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 pathologists 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.
Since the introduction of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in Japan to treat gastrointestinal neoplasms [4,5], endoscopic resections (ER) are increasingly being used as a therapeutic option for various type of malignant and benign lesions throughout the gastrointestinal tract [6-11]. EMR is a relatively simpler technique that allows the removal of lesions limited to the mucosa. The main disadvantage of EMR is the higher rate of piecemeal resection, especially for larger lesions. Piecemeal resections not only increase the recurrence rates and necessitate further therapy but may also jeopardize histopathological evaluation of the target lesion. ESD, on the other hand, aims the en-bloc removal of larger and deeper lesions, allowing more accurate histopathological staging and better chance of cure with very low recurrence rate. However, ESD is a technically challenging procedure associated with a higher perforation rate [12,13].
ERs are reported to be feasible, safe and therapeutic for duodenal lesions as well [14-16]. Considering the fact that the alternative surgical option for duodenal lesions is usually Whipple procedure that is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, ERs are increasingly being encouraged for superficial duodenal lesions, especially adenomas [17]. Nevertheless, application of these techniques in the duodenum remains challenging due to technical difficulties and relatively high complication rates [9,18-20].
Our study included 19 cases of non-ampullary duodenal ERs performed and histopathologically examined at our institution. We aimed to present their diagnostic spectrum along with their clinicopathologic characteristics and margin status, and then compare those with the data in the literature. Combined with the short follow-up information and complication rates, we believe our results will emphasize the feasibility of ER for different types of duodenal lesions. In addition, we followed a strict protocol (that included both the endoscopy suite and the gross room) that helped the diagnostic process when handling these specimens.
Pathological Analysis
Gross Sectioning: Resections were performed by the same
endoscopist (FA) and prepped in the endoscopy suite
with pins for proper orientation. Following 12-24 hours
of formalin fixation, the margins were inked; specimens
were photographed and grossly inspected. Gross features
(macroscopic type of the lesion, dimensions and margin
status) were documented. Serial sections of 2-3 mm
thickness were submitted, with a maximum of 3-4 tissues per block. Specimens were mapped on their gross digital
photograph and submitted totally for histopathologic
examination. Horizontal (mucosal) margins were
submitted perpendicular (Figure 1A-C). Serial and/or
deeper sections were ordered when and if necessary.
Diagnostic Process and Surgical Margins: Specimens were diagnosed by dedicated gastrointestinal pathologists, who possessed expertise in handling and reporting endoscopic resection specimens throughout the gastrointestinal tract. Consensus decisions of at least two pathologists were made to overcome challenges in the diagnostic process and in the interpretation of histologic features. Surgical margins (vertical and horizontal) were reported as negative, when all margins were free of the lesion (R0 resection); positive when the lesion touched the inked horizontal (mucosal) and/or vertical (deep) margin (R1 resection); and equivocal, when the specimen was not fit for margin assessment, due to piecemeal excision or procedural defects (Rx resection).
Additional Information
This study was approved by the institutional review board.
Helsinki principles were respected during the study and
the patients confidential data were kept according to their
guidelines. Due to the retrospective nature of the study,
written informed consent was not obtained. Pathologic
data of the patients were de-identified and analyzed
anonymously.
Clinical Information, Localization, Size
The mean age of the 16 patients (9 males, 7 females) was
52 years (range: 22-81). One patient was under clinical
surveillance for Peutz-Jeghers syndrome.
All 19 cases were localized in the non-ampullary duodenum (6 in the bulbus, 12 in the second part, one in the third part). Mean lesion size for all cases was 1.4 cm (range: 0.3- 3.6 cm). Mean lesion sizes for ESDs and EMRs were 2 cm and 1.1 cm, respectively. One EMR case was piecemeal excision, where the lesion size could not be measured (but was reported as 5 cm endoscopically).
