Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences) ›› 2021, Vol. 53 ›› Issue (1): 204-209. doi: 10.19723/j.issn.1671-167X.2021.01.031

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Characteristics of benign and malignant lesions of ampullary polyps and the accuracy of forceps biopsy

WANG Ying-chun,HUANG Yong-hui(),CHANG Hong,YAO Wei,YAN Xiu-e,LI Ke,ZHANG Yao-peng,ZHENG Wei   

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing 100191, China
  • Received:2020-02-09 Online:2021-02-18 Published:2021-02-07
  • Contact: Yong-hui HUANG E-mail:13911765322@163.com
  • Supported by:
    National Natural Science Foundation of China(81500502);National Natural Science Foundation of China(81470905);Capital Characteristic Clinic Project(z171100001017091)

Abstract:

Objective: To distinguish the endoscopic and clinical features of ampullary polyps,to investigate the endoscopic cancer risk factors of ampullary polyps based on the compared differences of benign lesions and adenocarcinoma, and to assess the accuracy of forceps biopsy.Methods: Authors retrospectively analyzed the data extracted from patients treated with endoscopic papillectomy (EP) from January 2009 to May 2019 in the Department of Gastroenterology, Peking University Third Hospital. Endoscopic pictures and pathology reports were reevaluated and analyzed. Differences between benign and cancer groups were conducted.Results: In the study,42 cases were involved, 35 to 83 years old, containing 83.3% older than 50 years old patients. The histological types were as follows, 2 for inflammatory polyps (4.8%), 1 for neuroendocrine tumor (2.4%), 1 for hyperplastic polyp (2.4%), 5 for grade Ⅰ adenoma (11.9%), 10 for grade Ⅱ adenoma (23.8%), 4 for grade Ⅲ adenoma (9.5%) and 19 for adenocarcinoma (45.2%),and 90.5% were adenoma or adenocarcinoma. The average age of benign group (inflammatory polyps and adenomas) was (56.7±9.2), which was significantly younger than that of adenocarcinoma group [(66.0±9.8), P=0.004]. Tumor diameter in adenocarcinoma group[(2.3±0.8) cm] was significantly larger than that in benign group[(1.6±0.6) cm, P=0.002]. Benign lesions only showed Yamada type Ⅰ(57.1%)and type Ⅱ(42.9%). The percentage of Yamada type Ⅰ (36.8%)and type Ⅱ(31.6%) in adenocarcinoma group was lower than that in benign group. Moreover, Yamada type Ⅲ (31.5%) was only found in the adenocarcinoma group. Significant differences were observed between the two groups in Yamada types (P=0.046). Most of the benign lesions had clear boundary(18/21,85.7%). The percentage of clear boundary in adenocarcinoma group (2/19,10.5%) was significantly lower than that in the benign group (P<0.001). No significant differences were investigated in color (P=0.353) and surface (P=0.324) between benign and adenocarcinoma lesions. Pooling age, lesion diameter, Yamada type and clear boundary into Logistic regression analysis, only age (OR=1.186, 95%CI 1.025-1.373, P=0.022) and clear boundary (OR=66.218, 95%CI 3.421-1 281.840, P=0.006) were the independent cancer risk factors. Only 2 (10.5%) in the 19 cancer patients had positive biopsy results before EP. As compared with post-EP, 55.3% (21/38) biopsies were under-estimated, including 17 (17/19, 89.5%) adenocarcinomas and 4 (4/10, 40%) grade Ⅱ adenomas.Conclusion: adenoma and adenocarcinoma were the major histological type of ampullary po-lyps. Age and unclear boundary were the independent risk factors of ampullary adenocarcinoma. Forceps biopsy was not enough for ampullary polyp differentiation.

Key words: Adenoma, Adenocarcinoma, Risk factors, Pathological characteristics, Endoscopic papillectomy, Ampullary adenocarcinoma, Cancer risk factors, Accuracy of forceps biopsy

CLC Number: 

  • R574.51

Table 1

Characteristics of the patients"

Histological type Age/years Male, n
Inflammatory polyp (n=2) 60.5 ± 0.7 1
Neuroendocrine tumor (n=1) 37.0 0
Hyperplastic polyp (n=1) 35.0 1
Adenoma (n=19)
Grade Ⅰ (n=5) 61.2 ± 8.7 5
Grade Ⅱ (n=10) 51.4 ± 6.8 6
Grade Ⅲ (n=4) 62.5 ± 11.8 1
Adenocarcinoma (n=19) 66.0 ± 9.9 9
Total (n=42) 60.0 ± 11.6 23

Table 2

The clinical and endoscopic features of patients with ampullary polyp"

