EndoTODAY | EndoATLAS | OPD

Parasite | Eso | Sto | Cancer | ESD

Boxim | DEX | Sono | Schedule

Home | Recent | Blog | Links

EndoTODAY ³»½Ã°æ ±³½Ç


[Histologic classification of gastric cancer. À§¾Ï Á¶Á÷Çü°ú ºÐÈ­µµ] - ðû

1. Introduction

2. °üÂûÀÚ°£ Â÷ÀÌ

3. Á¶Á÷°Ë»ç¿Í ¼ö¼ú ÈÄ º´¸®°á°úÀÇ ºÐÈ­µµ Â÷ÀÌ

4. Immunohistochemistry´Â µµ¿òÀÌ µÇ´Â°¡?

5. Histological heterogeneity

6. Symposiums

7. References


1. À§¾Ï Á¶Á÷Çü°ú ºÐÈ­µµÀÇ Å« ÁÙ±â - ¿ì¸®³ª¶ó¿¡¼­´Â ´ë°­ WHO ±âÁØÀ» µû¸£°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù.

1998³â ÀϺ»À§¾ÏºÐ·ù(1998)¿¡¼­ ÀϺ» ¿Ü°úÀÇ»çµéÀÌ ÀÌÇØÇÏ´Â À§¾ÏÀÇ Á¶Á÷ÇÐÀû ºÐ·ù´Â ¾Æ·¡ ±×¸²°ú °°½À´Ï´Ù. "The histological classification should be based on the prominant pattern of tumor"¶ó°í ¾ð±ÞÇÏ°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ¿©±â¼­ "prominant"´Â ¿ì¸®³ª¶ó º´¸® °¡À̵å¶óÀÎ(2005)¿¡¼­ ¾ð±ÞÇÑ "¾Ï¼¼Æ÷ÀÇ ¸éÀûÀÌ °¡Àå ¸¹Àº À¯Çü"°ú ºñ½ÁÇÑ Àǹ̷Π»ý°¢µË´Ï´Ù.


2005³â º´¸® °¡À̵å¶óÀÎ (´ëÇѺ´¸®ÇÐȸ ¼ÒÈ­±âº´¸®Çבּ¸È¸, À§¾Ï º´¸®º¸°í¼­ ±âÀç»çÇ× Ç¥ÁØÈ­, PDF 0.3M)Àº (1) À§¾ÏÀÇ histologic typeÀº 2000³â WHO ºÐ·ù¸¦ µû¸§, (2) µÎ °¡Áö ÀÌ»óÀÇ ºÐÈ­µµ°¡ ¼¯¿© ³ª¿Ã ¶§´Â °£ÁúÀ» Á¦¿ÜÇÑ ¾Ï¼¼Æ÷ÀÇ ¸éÀûÀÌ °¡Àå ¸¹Àº À¯ÇüÀ¸·Î ºÐ·ùÇÔ, (3) ¼±±¸Á¶³ª ÆíÆò»óÇÇ ºÐÈ­°¡ ¾ø´Â °æ¿ì¿¡´Â undifferentiated carcinoma·Î ºÐ·ùÇÑ´Ù°í ¸í½ÃÇß½À´Ï´Ù.


2010³â ÀϺ»À§¾ÏÃë±Þ±Ô¾à Á¦14ÆÇ¿¡ µû¸£¸é À§¾ÏÀÇ ºÐÈ­µµ´Â ¼±°üÇü¼º »óÅ¿¡ µû¶ó °íºÐÈ­Çü, ÁߺÐÈ­Çü, ÀúºÐÈ­ÇüÀ¸·Î ºÐ·ùµÈ´Ù. ¿©±â¿¡´Â ¼¼Æ÷ÇüÁúÀÇ ºÐÈ­ °æÇâ°ú ÇÙÀÌÇüµµ´Â °í·ÁµÇÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù (À§¿ÍÀå 2010³â 6¿ùÈ£ 857ÂÊ). → [ÀÌÁØÇà »ý°¢] Structural atypia¿¡ µû¶ó ºÐÈ­µµ¸¦ ³ª´©°í cellular atypia´Â °í·ÁµÇÁö ¾Ê´Â´Ù´Â ÀǹÌÀÎ °Í °°´Ù. ±×·±µ¥ º¸Åë structural atypia´Â cellular atypia¿Í ÇÔ²² ¹ß»ýÇÑ´Ù. °£È¤ Cellular atypia´Â °ÅÀÇ ¾ø´Âµ¥ structural atypia¸¸ º¸ÀÌ´Â °æ¿ì 'ÀúÀÌÇüµµ ºÐÈ­Çü À§¾Ï'À̶ó°í ºÎ¸¥´Ù. ¿¹¸¦ µé¾î foveolar type, fundic gland type, intestinal type, crawling type (WHYX lesion)µîÀÌ ¿©±â¿¡ ÇØ´çÇÑ´Ù.