Diagnostic Spectrum
There were 7 well differentiated neuroendocrine tumors
(Grade 1-2), 3 tubulovillous adenomas (one including an
intramucosal adenocarcinoma), 2 hamartomatous polyps
(same patient), 2 pancreatic and 1 gastric heterotopia, 1
inflammatory fibroid polyp, 1 lipoma, 1 leiomyoma and 1
polypoid duodenitis diagnosed (Figures 2A-C; 3A-C; 4A,B;
5A-D).
En-Bloc Resection and Margin Status
18 of 19 cases were en-bloc resections and only one
EMR case was piecemeal [en-bloc resection rates were
100% (n=6/6) and 92% (n=11/12) for ESD and EMR,
respectively]. 16 of the 19 cases were R0 resections (R0
resection rates were 83% (n=5/6) and 83% (n=10/12) for
ESD and EMR, respectively).
Follow-Up Information
Late perforation (first week) related to the procedure
has occurred in the one piecemeal EMR case (diagnosed
as tubulovillous adenoma with intramucosal adenocarcinoma,
measured 5 cm endoscopically) and managed
endoscopically. That same patient and 4 others had followup
endoscopies that were negative for a residual lesion. No
mortality was encountered. Clinicopathological features of
all cases are summarized in Table I.
Table I: Clinicopathologic features of duodenal endoscopic resection specimens.
The majority of the literature on advanced duodenal ERs originates from the Far East. For example, Hoteya et al. studied a large series of 129 non-ampullary duodenal ERs (74 ESD vs. 55 EMR), and concluded that duodenal ESD is useful for larger (>20 mm) lesions [21]. As for the West, the contribution to the literature is relatively recent: only a handful of duodenal ERs were reported recently [22-24], yet series with comparable sizes (i.e. n=166 duodenal ERs in Pérez-Cuadrado-Robles et als study) are being published from specialized referral centers [25,26]. The main reason for this is that, similar to other sites of the gastrointestinal tract, the western experience with duodenal ESD and EMR was limited compared to the Far East [22-24,27-32], due to flat learning curve of these techniques and lack of training facilities for the endoscopists in the west [17,33-35]. In fact, as reported by Yamamoto et al., even in Japan where these procedures were developed and mastered, duodenal ESDs are performed in only a few institutions, due to the high risk of complications [19]. Having mentioned these, the main limitation of this study was the relatively small size of the cohort.
ERs are reported to be useful in the treatment of various benign and malignant duodenal lesions, including intramucosal adenocarcinomas, adenomas, lipomas and neuroendocrine tumors [20,36-39]. The required specific technique (e.g. ESD vs. EMR) is selected mostly according to the size and the location of the lesion [21]. Nevertheless, a management strategy following the endoscopic removal of pre-malignant or malignant lesions has not yet been clearly identified, due to lack of scientific evidence. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy suggests, with low quality of evidence, consideration of surgical therapy, when carcinoma is spotted in the specimen, particularly in the submucosa [17]. We have one case with intramucosal adenocarcinoma without submucosal invasion that is under follow-up for two years without any proof of residual or systemic malignancy (also mentioned below).
A successful endoscopic resection aims en-bloc removal of the targeted lesion, with microscopically negative surgical margins (both horizontal and vertical). This verification implies total submission of the specimen in the gross room, which, in our experience, required an average of 4 submitted blocks per case. Our cohorts en-bloc and R0 resection rates were acceptable (100% en-bloc and 83% R0 rate for ESD; 92% en-bloc and 83% R0 rate for EMR), compared to the data in the literature [14,16,20,25,30,40).
Delayed perforation is a morbid complication of ERs, and is known to be associated with the location of the lesion (distal to ampulla of Vater) and resection method (piecemeal EMR or ESD) in the duodenum [41]. Accordingly, in our study group, a delayed perforation occurred in a piecemeal EMR patient, with the diagnosis of adenoma with intramucosal adenocarcinoma. Fortunately, the patient was successfully managed endoscopically, and no mortality has encountered. In addition, follow-up endoscopic examinations, also verified by histology, did not show any residual lesions.