Histological type Total (n=40) Benign (n=21) Malignant (n=19) P value
Age/years, x-±s 61.1±10.5 56.7±9.2 66.0±9.8 0.004
Diameter/cm, x-±s 1.9±0.8 1.6±0.6 2.3±0.8 0.002
Color 0.353
Hyperemia, n(%) 19 (47.5) 7 (33.3) 12 (63.2)
Similar, n(%) 14 (35.0) 12 (57.1) 2 (10.5)
White, n(%) 7 (17.5) 2 (9.5) 5 (26.3)
Yamada type 0.046
Ⅰ, n(%) 19 (47.5) 12 (57.1) 7 (36.8)
Ⅱ, n(%) 15 (37.5) 9 (42.9) 6 (31.6)
Ⅲ, n(%) 6 (15.0) 0 (0) 6 (31.6)
Surface 0.324
Normal, n(%) 3 (7.5) 3 (14.3) 0 (0)
Ulcer, n(%) 1 (2.5) 0 (0) 1 (5.3)
Erosion, n(%) 4 (10.0) 0 (0) 4 (21.1)
Villous irregular, n(%) 23 (57.5) 16 (76.2) 7 (36.8)
Nodular inflat, n(%) 9 (22.5) 2 (9.5) 7 (36.8)
Clear boundary, n(%) 20 (50) 18 (85.7) 2 (10.5) 0.000

Figure 1

Typical endoscopic image of ampullary adenoma and adenocarcinoma A, endoscopic image of ampullary adenoma; B, endoscopic image of ampullary adenocarcinoma. Black arrow indicates the lesion."

Table 3

Logistic regression model showing adverse clinical and endoscopic features of patients with ampullary polyps"

Variable OR 95%CI P value
Age 1.186 1.025-1.373 0.022
Diameter 2.328 0.385-14.095 0.196
Yamada type 2.065 0.379-11.245 0.402
Clear boundary 66.218 3.421-1 281.840 0.006

Table 4

The histological features of ampullary polyps under forceps biopsies or papillectomy"

Histology of forceps biopsy Histology of papillectomy Total
Grade Ⅰ Grade Ⅱ Grade Ⅲ adenocarcinoma
Grade Ⅰ 2 4 0 2 8
Grade Ⅱ 3 5 0 6 14
Grade Ⅲ 0 1 3 9 13
Adenocarcinoma 0 0 1 2 3
Total 5 10 4 19 38

Figure 2

Accuracy of ampullary polyp forceps biopsy"