2014³â ¿ì¸®³ª¶ó ´ÙÇÐÁ¦ À§¾ÏÁø·á±Ç°í¾È(Á¦°¡ °£»ç·Î Âü¿©ÇÏ¿´½À´Ï´Ù)¿¡¼­´Â (1) ¼±±¸Á¶¸¦ ¸¸µå´Â ¸éÀûÀÌ 95% ÃÊ°úÇÏ¸é °íºÐÈ­Çü, (2) ¼±±¸Á¶¸¦ ¸¸µå´Â ¸éÀûÀÌ 50-95%¸é ÁߺÐÈ­Çü, (3) ¼±±¸Á¶¸¦ ¸¸µå´Â ¸éÀûÀÌ 49%ÀÌÇϸé ÀúºÐÈ­ÇüÀ¸·Î ±¸Ã¼ÀûÀÎ ¼öÄ¡¸¦ ¾ð±ÞÇÏ¿´½À´Ï´Ù.


2023³â º´¸® °¡À̵å¶óÀο¡¼­´Â 2019³â WHO classificationÀ» °ÅÀÇ ±×´ë·Î Á¦½ÃÇÏ¿´½À´Ï´Ù.

Fig. 7. Representative pictures of each histologic subtype of gastric carcinoma. Tubular adenocarcinoma (A), papillary adenocarcinoma (B), mucinous adenocarcinoma (C), poorly cohesive carcinoma, not otherwise specified (D), poorly cohesive carcinoma, signet-ring cell type (E), adenocarcinoma with lymphoid stroma ¸²ÇÁ±¸¹öÆÀÁúµ¿¹Ý»ù¾ÏÁ¾ (F), hepatoid adenocarcinoma (G), micropapillary adenocarcinoma (H), adenocarcinoma of the fundic-gland type (I, J), undifferentiated carcinoma (K), and crawling-type adenocarcinoma (L).

2023³â º´¸® °¡À̵å¶óÀÎÀÇ tubular adenocarcinomaÀÇ differentiation¿¡ ´ëÇØ ¾Æ·¡¿Í °°Àº ¼³¸íÀÌ ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ºñÀü¹®°¡ÀÎ Àú´Â ´Ù¼Ò È¥µ¿½º·´½À´Ï´Ù. MD´Â (1) cuboidal or flat cells À̰ųª (2) distinctÇÏÁö¸¸ frequent luminal structures¶ó´Â °ÍÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ¸éÀû»Ó ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ¼¼Æ÷Çüµµ °í·ÁÇÏ´Â °Í °°½À´Ï´Ù.

"Tubular adenocarcinoma and papillary adenocarcinoma can be graded. When two or more differentiations are mixed in an adenocarcinoma, the differentiation grade reflects the largest tumor area. A distinct glandular structure composed of columnar cells is classified as WD, and a small glandular structure composed of cuboidal or flat cells is classified as MD. In a tumor with an in distinct glandular structure, carcinoma forming frequent luminal structures is classified as MD, and that with a rare luminal structure is classified as PD. Although the WHO recommends a two-tier grading system of low- (WD and MD) and high-grade (PD), most pathologists and clinicians use a three-tier grading system. We have agreed to used a three-tier grading system that can be easily switched to a two-tier grading system."

Grading of gastric tubular adenocarcinoma. Well-differentiated adenocarcinoma showing glandular structures composed of columnar tumor cells (A). Moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma exhibits more complex tubular structures with cuboidal and/or flat epithelial cells (B). Tubular structure is unclear in most tumor glands in poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma (C).

