Depth of the cutting plane with underwater and conventional endoscopic mucosal resection: Post‐hoc analysis of a randomized study. Issue 4 (19th January 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Matsueda, Katsunori; Takeuchi, Yoji; Kitamura, Masanori; Yamashina, Takeshi; Akasaka, Tomofumi; Iwatsubo, Taro; Nakatani, Yasuki; Akamatsu, Takuji; Kawamura, Takuji; Fujii, Shigehiko; Kusaka, Toshihiro; Shimokawa, Toshio; Uedo, Noriya
• Is Part Of: Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology. Volume 37:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: 741
• Page End: 748
• Publication Date: 2022-01-19
• Subjects: Colorectal polyp -- Cutting plane depth -- Resection layer -- Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection; Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; Digestive organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Liver -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; Liver Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.33
• DOI: 10.1111/jgh.15769
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0815-9319

Abstract

Abstract: Background and Aim: A multicenter randomized controlled trial reported a better R0 resection rate for intermediate‐sized (10–20 mm) colorectal polyps with underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR). To clarify whether UEMR removes enough submucosal tissue in the removal of unpredictable invasive cancers, we investigated the cutting plane depth with UEMR versus CEMR. Methods: This was a post‐hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial in which 210 intermediate‐sized colorectal polyps were removed in five Japanese hospitals. One pathologist and two gastroenterologists independently reviewed all resected specimens and measured the cutting plane depth. The cutting plane depth was evaluated as (i) maximum depth of submucosal layer and (ii) mean depth of submucosal layer, calculated using a virtual pathology system. Results: We identified 168 appropriate specimens for the evaluation of the cutting plane depth, resected by UEMR ( n = 88) and CEMR ( n = 80). The median resection depth was not significantly different between UEMR and CEMR specimens, regardless of the measurement method ([i] 1317 vs 1290 μm, P = 0.52; [ii] 619 vs 545 μm, P = 0.32). All specimens in the UEMR and CEMR groups contained substantial submucosa and no muscularis propria. Conclusions: The cutting plane depth with UEMR was comparable with that with CEMR. UEMR can be a viable alternative method that adequately resects the submucosal layer for the histopathological assessment of unpredictable submucosal invasive cancers.