The gross photos and mapping were crucial in evaluating the margins and orientation of the specimen, as well as in size measurement. The established protocol followed both by the endoscopy suite and pathology gross room (including proper orientation and fixation, taking/mapping gross photographs, submitting in total) allowed comfortable and accurate evaluation of the findings.
In conclusion, duodenal ESD and EMR proved to be successful, safe and feasible methods in a tertiary center with enough expertise in the technique and in the management of the possible complications. The pathologists role is to designate the accurate diagnosis of the lesion, along with the margin status and histopathologic parameters specific to the diagnosed entity. Due to the rareness of these specimens, we highly recommend following a systematic and standardized approach in handling and reporting cases of duodenal ERs, using gross photography/mapping, for both diagnostic and data collection purposes.
CONFLICT of INTEREST
The authors declare no confict of interest.
1) Jepsen JM, Persson M, Jakobsen NO, Christiansen T,
Skoubo-Kristensen E, Funch-Jensen P, Kruse A, Thommesen
P. Prospective study of prevalence and endoscopic and
histopathologic characteristics of duodenal polyps in patients
submitted to upper endoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol.
1994;29:483-7.
2) Collins K, Ligato S. Duodenal epithelial polyps: A
clinicopathologic review. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019;143:370-85.
3) Basford PJ, Bhandari P. Endoscopic management of nonampullary
duodenal polyps. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2012;5:127-38.
4) Hirao M, Masuda K, Asanuma T, Naka H, Noda K, Matsuura
K, Yamaguchi O, Ueda N. Endoscopic resection of early gastric
cancer and other tumors with local injection of hypertonic salineepinephrine.
Gastrointest Endosc. 1988;34:264-9.
5) Yahagi N, Fujishiro M, Kakushima N, Kobayashi K, Hashimoto
T, Oka M, Iguchi M, Enomoto S, Ichinose M, Niwa H, Omata
M. Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer
using the tip of an electrosurgical snare (thin type). Dig Endosc.
2004;16:34-8.
6) Tomiki Y, Kawai M, Kawano S, Ishiyama S, Sugimoto K,
Takahashi M, Kojima Y, Murakami T, Ritsuno H, Shibuya T,
Sakamoto N, Sakamoto K. Endoscopic submucosal dissection
decreases additional colorectal resection for T1 colorectal cancer.
Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:6910-7.
7) Gu L, Khadaroo PA, Chen L, Li X, Zhu H, Zhong X, Pan J,
Chen M. Comparison of long-term outcomes of endoscopic
submucosal dissection and surgery for early gastric cancer:
A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg.
2019;23:1493-501.
8) Noordzij IC, Curvers WL, Schoon EJ. Endoscopic resection for
early esophageal carcinoma. J Thorac Dis. 2019;11:S713-22.
9) Yamasaki Y, Uedo N, Takeuchi Y, Ishihara R, Okada H, Iishi
H. Current status of endoscopic resection for superficial
nonampullary duodenal epithelial tumors. Digestion. 2018;97:45-51.
10) Ohara Y, Toyonaga T, Tanaka S, Ishida T, Hoshi N, Yoshizaki
T, Kawara F, Lui K, Tepmalai K, Damrongmanee A, Nagata M,
Morita Y, Umegaki E, Azuma T. Risk of stricture after endoscopic
submucosal dissection for large rectal neoplasms. Endoscopy.
2015;48:62-70.
11) Fukuzawa M, Gotoda T. History of endoscopic submucosal
dissection and role for colorectal endoscopic submucosal
dissection: A Japanese perspective. Gastrointest Interv. 2012;1:30-5.
12) Draganov PV. Endoscopic mucosal resection vs endoscopic
submucosal dissection for colon polyps. Gastroenterol Hepatol.