[2023³â Á¾¼³] »ù¾ÏÁ¾ÀÇ ºÐÈ­µµ´Â ÁÖ·Î °ü»ù¾ÏÁ¾°ú À¯µÎ¸ð¾ç»ù¾ÏÁ¾¿¡ Àû¿ëµÈ´Ù. ¶Ñ·ÇÇÑ »ù ±¸Á¶¸¦ ¸¸µå´Â Á¾¾çÀ¸·Î ÁÖ·Î ¿øÁÖÇü ¼¼Æ÷·Î ±¸¼ºµÈ °æ¿ì °íºÐÈ­(well differentiated)·Î, »ù±¸Á¶°¡ ¶Ñ·ÇÇÏÁö¸¸ »ùµéÀÇ Å©±â°¡ ÀÛ°í ÀÔ¹æÇüÀ̳ª ³³ÀÛÇÑ ¼¼Æ÷°¡ ÁÖ ±¸¼º¼¼Æ÷ÀÎ °æ¿ì Áߵ ºÐÈ­(moderately differentiated)·Î ºÐ·ùµÇ°í, ³»°­ ±¸Á¶¸¦ °ÅÀÇ Çü¼ºÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀ» ¶§´Â ÀúºÐÈ­(poorly differentiated)·Î ºÐ·ùµÈ´Ù.20 ÇÑ Á¾¾ç ³»¿¡¼­ µÎ °¡Áö ȤÀº ±× ÀÌ»óÀÇ ºÐÈ­°¡ È¥ÇÕµÇ¾î °üÂûµÉ °æ¿ì, ÀϹÝÀûÀ¸·Î °¡Àå ¸¹Àº ºÎÀ§¿¡¼­ °üÂûµÇ´Â ºÐÈ­µµ¿¡ µû¶ó µî±ÞÀ» °áÁ¤ÇÑ´Ù. (À§¾Ï º´¸® ¼Ò°ßÀÇ ÀÌÇØ ±è¹éÈñ, À̼ºÇÐ. Ç︮ÄÚ¹ÚÅÍÇÐȸÁö Á¾¼³, 2023)


2. °üÂûÀÚ°£ Â÷ÀÌ

Histological classification of gastric adenocarcinoma for epidemiological research: concordance between pathologists. Shibata et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001

Two pathologists, each blinded to the other's assessment, reviewed H&E-stained slides of gastric tumor... Concordance for tumor grade was 87%, with a kappa coefficient of 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.87).

Diagnosis of gastric epithelial neoplasia: Dilemma for Korean pathologists. Kim JM et al. World J Gastroenterol 2011 (PDF)

Korean pathologists experience much difficulty making a diagnosis because we are influenced by Japanese pathologists as well as Western medicine. Japan is geographically close to Korea, and academic exchanges are active. Additionally, Korean doctors are familiar with Western style medical terminology. As a result, the terminology, definitions, and diagnostic criteria for gastric intraepithelial neoplasia are very heterogeneous in Korea.


3. Á¶Á÷°Ë»ç¿Í ¼ö¼ú ÈÄ º´¸®°á°úÀÇ ºÐÈ­µµ Â÷ÀÌ

Differences between biopsy- or specimen-related Lauren and World Health Organization classification in gastric cancer. (World J Surg 2002)

Out of 48 tumors with preoperative diagnosis of an intestinal type, 10 tumors (20.8%) exhibited a diffuse growth pattern in the gastrectomy specimens; and 16% of the cases showed a disagreement of the pre- and postoperative histopathological type according to the WHO classification.


4. Immunohistochemistry´Â µµ¿òÀÌ µÇ´Â°¡?

Expression of E-cadherin, beta-catenin, CD44s and CD44v6 in gastric adenocarcinoma: relationship with lymph node metastasis. (Anticancer Res 2003)

Expressions of CD44s and CD44v6 play an important role in tumor progression; especially, CD44v6 expression may be a useful predictor of lymph node metastasis, while the expressions of E-cadherin and beta-catenin complex are more probably related to tumor morphology than to tumor progression.


5. Histological heterogeneity

This is my conceptual model of histological differentiation of early gastric cancer. There are two dominant types of histology. One is differentiated type, and the other is undifferentiated type. However, there are a lot of cases in the middle. We don¡¯t know exactly how many patients are included in this mixed area.

Usually, the histological grouping is made by the major area of histological differentiation. For example, if 70 percent of area shows undifferentiated histology, we call it undifferentiated type of early gastric cancer like the blue arrow. If 80 percent of area shows undifferentiated histology, we call it differentiated type of early gastric cancer like the red arrow. The concept of histological heterogeneity comes from this area. EGC cases mixed with undifferentiated component less than 50 percent of area can be called as histological heterogeneity. And we evaluated cases in this unique group of patients.


