Worldwide variation in pathology reporting of esophageal endoscopic resections: a survey and a literature review

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are central to the diagnosis and treatment of superficial esophageal neoplasia. Accurate pathologic assessment determines endoscopic curability and the need for additional therapy, yet some handling and reporting practices vary internationally. A 19-question web-based survey assessed gross handling, sectioning, depth of invasion, margins, intramucosal carcinoma (IMC) subclassification, synoptic reporting, and prognostically relevant histologic features. We invited gastrointestinal pathologists through professional societies, literature-based contacts, and professional networks. Of 180 respondents, we analyzed 171 who received esophageal endoscopic resection specimens. Respondents practiced in the United States (41%), Canada (10%), Europe (21%), Asia (20%), and Australia/New Zealand (8%); 74% worked in academic settings. Core prognostic elements were reported consistently, including tumor type/grade (99%), depth of invasion (98%), lateral margin status (97%), deep margin status (95%), and lymphovascular invasion (96%). Greater variation involved specimen handling and selected reporting practices. Routine clinician pinning ranged from 91% in Asia to 16% in the United States. 51% used neither the commonly described M-level system for IMC. For submucosal invasion, 48% reported exact depth and 30% used both exact measurement and SM-level classification. Tumor budding was reported by 34% overall and 23% of US respondents. Structured reporting also varied geographically. Pathologists showed broad international agreement in reporting the principal determinants of endoscopic curability, while more focused differences involved specimen handling, invasion terminology, tumor budding, and structured reporting. Harmonization should prioritize reproducible assessment of clinically actionable features rather than uniform adoption of a single regional classification or handling method.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Archiv für Pathologische Anatomie und Physiologie und für Klinische Medicin
Published
2026-10-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-026-04745-2
Primary Topic
Esophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Worldwide variation in pathology reporting of esophageal endoscopic resections: a survey and a literature review

Esmeralda Celia Marginean
1 links
Archiv für Pathologische Anatomie und Physiologie und für Klinische Medicin
Esophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
article

Worldwide variation in pathology reporting of esophageal endoscopic resections: a survey and a literature review

Esmeralda Celia Marginean
article en

Abstract

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are central to the diagnosis and treatment of superficial esophageal neoplasia. Accurate pathologic assessment determines endoscopic curability and the need for additional therapy, yet some handling and reporting practices vary internationally. A 19-question web-based survey assessed gross handling, sectioning, depth of invasion, margins, intramucosal carcinoma (IMC) subclassification, synoptic reporting, and prognostically relevant histologic features. We invited gastrointestinal pathologists through professional societies, literature-based contacts, and professional networks. Of 180 respondents, we analyzed 171 who received esophageal endoscopic resection specimens. Respondents practiced in the United States (41%), Canada (10%), Europe (21%), Asia (20%), and Australia/New Zealand (8%); 74% worked in academic settings. Core prognostic elements were reported consistently, including tumor type/grade (99%), depth of invasion (98%), lateral margin status (97%), deep margin status (95%), and lymphovascular invasion (96%). Greater variation involved specimen handling and selected reporting practices. Routine clinician pinning ranged from 91% in Asia to 16% in the United States. 51% used neither the commonly described M-level system for IMC. For submucosal invasion, 48% reported exact depth and 30% used both exact measurement and SM-level classification. Tumor budding was reported by 34% overall and 23% of US respondents. Structured reporting also varied geographically. Pathologists showed broad international agreement in reporting the principal determinants of endoscopic curability, while more focused differences involved specimen handling, invasion terminology, tumor budding, and structured reporting. Harmonization should prioritize reproducible assessment of clinically actionable features rather than uniform adoption of a single regional classification or handling method.

Archiv für Pathologische Anatomie und Physiologie und für Klinische Medicin
Baylor St. Luke's Medical Center (US), Baylor College of Medicine (US)
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Esophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon