Open Access
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endoscopy 2017; 05(10): E999-E1004
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-117956
Original article
Eigentümer und Copyright ©Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2017

Comparative analysis of avascular areas in superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinomas using in vivo and ex vivo magnifying endoscopy

Taichi Ogo
1   Tokyo Medical and Dental University Hospital – Gastrointestinal Surgery, Tokyo, Japan
,
Kenro Kawada
1   Tokyo Medical and Dental University Hospital – Gastrointestinal Surgery, Tokyo, Japan
,
Yasuaki Nakajima
1   Tokyo Medical and Dental University Hospital – Gastrointestinal Surgery, Tokyo, Japan
,
Yutaka Tokairin
1   Tokyo Medical and Dental University Hospital – Gastrointestinal Surgery, Tokyo, Japan
,
Takashi Ito
2   Tokyo Medical and Dental University Hospital, Division of Pathology, Tokyo, Japan
,
Tatsuyuki Kawano
1   Tokyo Medical and Dental University Hospital – Gastrointestinal Surgery, Tokyo, Japan
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

submitted06. Februar 2017

accepted after revision30. Juni 2017

Publikationsdatum:
09. Oktober 2017 (online)

Preview

Abstract

Background and study aims An avascular area (AVA), one of the microvasculature changes in superficial esophageal cancers, appears when a tumor demonstrates a bulky growth pattern. We aimed to compare endoscopic and histopathological findings by observing formalin-fixed AVA specimens using magnifying endoscopy.

Patients and methods A prospective analysis was conducted on 16 patients with superficial esophageal cancer, including AVA, who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Magnifying endoscopy and blue laser imaging were used to identify AVAs. After the ESD, the AVA width was measured on formalin-fixed specimens using magnifying endoscopy, and AVA thickness and depth were determined after hematoxylin and eosin staining using microscopy.

Results Mean AVA widths of M1, M2, and M3/SM-lesions were 0.434, 0.578, and 0.835 mm, respectively (M1 vs. M2, P = 0.16; M2 vs. M3/SM-, P = 0.07). Mean AVA thicknesses of M1, M2, and M3/SM-lesions were significantly different (0.176, 0.518, and 0.800 mm; M1 vs. M2, P < 0.01; M2 vs. M3/SM-, P < 0.05). There was a significant correlation between AVA width and thickness.

Conclusions AVA size can be measured accurately on formalin-fixed specimens with magnifying endoscopy. AVA thickness can be useful for determining tumor depth.