EndoTODAY | EndoATLAS | OPD

Parasite | Eso | Sto | Cancer | ESD

Boxim | DEX | Sono | Schedule

Home | Recent | Blog | Links

EndoTODAY ³»½Ã°æ ±³½Ç


[Nonneoplastic pathology after ESD]

À§¾ÏÀ̳ª À§¼±Á¾¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ³»½Ã°æÄ¡·á ÈÄ ¾ÏÀ̳ª ¼±Á¾ÀÌ ³ª¿ÀÁö ¾ÊÀ¸¸é ´çȲ½º·¯¿î ÀÏÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ȯÀÚµéÀº "¾îµò°¡ À߸øµÈ °Í ¾Æ´Ñ°¡?"¶ó°í »ý°¢Çϱ⠽±½À´Ï´Ù. ±×·¯³ª Ç×»ó À߸øµÈ °ÍÀ̶ó°í ¸»Çϱâ´Â ¾î·Æ½À´Ï´Ù. º¯¼ö°¡ ³Ê¹« ¸¹±â ¶§¹®ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. (1) Á¶Á÷°Ë»ç °Ëü·Î Á¤È®ÇÑ º´¸®Áø´ÜÀÌ ¾î·Æ°í, (2) º´¸®Àǻ簣 °üÂûÀÚ°£ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ Á¸ÀçÇÏ°í, (3) Á¶Á÷°Ë»ç·Î º´º¯ÀÌ ¸ðµÎ Á¦°ÅµÉ ¼ö ÀÖÀ¸¸ç, (4) mistargetting µµ °¡´ÉÇÕ´Ï´Ù.

ESD ÈÄ non-neoplastic pathologyÀÇ ºóµµ´Â 2009³â °æºÏ´ë ³í¹®¿¡¼­´Â 3.2%, 2015³â ¾ÆÁÖ´ë ³í¹®¿¡¼­´Â 4.4%, 2015³â ¼­¿ï´ë ³í¹®¿¡¼­´Â 3.2%¿´½À´Ï´Ù. Àú´Â 5% ¹Ì¸¸À¸·Î ³ª¿À¸é acceptableÇÏ´Ù°í »ý°¢ÇÏ°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù.


1. 2009³â °æºÏ´ë Àü¼º¿ì ±³¼ö´Ô ÆÀÀÇ ³í¹® (Kim ES. Endoscopy. 2009)

Àç¹ÌÀÖ´Â ³í¹® Á¦¸ñÀÔ´Ï´Ù. Where has the tumor gone? ÀÌó·³ µµÀüÀûÀÎ Á¦¸ñÀº '°ú¿¬ Àü¼º¿ì ¼±»ý´Ô´ä´Ù'°í »ý°¢ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. Á¸°æÇÕ´Ï´Ù.

Out of 633 patients treated with EMR or ESD, 20 patients (3.2 %) were included. The mean +/- SD maximal dimension of the mucosal lesions was 6.40 +/- 2.19 mm (range 3 - 10). Mean number of forceps biopsy fragments was 3.80 +/- 1.96 and mean sampling ratio was 2.08 +/- 1.07 mm/fragment. Before resection, histological findings from forceps biopsy were: 13 low grade dysplasias (65.0 %), 2 high grade dysplasias (10.0 %), and 5 intramucosal carcinomas (25.0 %).


2. 2015³â ¾ÆÁÖ´ë ½Å¼ºÀç ±³¼ö´Ô ÆÀÀÇ ³í¹® (Yang MJ. Endoscopy. 2015)

¸Å¿ì ÈǸ¢ÇÑ ³í¹®À̶ó°í »ý°¢ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. ESD¸¦ åöÀ¸·Î »ì¾Æ°¡´Â Á¦°¡ º¸±â¿¡´Â ÀÓ»óÀûÀ¸·Î À¯¿ëÇÑ Á¤º¸°¡ dzºÎÇÑ ¼ÒÁßÇÏ°í °í¸¶¿î ³í¹®ÀÔ´Ï´Ù. ÀÌ ³í¹®¿¡¼­ ESDÀÇ 4.4%¿¡¼­ no neoplasia °á°ú°¡ ³ª¿Ô½À´Ï´Ù. ÀúÀÚµéÀº 'Á¶Á÷°Ë»ç·Î ÀÎÇÏ¿© º´º¯ÀÌ ¸ðµÎ Á¦°ÅµÈ °Í'ÀÌ ÁÖµÈ ¿øÀÎÀ̶ó°í ºÐ¼®ÇÏ°í ÀÖ½À´Ï´Ù.

