Predictors for underestimated pathology in forceps biopsy compared with resection specimen of colorectal neoplasia; focus on surface appearance

Diagnostic yield and repeat biopsies in rectal and nonrectal colorectal adenocarcinoma: Are we hedging on rectal biopsies?

Patients with rectal cancer undergo more repeat biopsies compared to those with nonrectal colon cancer prior to management. We investigated the factors driving the higher frequency of repeat biopsies in patients with rectal cancer. We compared clinicopathologic features of diagnostic and nondiagnostic (in regard to invasion) rectal (n = 64) and colonic (n = 57) biopsies from colorectal cancer patients and characterized corresponding resections. Despite similar diagnostic yield, repeat biopsy was more common in rectal carcinoma, especially in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy (p < 0.05). The presence of desmoplasia (odds ratio 12.9, p < 0.05) was a strong predictor of making a diagnosis of invasion in both rectal and nonrectal colon cancer biopsies. Diagnostic biopsies had more desmoplasia, intramucosal carcinoma component and marked inflammation, and less low-grade dysplasia component (p < 0.05). Diagnostic yield of biopsy was higher for tumors with high-grade tumor budding, mucosal involvement by high-grade dysplasia/intramucosal carcinoma without low-grade dysplasia and diffuse surface desmoplasia irrespective of tumor location. Sample size, amount of benign tissue, appearance, and T stage did not affect diagnostic yield. Repeat biopsy of rectal cancer is primarily driven by management implications. Diagnostic yield in colorectal cancer biopsies is multifactorial and is not due to differing pathologists' diagnostic approach per tumor site. For rectal tumors, a multidisciplinary strategic approach is warranted to avoid repeat biopsy when unnecessary.

A Novel Model Predicts Postoperative Pathology of Colorectal High-Grade Intraepithelial Neoplasia

BACKGROUND

To analyze the consistency of endoscopic biopsy of colorectal high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (HGIN) and pathological diagnosis and to explore the value of preoperative examination in differentiating HGIN from invasive carcinoma.

METHODS

Clinicopathological data of 79 patients with colorectal HGIN undergoing preoperative endoscopic biopsy from January 2012 to December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

Pathologically, 57 cases (72.8%) were diagnosed as invasive carcinoma and 22 (27.8%) as HGIN. Tumor size ≥3 cm, ulcer on the surface of the lesion, HGIN without adenoma, platelet to lymphocyte ratio, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, lymph node enlargement, and spiculation of the peri-intestinal fat on computed tomography were associated with postoperative invasive carcinoma. Multivariate analysis showed that a longest diameter ≥3 cm, preoperative diagnosis of HGIN without adenoma, and spiculation of the peri-intestinal fat were independent factors for a postoperative diagnosis of invasive carcinoma. Depending on the weight of these three independent factors in binary logistic regression analysis, a comprehensive scoring model was established. When the score was ≥1.5, the sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of invasive carcinoma were 86.0% and 81.8%, respectively. Utilizing the prediction index, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.869.

CONCLUSIONS

A diagnosis of colorectal HGIN by colonoscopy is poorly consistent with the postoperative pathological diagnosis. The scoring model established in this study for identifying colorectal infiltrating carcinoma is simple and feasible. When the comprehensive score is ≥ 1.5, an aggressive approach of surgical treatment is recommended.

IMP3 expression in biopsy specimens as a diagnostic biomarker for colorectal cancer

No single biological marker is used in routine diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) in endoscopic biopsies. IMP3 is a good independent prognostic biomarker for CRC. However, the expression of IMP3 in hyperplastic polyp (HP) and adenoma has not yet been studied. Moreover, no studies have established the diagnostic value of IMP3 in biopsies. This study aims to assess IMP3 expression in HP, adenoma, and CRC in resection specimens and to investigate its value in diagnosis of CRC in biopsies. A total of 1328 specimens (633 of polypectomy, 395 surgical resections, 300 biopsies) were retrospectively analyzed. IMP3 expression was observed in 0 of 197 (0%) normal tissues, 0 of 130 (0%) HPs, 14 of 504 (2.8%) adenomas, and 139 of 197 (70.6%) CRCs. IMP3 was found to be overexpressed in CRC compared with adenoma (P<.001). Among the 300 biopsies, 56 were diagnosed as adenoma, and 244 were CRCs. Of the 56 adenoma cases, 22 (39.3%) were confirmed, whereas 34 (60.7%) were diagnosed as CRC in resection specimens. All 244 CRC biopsies were confirmed by resection specimens. IMP3-positive expression was observed in 204 of 300 (68.0%) biopsies, including in 22 of 56 (39.3%) adenomas and 182 of 244 (74.6%) CRCs. All IMP3-positive expressions in the biopsies were finally diagnosed as CRC. Our findings demonstrated that IMP3 is a reliable marker for the diagnosis of CRC in endoscopic biopsies.

Differences in the pathological diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia between the East and the West: Present status and future perspectives from Japan

It is well known that there are discrepancies in the diagnosis of gastrointestinal neoplasia between Western and Japanese pathologists. In the West, colorectal cancer (CRC) is defined by invasion through the muscularis mucosa into the submucosa, especially depending on the presence of desmoplasia. In Japan, however, CRC is defined based on a combination of nuclear and architectural abnormalities, regardless of invasion status. As a result, intramucosal carcinoma is diagnosed as high-grade dysplasia and even intramucosal carcinoma with poorly differentiated component is classified as 'Tis' in the West. It is logical and reasonable that the term 'T1' is used to currently describe intramucosal carcinoma. Use of the term 'high-grade dysplasia' for intramucosal CRC is outdated. In order to determine appropriate clinical treatment of CRC, the various risk factors of metastasis should be fully evaluated. With improved contributions and communication between pathologists and clinicians, overtreatment and inadequate follow up can be avoided. The discrepancies in the diagnosis of CRC between Western and Japanese pathologists may be addressed by an increase in East-West exchange. In addition, in the future, molecular analysis may also be useful for establishment of standardized diagnostic criteria of CRC.