PIIS0016510718321643.pdf (193.07 kB)
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF HIGH GRADE DYSPLASIA ON BIOPSY SAMPLING PRIOR TO ENDOSCOPIC RESECTION OF LARGE COLORECTAL SUPERFICIAL NEOPLASTIC LESIONS AND HISTOPATHOLOGICAL FEATURES OF HIGH RISK LESIONS
journal contribution
posted on 2018-06-14, 18:50 authored by Andrew Emmanuel, Salvador J. Diaz-CanoSalvador J. Diaz-Cano, Shraddha Gulati, Monica Ortenzi, Margaret Burt, Bu Hayee, Amyn HajiIntroduction
Guidelines on endoscopic resection (ER) of colorectal superficial
neoplastic lesions (CSNL) recommend against biopsy sampling, but many
lesions are extensively sampled prior to referral. Although this has a
deleterious effect on ER, endoscopists are often eager to exclude
adenocarcinoma or high-grade dysplasia (HGD), which is seen as a marker
of high-risk lesions, reflecting a lack of understanding of the
incidence and nature of adenocarcinoma or HGD within different
morphological sub-types. It is therefore essential to define the
significance of HGD on biopsy samples of CSNL and place this in the
context of the histopathological characteristics of high-risk lesions.
Methods ERs of large (≥2cm) CSNL were included. Sensitivity and
specificity of HGD on biopsy and higher risk morphology (laterally
spreading tumour (LST) non-granular/LST mixed nodular type/IIc
component) for diagnosing covert invasive adenocarcinoma and confirmed
HGD after ER were calculated and compared (Mcnemar’s test). In addition,
50 high-risk lesions (defined as containing HGD or invasive
adenocarcinoma) were subjected to more detailed histopathological
analysis. Results Results from previous biopsy sampling were available
for 291 lesions (mean size 62.8mm). Histopathological examination after
ER revealed HGD in 85 (29%) and invasive adenocarcinoma in 26 (9%).
Sensitivity and specificity of HGD on biopsy sampling (n=60) for
invasive adenocarcinoma were 50% (95% CI 32%-68%) and 82% (95% CI
77%-86%), and for confirmed HGD after ER were 47% (95% CI 37%-57%) and
90% (95% CI 85%-94%) respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of high
risk morphology (n=124) for HGD after ER were 71% (95% CI 60%-79%) and
69% (95% CI 62%-75%) respectively. The sensitivity of high-risk
morphology was significantly higher than HGD on biopsy sampling
(p=0.002). Detailed histopathological analysis of lesions containing HGD
or adenocarcinoma (n=50) revealed invasive adenocarcinoma in 40%, but a
further 18% had non-invasive areas with cytological and architectural
features indistinguishable from invasive adenocarcinoma. HGD was
multifocal in 56%. The mean size of the focus of HGD was only 5.6mm, and
of invasive adenocarcinoma was 11.0mm. The mean lesion size was 53.6mm.
Conclusion Biopsy sampling of large CSNL has no value in excluding
high-risk lesions and morphology alone has higher sensitivity for
high-risk lesions. Histopathological analysis of high-risk lesions
reveals that areas of HGD or adenocarcinoma are very small relative to
the lesion size and many contain non-invasive regions which would be
cytologically indistinguishable from invasive adenocarcinoma on a
biopsy. Despite this, biopsy sampling remains extremely common.
Understanding of these findings and improved education regarding
accurate lesion assessment may help reduce rates of inappropriate
sampling.