lesions: A Single Center Experience |
Orhun Çığ TAŞKIN1, Fatih ASLAN2, Çisel AYDIN MERIÇÖZ1, Volkan ADSAY1, Yersu KAPRAN1 |
1Departments of Pathology, Koç University Hospital, ISTANBUL, TURKEY
2Departments of Gastroenterology, Koç University Hospital, ISTANBUL, TURKEY |
Keywords:
Duodenum, Endoscopic resection, Endoscopic submucosal dissection, Endoscopic mucosal resection, Histopathology |
Objective: Endoscopic resections are increasingly being used for superficial gastrointestinal lesions. However, application of these techniques in
the duodenum remains challenging, due to the technical difficulties and high complication rates. This study projects a western tertiary center’s
experience in the endoscopic treatment and diagnostic workup of 19 cases of non-ampullary duodenal lesions.
Material and Method: Specimens (12 endoscopic mucosal resections, 6 endoscopic submucosal dissections, and one endoscopic full-thickness
resection) were processed following a strict protocol (photographed, mapped digitally and submitted totally) for histopathologic examination.
Clinicopathologic characteristics, margin status and follow-up information were analyzed.
Results: The mean age of the 16 patients was 52 years (range: 22-81). Mean lesion size was 1.4 cm (range: 0.3-3.6 cm) for all cases, 2 cm
for endoscopic submucosal dissections and 1.1 cm for endoscopic mucosal resections. Mean number of blocks submitted was 4/case. Seven
neuroendocrine tumors, 3 tubulovillous adenomas were diagnosed along with nine benign lesions. For endoscopic submucosal dissections,
en-bloc and R0 resection rates were 100% (n=6/6) and 83% (n=5/6); for endoscopic mucosal resections, they were 92% (n=11/12) and 83%
(n=10/12), respectively. Only one patient had procedure-related late perforation that was managed endoscopically. No mortality was encountered.
Conclusion: Duodenal endoscopic resections proved successful, safe and feasible methods in a tertiary center. The pathologist’s role is to designate
the accurate diagnosis, related histopathologic parameters and margin status. The gross protocol was found to be essential in evaluating specimen
margins and orientation, as well as in size measurement. We recommend following a standardized approach including gross photography and
digital mapping when handling these specimens, for both diagnostic and data collection purposes.
|
|
|
|
|