(NY) 2018;14:50-2.
13) Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y, Yahagi N, Yamano H, Saito S,
Hisabe T, Yao T, Watanabe M, Yoshida M, Saitoh Y, Tsuruta O,
Sugihara KK, Igarashi M, Toyonaga T, Ajioka Y, Kusunoki M,
Koike K, Fujimoto K. JGES guidelines for colorectal endoscopic
submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig
Endosc. 2015;27:417-34.
14) Kim TW, Kim GH, Park DY, Ahn S, Lim W, Lee BE, Song GA.
Endoscopic resection for duodenal subepithelial tumors: A
single-center experience. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:1936-46.
15) Nam YJ, Lee SH, Kim KO, Jang BI, Kim TN, Kim YJ. Endoscopic
resection of sporadic non-ampullary duodenal neoplasms: A
single center study. Korean J Gastroenterol. 2016;67:8-15.
16) Marques J, Baldaque-Silva F, Pereira P, Arnelo U, Yahagi N,
Macedo Joana Marques G, Macedo G. Endoscopic mucosal
resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment
of sporadic nonampullary duodenal adenomatous polyps. World
J Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;7:720-7.
17) Pimentel-Nunes P, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Ponchon T, Repici A, Vieth
M, De Ceglie A, Amato A, Berr F, Bhandari P, Bialek A, Conio
M, Haringsma J, Langner C, Meisner S, Messmann H, Morino
M, Neuhaus H, Piessevaux H, Rugge M. Endoscopic submucosal
dissection: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
(ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy. 2015;47:829-54.
18) Honda T, Yamamoto H, Osawa H, Yoshizawa M, Nakano H,
Sunada K, Hanatsuka K, Sugano K. Endoscopic submucosal
dissection for superficial duodenal neoplasms: How i do it. Dig
Endosc. 2009;21:270-4.
19) Yamamoto H, Miura Y. Duodenal ESD: Conquering difficulties.
Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2014;24:235-44.
20) Hoteya S, Yahagi N, Iizuka T, Kikuchi D, Mitani T, Matsui
A, Ogawa O, Yamashita S, Furuhata T, Yamada A, Kimura R,
Nomura K, Kuribayashi Y, Kaise M. Endoscopic submucosal
dissection for nonampullary large superficial adenocarcinoma/
adenoma of the duodenum: Feasibility and long-term outcomes.
Endosc Int Open. 2014;1:2-7.
21) Hoteya S, Furuhata T, Takahito T, Fukuma Y, Suzuki Y, Kikuchi
D, Mitani T, Matsui A, Yamashita S, Nomura K, Kuribayashi
Y, Iizuka T, Kaise M. Endoscopic submucosal dissection and
endoscopic mucosal resection for non-ampullary superficial
duodenal tumor. Digestion. 2017;95:36-42.
22) Farhat S, Chaussade S, Ponchon T, Coumaros D, Charachon A,
Barrioz T, Koch S, Houcke P, Cellier C, Heresbach D, Lepilliez
V, Napoleon B, Bauret P, Coron E, Le Rhun M, Bichard P,
Vaillant E, Calazel A, Bensoussan E, Bellon S, Mangialavori L,
Robin F, Prat F; SFED ESD study group. Endoscopic submucosal
dissection in a European setting. A multi-institutional report of a
technique in development. Endoscopy. 2011;43:664-70.
23) Santos-Antunes J, Baldaque-Silva F, Marques M, Lopes J,
Carneiro F, Macedo G. Real-life evaluation of the safety, efficacy
and therapeutic outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection
in a Western tertiary centre. United Eur Gastroenterol J.
2018;6:702-9.
24) Pioche M, Lépilliez V, Déprez P, Giovannini M, Caillol F,
Piessevaux H, Rivory J, Guillaud O, Ciocîrlan M, Salmon D,
Lienhart I, Lafon C, Saurin J-C, Ponchon T. High pressure
jet injection of viscous solutions for endoscopic submucosal
dissection (ESD): First clinical experience. Endosc Int Open.