Á¡¸·ÇϾϿ¡¼­ histological heterogeneity°¡ ÀÖÀ¸¸é ¸²ÇÁÀý ÀüÀÌÀÇ À§ÇèÀÌ ³ô´Ù´Â °ÍÀº µ¿°æ¾Ï¼¾ÅÍ(J Gastroenterol 2001)¿¡¼­ ¹ßÇ¥ÇÑ ¹Ù ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. ´ç½ÃÀÇ °á·ÐÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Conclusions: When the extension of endoscopic surgery to differentiated Sm-ca is considered, this therapeutic technique should be limited to the differentiated type of Sm-ca without histological heterogeneity. The Ki-67 labeling index provides useful information for identifying those patients with a high risk of lymph node metastasis.


[¼¯ÀÎ °ÍÀº ¼ø¼öÇÑ °Íº¸´Ù ³ª»Û°¡? Risk of lymph node metastasis in cases with histological heterogeneity]

ESD ÈÄ º´¸®°á°ú¿¡¼­ histological heterogeneity°¡ ÀÖ´Ù°í ³ª¿Â °æ¿ì ¼ö¼úÀ» ±ÇÇÒ °ÍÀΰ¡´Â ³í¶õ°Å¸®ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ÀϹÝÀûÀ¸·Î Á¡¸·¿¡ ±¹ÇѵǾî ÀÖ°í complete resectionÀÌ¸é °æ°ú°üÂûÀ» ±ÇÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ±×·¯³ª submucosal invasionÀÌ ÀÖ´Ù°í ³ª¿Â °æ¿ì´Â °í·ÁÇØ¾ß ÇÒ °ÍÀÌ ¸¹½À´Ï´Ù. º´¸®°ú ¼±»ý´ÔÀ» ã¾Æ°¡ ÇÔ²² ½½¶óÀ̵带 º¸Áö ¾ÊÀ» ¼ö ¾ø´Â »óȲÀÔ´Ï´Ù.


C: undifferentiated predominant mixed type, D: undifferentiated type. Undifferentiated-type-predominant mixed type (Type C) were independent risk factor for lymph node metastasis (Endoscopy 2009)

µÎ ¹ø° ÆÐÅÏÀÌ °¡Àå ÈçÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ±×·¯³ª ¸²ÇÁÀý ÀüÀÌÀ²Àº Å« Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ¾ø½À´Ï´Ù. LymphaticÀÌ ÀÖÀ¸¸é ´õ ³ª»ÚÁö ¾ÊÀ»±î »ý°¢µË´Ï´Ù¸¸... ¼ýÀÚ°¡ Àû¾î¼­ °á·ÐÀ» ³»¸®±â ¾î·Æ½À´Ï´Ù. µ¥ÀÌŸ´Â ¾Æ·¡ Ç¥¸¦ º¸½Ê½Ã¿ä.

°ü½ÉÀÖ°Ô ºÁ¾ß ÇÒ ºÎºÐÀº histological type of the invasion front (undifferentiated type)ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. °¡Àå ±í°Ô ħÀ±µÈ ºÎÀ§¿¡ ¾î¶² ¼¼Æ÷°¡ Àִ°¡¿¡ µû¶ó ¿¹ÈÄ°¡ ´Þ¶óÁø´Ù´Â °ÍÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