[1] Ridtitid W, Tan D, Schmidt SE, et al. Endoscopic papillectomy: risk factors for incomplete resection and recurrence during long-term follow-up[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 2014,79(2):289-296.
pmid: 24094466
[2] Ridtitid W, Schmidt SE, Al-Haddad MA, et al. Performance characteristics of EUS for locoregional evaluation of ampullary lesions[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 2015,81(2):380-388.
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.08.005 pmid: 25293823
[3] Kang SH, Kim KH, Kim TN, et al. Therapeutic outcomes of endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary neoplasms: retrospective analysis of a multicenter study[J]. BMC Gastroenterol, 2017,17(1):69.
doi: 10.1186/s12876-017-0626-5 pmid: 28558658
[4] El H, Coté GA. Endoscopic diagnosis and management of ampullary lesions[J]. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am, 2013,23(1):95-109.
doi: 10.1016/j.giec.2012.10.004 pmid: 23168121
[5] 顾宗廷, 张永杰. 十二指肠乳头肿瘤的诊断与外科治疗[J]. 国际消化病杂志, 2015,35(6):428-435.
[6] Chathadi KV, Khashab MA, Acosta RD, et al. The role of endoscopy in ampullary and duodenal adenomas[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 2015,82(5):773-781.
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.06.027 pmid: 26260385
[7] 陆鉴, 陆文洁, 吴育连. 十二指肠乳头肿瘤的临床特点及诊治分析[J]. 中华外科杂志, 2016,54(3):187-190.
[8] Attila T, Parlak E, Alper E, et al. Endoscopic papillectomy of benign ampullary lesions: Outcomes from a multicenter study[J]. Turk J Gastroenterol, 2018,29(3):325-334.
doi: 10.5152/tjg.2018.17378 pmid: 29755017
[9] Wanders LK, East JE, Uitentuis SE, et al. Diagnostic performance of narrowed spectrum endoscopy, autofluorescence imaging, and confocal laser endomicroscopy for optical diagnosis of colonic polyps: a meta-analysis[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2013,14(13):1337-1347.
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70509-6 pmid: 24239209
[10] Kim HN, Kim KM, Shin JU, et al. Prediction of carcinoma after resection in subjects with ampullary adenomas on endoscopic biopsy[J]. J Clin Gastroenterol, 2013,47(4):346-351.
doi: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e318272f2ef pmid: 23442830
[11] 郝璐, 王伟, 施新岗, 等. 十二指肠乳头肿瘤内镜切除术的临床应用进展[J]. 中华消化内镜杂志, 2017,34(6):451-454.
[12] Wee E, Lakhtakia S, Gupta R, et al. The diagnostic accuracy and strength of agreement between endoscopic ultrasound and histopathology in the staging of ampullary tumors[J]. Indian J Gastroenterol, 2012,31(6):324-332.
doi: 10.1007/s12664-012-0248-3 pmid: 22996048
[13] 张荣春, 陈杰, 于卫华, 等. 十二指肠乳头肿瘤内镜切除术[J]. 中华消化内镜杂志, 2014,31(4):231-235.
[14] Bourgeois N, Dunham F, Verhest A, et al. Endoscopic biopsies of the papilla of Vater at the time of endoscopic sphincterotomy: difficulties in interpretation[J]. Gastrointest Endosc, 1984,30(3):163-166.
doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(84)72357-1 pmid: 6735092
[1] SU Jun-qi,SONG Yang,XIE Shang. Analysis of etiological characteristics and establishment of prediction model of postoperative infections in patients undergoing oral squamous cell carcinoma surgery with free flap reconstruction [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2022, 54(1): 68-76.
[2] Hao XU,Guo-dong ZHANG,Guang-pu FAN,Yu CHEN. Preoperative plasma predictive factors of new-onset atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A propensity score matching study [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(6): 1139-1143.
[3] Zhan-yue NIU,Yan XUE,Jing ZHANG,He-jun ZHANG,Shi-gang DING. Analysis of endoscopic and pathological features of gastric adenomatous polyps and risk factors for canceration [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(6): 1122-1127.
[4] Bo DONG,Xiao-wei MA,Xiao-hui GUO,Ying GAO,Jun-qing ZHANG. Clinical value of captopril test in noninvasive diagnosis of aldosterone-producing adenoma [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(6): 1128-1132.
[5] Wen-cheng AN,Hui-xian YAN,Zheng-zhao DENG,Fang CHEN,Xiao-hong OU,Hong-xin JIN,Wei HUANG. Chronic kidney disease after adrenalectomy in a patient with primary aldosteronism [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(6): 1201-1204.
[6] Jing-xian ZHU,Sheng-nan LU,Yan-fang JIANG,Ling JIANG,Jian-quan WANG. Influencing factors of preoperative pulmonary function in elderly patients undergoing rotator cuff surgery [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(5): 902-906.
[7] WANG Jia-wen,LIU Jing-chao,MENG Ling-feng,ZHANG Wei,LIU Xiao-dong,ZHANG Yao-guang. Quality of life and related factors in patients with interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(4): 653-658.
[8] SUN Zheng-hui,HUANG Xiao-juan,DONG Jing-han,LIU Zhuo,YAN Ye,LIU Cheng,MA Lu-lin. Risk factors of renal sinus invasion in clinical T1 renal cell carcinoma patients undergoing nephrectomy [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(4): 659-664.
[9] ZHOU Bo-lin,LI Wei-shi,SUN Chui-guo,QI Qiang,CHEN Zhong-qiang,ZENG Yan. Risk factors for multiple debridements of the patients with deep incisional surgical site infection after spinal surgery [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(2): 286-292.
[10] XIA Fang-fang,LU Fu-ai,LV Hui-min,YANG Guo-an,LIU Yuan. Clinical characteristics and related factors of systemic lupus erythematosus with interstitial pneumonia [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(2): 266-272.
[11] LIAO Xu-he,WANG Rong-fu,LIU Meng,CHEN Xue-qi,XIONG Yan,NONG Lin,YIN Lei,ZHANG Bing-ye,DU Yu-jing. Semiquantitative parameters of 18F-FDG PET/CT, gene mutation states of epidermal growth factor receptor and anaplastic lymphoma kinase in prognosis evaluation of patients with lung adenocarcinoma [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(2): 246-254.
[12] LIU Xiao-qiang,YANG Yang,ZHOU Jian-feng,LIU Jian-zhang,TAN Jian-guo. Blood pressure and heart rate changes of 640 single dental implant surgeries [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(2): 390-395.
[13] HOU Guo-jin,ZHOU Fang,TIAN Yun,JI Hong-quan,ZHANG Zhi-shan,GUO Yan,LV Yang,YANG Zhong-wei,ZHANG Ya-wen. Risk factors of recurrent kyphosis in thoracolumbar burst fracture patients treated by short segmental pedicle screw fixation [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(1): 167-174.
[14] MENG Zhao-ting,MU Dong-liang. Impact of oliguria during lung surgery on postoperative acute kidney injury [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2021, 53(1): 188-194.
[15] Jia-li CHEN,Yue-bo JIN,Yi-fan WANG,Xiao-ying ZHANG,Jing LI,Hai-hong YAO,Jing HE,Chun LI. Clinical characteristics and risk factors of cardiovascular disease in patients with elderly-onset rheumatoid arthritis: A large cross-sectional clinical study [J]. Journal of Peking University (Health Sciences), 2020, 52(6): 1040-1047.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] Author. English Title Test[J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2010, 42(1): 1 -10 .
[2] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(2): 188 -191 .
[3] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(3): 376 -379 .
[4] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2009, 41(4): 459 -462 .
[5] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2010, 42(1): 82 -84 .
[6] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2007, 39(3): 319 -322 .
[7] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2007, 39(3): 333 -336 .
[8] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2007, 39(3): 337 -340 .
[9] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2007, 39(3): 225 -328 .
[10] . [J]. Journal of Peking University(Health Sciences), 2007, 39(4): 346 -350 .