Non-neoplastic pathology after ESD was due to complete removal of the lesion at biopsy in 45 cases (86.5 %), pathology overestimation in 5 (9.6 %), and incorrect localization of the original tumor with subsequent ESD performed at the wrong site in 2 (3.8 %).

¹®µæ ±Ã±ÝÇÑ Á¡ÀÌ ÀÖ¾î Table 2ÀÇ ÀڷḦ ³ª¸§´ë·Î ºÐ¼®ÇÏ¿´½À´Ï´Ù. Á¶Á÷°Ë»ç°¡ Àúµµ ÀÌÇü¼ºÀÎ °æ¿ì´Â 5.5%, Á¶Á÷°Ë»ç°¡ °íµµÀÌÇü¼ºÀ̳ª ¾ÏÀÎ °æ¿ì´Â 2.7%¿¡¼­ no neoplasia°¡ ³ª¿Ô½À´Ï´Ù (p=0.027, chi-square). ¸¸¾à 'Á¶Á÷°Ë»ç·Î ÀÎÇÏ¿© º´º¯ÀÌ ¸ðµÎ Á¦°ÅµÈ °Í'ÀÌ no neoplasiaÀÇ ÁÖµÈ ¿øÀÎÀ̶ó¸é ¿Ö Àúµµ ÀÌÇü¼º¿¡¼­ ±× ºóµµ°¡ ³ôÀºÁö ±Ã±ÝÇß½À´Ï´Ù. Ȥ½Ã º´¸®ÇÐÀûÀÎ Â÷ÀÌ ¾Æ´Ò±î¿ä? ³ªÁß¿¡ ÀúÀÚ¸¦ ¸¸³ª¸é Çѹø ¹°¾îº¼±î ÇÕ´Ï´Ù.

BiopsyLGDHGD or cancer
No neoplasia at ESD39 (5.5%)13 (2.7%)
Neoplasia at ESD664470


3. 2015³â ¼­¿ï´ëº´¿ø ±è»ó±Õ ±³¼ö´Ô ÆÀÀÇ ³í¹® (Choi JM. Surg Endosc. 2015)

¼­¿ï´ëº´¿ø ¿¬±¸ÀÇ Æ¯Â¡Àº (1) localization error¿Í pathological misdiagnosis¸¦ Á¤ÀÇÇÏ°í ±× ºóµµ¸¦ ±¸Çغ¸·Á°í ½ÃµµÇß´Ù´Â Á¡°ú (2) Àå±âÃßÀû°üÂû ¼ºÀûÀ» Á¦½ÃÇß´Ù´Â °ÍÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

À̹ø ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­ ÇÑ °¡Áö Èï¹Ì·Î¿î Á¡ÀÌ ÀÖ¾ú½À´Ï´Ù. 5¸í¿¡¼­ ±¹¼ÒÀç¹ß¿¹°¡ ÀÖ¾ú´Âµ¥ ƯÀÌÇÏ°Ôµµ ¸ðµÎ low grade dysplasia¿´½À´Ï´Ù. ±¹¼ÒÀç¹ßÇÑ 5¸íÀÇ ¸Ç óÀ½ Á¶Á÷°Ë»ç°¡ ¹«¾ùÀ̾ú´ÂÁö Á¦½ÃµÇÁö ¾Ê¾Ò½À´Ï´Ù¸¸ ´ÙÀ½°ú °°Àº ÃßÁ¤ÀÌ °¡´ÉÇÒ °Í °°½À´Ï´Ù. È­»ý¼ºº¯È­´Â °æ°è°¡ ºÒºÐ¸íÇÏ°í ³Ð°Ô ºÐÆ÷Çϱ⵵ ÇÕ´Ï´Ù. µû¶ó¼­ ³»½Ã°æÀýÁ¦¼ú º´¸®¿¡¼­ no residual tumor°¡ ³ª¿À°í ÃßÀû°üÂû ³»½Ã°æ Á¶Á÷°Ë»ç¿¡¼­ adenoma°¡ ³ª¿Ô´Ù°í ¹Ýµå½Ã ±¹¼ÒÀç¹ß·Î ´ÜÁ¤ÇÒ ¼ö ¾øÀ» °Í °°½À´Ï´Ù. ¹Ù·Î ¿·ÀÇ È­»ý¼ºÀ§¿°¿¡¼­ ¹ß»ýÇÑ Àúµµ¼±Á¾ÀÏ ¼öµµ ÀÖÀ¸´Ï±î¿ä.

ÈǸ¢ÇÑ ¿¬±¸ ÃàÇÏÇÕ´Ï´Ù.

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