°­³²¼¼ºê¶õ½ºº´¿øÀÇ ÀÚ·áÀÔ´Ï´Ù. Signet ring cell carcinoma°¡ ¼¯¿© ÀÖÀ¸¸é ´õ ³ª»Ú´Ù´Â °ÍÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ¼¯ÀÎ °ÍÀº ¼ø¼øÇÑ signet ring cell carcinomaº¸´Ù ³ª»Þ´Ï´Ù (J Surg Oncol 2013).
[2014-6-18. °­³²¼¼ºê¶õ½ºº´¿ø ±èÁöÇö ±³¼ö´Ô ÀÇ°ß] ÀúÈñ ³í¹®°ú °ü·ÃÇÏ¿© ¸ÞÀÏÀ» µå¸³´Ï´Ù^^ Á¶±âÀ§¾ÏÀ» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç partly-SRC(signet ring cell histology°¡ 50% À̳»·Î mixµÈ °æ¿ì)°¡ °¡Àå °ø°ÝÀûÀÎ ÇüÅ¿´½À´Ï´Ù. Áï, partly-SRC´Â SRCº¸´Ù behavior°¡ ³ª»Û °Í»Ó¸¸ ¾Æ´Ï¶ó ÀúºÐÈ­ À§¼±¾Ï(poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma)º¸´Ùµµ ³ª»Ú°Ô ³ª¿Ô½À´Ï´Ù. ´Ù½Ã ¸»¾¸µå¸®¸é, pure SRC°¡ Á¶±âÀ§¾Ï Áß¿¡¼­ °¡Àå ´ú °ø°ÝÀûÀÎ ÇàŸ¦ º¸¿´°í, partly-SRC Áï, SRC°¡ ÀϺΠmixµÈ °æ¿ì°¡ °¡Àå °ø°ÝÀûÀÎ ÇàŸ¦ º¸ÀÌ´Â Èï¹Ì·Î¿î °á°ú¿´½À´Ï´Ù. (Partly-SRC´Â mixed histology ȤÀº histological heterogeneity¿Í À¯»çÇÑ °³³äÀ¸·Î »ý°¢µË´Ï´Ù.) ÀÌ ¶§¹®¿¡ ESD ÀûÀÀÁõÀ» º¯°æÇØ¾ß ÇÏ´ÂÁö Àǹ®ÀÌ ÀÖÀ» ¼ö ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. À§¾ÏÇÐȸ ¶§ ¹ßÇ¥ÇÑ ¹Ù¿Í °°ÀÌ partly-SRC Áï, SRC°¡ ÀϺΠmixµÈ °æ¿ì´õ¶óµµ main histology°¡ ESD indicationÀ» ¸¸Á·ÇÑ´Ù¸é lymph node metastasis´Â ¾ø¾ú½À´Ï´Ù. Áï, partly-SRC·Î ÀÎÇÏ¿© indicationÀ» µû·Î Á¤ÇÒ ÇÊ¿ä´Â ¾øÀ» °Í °°½À´Ï´Ù.


6. Symposiums

[2014-8-9. ´ëÇÑÇ︮ÄÚ¹ÚÅÍ»óºÎÀ§Àå°üÇÐȸ ¼­¸Ó¿öÅ©¼¥. ÀÎÁ¦´ëÇб³ ÁÖ¹Ì. À§¾Ï ºÐÈ­µµ. °üÂûÀÚ°£ Â÷ÀÌ ¹× ½Ã¼ú ÀüÈÄ Â÷ÀÌ]


PDF 0.3 M

Á¶Á÷°Ë»ç´Â ÀÌ¿Í °°½À´Ï´Ù. ÀϺθ¸ º¸°í Àüü¸¦ ¾Ë±â´Â ¾î·Æ½À´Ï´Ù.

ESD ÈÄ º´¸®°Ë»ç´Â ´Ù¸¨´Ï´Ù. Á¤È®È÷ ±¸ºÐÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù.




Word PDF 0.3 M. 2008³â 5¿ù º´¸®Àǻ縦 À§ÇÑ ¾Ïµî·Ï Áöħ¼­ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ÀÌ·¸°Ô ¾ð±ÞµÇ°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù. 'Comparable with¡¯, ¡®consistent with¡¯, ¡®compatible with¡¯, ¡®favors¡¯, ¡®most likely¡¯, ¡®typical of¡¯¿Í ÇÔ²² 'malignant appearing'°ú ¡®suggests'µµ ¾ÏÁø´ÜÀ¸·Î °£ÁֵǴ ¿ë¾î·Î »ý°¢ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Ù. °¡´ÉÇÏ¸é ¾ÏÀ¸·Î ÀǽɵǴ °æ¿ì »ó±âÇÑ ¿ë¾î¸¦ »ç¿ëÇϵµ·Ï ±ÇÀåÇϸç, ±× ÀÌ¿ÜÀÇ ¿ë¾î¿¡ ´ëÇؼ­´Â Áø´ÜÇÑ º´¸®ÀÇ»ç¿Í »óÀǸ¦ ÇÒ °ÍÀ» ±ÇÀåÇÑ´Ù.


Open access article (PDF)

ÁÖ¹Ì ±³¼ö´Ô²²¼­ ¼Ò°³ÇÑ µÎ ÀڷḦ °í·ÁÇÒ ¶§ ´ë°­ ¾Æ·¡¿Í °°ÀÌ Á¤¸®ÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖÀ» °Í °°½À´Ï´Ù. Compatible with, probable, suggestive of µî¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¿µ±¹ º´¸®ÀÇ»ç¿Í ¿ì¸®³ª¶ó º´¸®ÀÇ»ç »çÀÌÀÇ ¿ÂµµÂ÷´Â »ó´çÈ÷ ÄǽÀ´Ï´Ù.