2015;03:E368-72.
25) Cosgrove N, Siddiqui AA, Kistler CA, Zabolotsky A, Ghumman
SS, Hayat U, Laique SN, Hasan MK. Endoscopic mucosal resection
of large non-ampullary duodenal polyps: Technical aspects and
long-term therapeutic outcomes. Minerva Gastroenterol Dietol.
2016;62:131-7.
26) Pérez-Cuadrado-Robles E, Quénéhervé L, Margos W, Shaza L,
Ivekovic H, Moreels T, Yeung R, Piessevaux H, Coron E, Jouret-
Mourin A, Deprez P. Comparative analysis of ESD versus EMR
in a large European series of non-ampullary superficial duodenal
tumors. Endosc Int Open. 2018;06:1008-14.
27) Abbass R, Rigaux J, Al-Kawas FH. Nonampullary duodenal
polyps: Characteristics and endoscopic management.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:754-9.
28) Alexander S, Bourke MJ, Williams SJ, Bailey A, Co J. EMR of
large, sessile, sporadic nonampullary duodenal adenomas:
Technical aspects and long-term outcome (with videos).
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:66-73.
29) Conio M, De Ceglie A, Filiberti R, Fisher DA, Siersema PD. Capassisted
EMR of large, sporadic, nonampullary duodenal polyps.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76:1160-9.
30) Nonaka S, Oda I, Tada K, Mori G, Sato Y, Abe S, Suzuki H,
Yoshinaga S, Nakajima T, Matsuda T, Taniguchi H, Saito
Y, Maetani I. Clinical outcome of endoscopic resection for
nonampullary duodenal tumors. Endoscopy. 2014;47:129-35.
31) Ojima T, Nakamori M, Nakamura M, Hayata K, Katsuda M,
Takifuji K, Yamaue H. Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative
surgery versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for the
treatment of low-risk tumors of the duodenum. J Gastrointest
Surg. 2018;22:935-40.
32) Yamamoto Y, Yoshizawa N, Tomida H, Fujisaki J, Igarashi M.
Therapeutic outcomes of endoscopic resection for superficial
non-ampullary duodenal tumor. Dig Endosc. 2014;26:50-6.
33) Draganov PV, Gotoda T, Chavalitdhamrong D, Wallace MB.
Techniques of endoscopic submucosal dissection: Application
for the Western endoscopist? Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;78:677-88.
34) Draganov PV, Coman RM, Gotoda T. Training for complex
endoscopic procedures: How to incorporate endoscopic
submucosal dissection skills in the West? Expert Rev
Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;8:119-21.
35) Kotzev AI, Yang D, Draganov PV. How to master endoscopic
submucosal dissection in the USA. Dig Endosc. 2019;31:94-100.
36) Scherübl H, Cadiot G. Early gastroenteropancreatic
neuroendocrine tumors: Endoscopic therapy and surveillance.
Visc Med. 2017;33:332-8.
37) Kim GH, Kim JI, Jeon SW, Moon JS, Chung IK, Jee SR, Kim
HU, Seo GS, Baik GH, Lee YC, Korean College of Helicobacter
and Upper Gastrointestinal Research. Endoscopic resection for
duodenal carcinoid tumors: A multicenter, retrospective study. J
Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;29:318-24.
38) Shinoda M, Makino A, Wada M, Kabeshima Y, Takahashi
T, Kawakubo H, Shito M, Sugiura H, Omori T. Successful
endoscopic submucosal dissection for mucosal cancer of the
duodenum. Dig Endosc. 2010;22:49-52.
39) Lee KJ, Kim GH, Park DY, Shin NR, Lee BE, Ryu DY, Kim DU,
Song GA. Endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal lipomas: A
single-center experience. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:185-92.