¿ë¾î¿µ±¹
º´¸®ÀÇ»ç
¿ì¸®³ª¶ó
º´¸®ÀÇ»ç
diagnostic98.4%
consistent with95-98%
indicative of92.1%
typical78-90%
most likely79%
probably75.6%37-53%
compatible with74.3%95-98%
suggestive of69.8%42-45%
favor63-66%
possibility52.9
suspicious
suspected
37-51%


[2015-4-3. À§¾ÏÇÐȸ KINGCA 2015. ÁÖ¹Ì ¼±»ý´ÔÀÇ °­ÀÇ]

ÀÎÁ¦´ë ÁÖ¹Ì ÁÖ¹Ì ¼±»ý´ÔÀº histological discrepancy between endoscopic biopsy and surgical/ESD specimenÀ» °­ÀÇÇϼ̽À´Ï´Ù. ¼ö¼ú/ESD ÈÄ differentiate¿Í undifferentiated°¡ ¹Ù²î´Â ºóµµ´Â ¼­¿ï¾Æ»êº´¿ø ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­ 11.9%, ¿¬¼¼´ëÇб³ ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­ 4.4%, ÀϺ» TakaoÀÇ ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­ 2.3%¿´½À´Ï´Ù.

ÁÖ¹Ì ¼±»ý´ÔÀº Histological heterogeneity¿Í mixed adenocarcinma´Â ´Ù¸£´Ù´Â Á¡À» ÁöÀûÇϼ̽À´Ï´Ù. ¾ÆÁ÷ ÅëÀÏµÈ Á¤ÀÇ´Â ¾Æ´Ñ °Í °°Áö¸¸... ±× Áß mixed typeÀÇ ¸²ÇÁÀý ÀüÀÌ°¡ ¸¹´Ù´Â Á¡À» ÁöÀûÇϼ̽À´Ï´Ù.

- Histological heterogeneity: morphologi diversity with >= 2 histologic subtypes regardless of their differentiation types

- Mixed adenocarcinoma: a mixture of differentiation type and undifferentiated type histology
(1) Mixed adenocarcinoma comprised od 10.7-44.4% of EGCs and correlated with tumor size, depth of invasion, and lymph node metastasis
(2) In particular, undifferentiated predominant mixed type is a significant risk factor for lymph node metastasis.
(3) Mixed adenocarcinoma is one of major tumor factors contributing histologic discrepancy between endoscopic biopsy and resection specimen.

Floor·ÎºÎÅÍÀÇ Áú¹®¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿© »ï¼º¼­¿ïº´¿ø º´¸®°ú ±è°æ¹Ì ¼±»ý´Ô²²¼­ (1) differentiated/undifferentiated ¸¦ ¿¹ÃøÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ´Â ¸é¿ª¿°»öÀ̳ª ±âŸ ¹æ¹ýÀº ¾ø´Ù, (2) histological heterogeneity´Â submucosal invasionÀÇ Áß¿äÇÑ ¿¹ÃøÀÎÀÚÀÓÀ» ÁöÀûÇϼ̽À´Ï´Ù.


[images]

ÀÌ Ç¥ÀÇ 2019 WHO ºÎºÐÀº Á¤È®ÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀº °Í °°½À´Ï´Ù.

¸éÀûÀ» Áß¿ä½ÃÇÏ´Â ÀÔÀåÀÌ°í ÆÛ¼¾Æ®·Î ¼öÄ¡È­µÇ¾ú½À´Ï´Ù. ½ÇÁ¦·Î ÀÌ·¸°Ô ÇÏ´Â °Í °°Áö´Â ¾Ê½À´Ï´Ù. ¸éÀû°ú ¼¼Æ÷ÇüÀ» ¸ðµÎ °í·ÁÇÏ´Â °Í ¾Æ´Ñ°¡ ½Í½À´Ï´Ù.


[References]

1) EndoTODAY À§¾Ï Á¶Á÷Çü°ú ºÐÈ­µµ

2) EndoTODAY Undifferentiated type ¹ÌºÐÈ­Á¶Á÷ÇüÀ̶ó´Â ¿ë¾î¿¡ ´ëÇÏ¿©

© ÀÏ¿ø³»½Ã°æ±³½Ç ¹Ù¸¥³»½Ã°æ¿¬±¸¼Ò ÀÌÁØÇà. EndoTODAY Endoscopy Learning Center. Lee Jun Haeng