Minireviews
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2015. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Gastroenterol. Nov 7, 2015; 21(41): 11832-11841
Published online Nov 7, 2015. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i41.11832
Preoperative endoscopic diagnosis of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors, including magnifying endoscopy
Shigetsugu Tsuji, Hisashi Doyama, Kunihiro Tsuji, Sho Tsuyama, Kei Tominaga, Naohiro Yoshida, Kenichi Takemura, Shinya Yamada, Hideki Niwa, Kazuyoshi Katayanagi, Hiroshi Kurumaya, Toshihide Okada
Shigetsugu Tsuji, Hisashi Doyama, Kunihiro Tsuji, Kei Tominaga, Naohiro Yoshida, Kenichi Takemura, Shinya Yamada, Toshihide Okada, Department of Gastroenterology, Ishikawa Prefectural Central Hospital, Kanazawa, Ishikawa 920-8530, Japan
Sho Tsuyama, Hideki Niwa, Kazuyoshi Katayanagi, Hiroshi Kurumaya, Department of Diagnostic Pathology, Ishikawa Prefectural Central Hospital, Kanazawa, Ishikawa 920-8530, Japan
Author contributions: Tsuji S, Doyama H, Tsuji K, Tsuyama S, Tominaga K, Yosihda N, Takemura K, Yamada S, Niwa H, Katayanagi K, Kurumaya H and Okada T contributed to study conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the article and revising it critically for important intellectual content, and final approval of the version to be published.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Correspondence to: Hisashi Doyama, MD, PhD, Department of Gastroenterology, Ishikawa Prefectural Central Hospital, Kuratsuki-Higashi 2-1, Kanazawa, Ishikawa 920-8530, Japan. doyama.134@ipch.jp
Telephone: +81-76-2378211 Fax: +81-76-2382337
Received: April 14, 2015
Peer-review started: April 16, 2015
First decision: June 2, 2015
Revised: June 18, 2015
Accepted: August 31, 2015
Article in press: August 31, 2015
Published online: November 7, 2015

Abstract

Superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumor (SNADET) is defined as a sporadic tumor that is confined to the mucosa or submucosa that does not arise from Vater’s papilla, and it includes adenoma and adenocarcinoma. Recent developments in endoscopic technology, such as high-resolution endoscopy and image-enhanced endoscopy, may increase the chances of detecting SNADET lesions. However, because SNADET is rare, little is known about its preoperative endoscopic diagnosis. The use of endoscopic resection for SNADET, which has no risk of metastasis, is increasing, but the incidence of complications, such as perforation, is significantly higher than in any other part of the digestive tract. A preoperative diagnosis is required to distinguish between lesions that should be followed up and those that require treatment. Retrospective studies have revealed certain endoscopic findings that suggest malignancy. In recent years, several new imaging modalities have been developed and explored for real-time diagnosis of these lesion types. Establishing an endoscopic diagnostic tool to differentiate between adenoma and adenocarcinoma in SNADET lesions is required to select the most appropriate treatment. This review describes the current state of knowledge about preoperative endoscopic diagnosis of SNADETs, such as duodenal adenoma and duodenal adenocarcinoma. Newer endoscopic techniques, including magnifying endoscopy, may help to guide these diagnostics, but their additional advantages remain unclear, and further studies are required to clarify these issues.

Key Words: Endoscopy, Duodenoscopy, Duodenal neoplasms, Narrow band imaging, Pathology

Core tip: Because superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumor is rare, a preoperative endoscopic diagnostic technique to differentiate between adenoma and adenocarcinoma has not yet been established. Recently, many new imaging modalities have been developed and explored for use in the real-time diagnosis of these types of lesions. Newer endoscopic techniques, including magnifying endoscopy, may help to guide these diagnostics, but their additional advantages remain unclear, and further studies are required to clarify these issues.



INTRODUCTION

Epithelial tumors of the duodenum are relatively rare[1], with primary duodenal carcinomas comprising only approximately 0.5% of malignant gastrointestinal tumors[2]. Duodenal adenomas are uncommon lesions with a reported prevalence of less than 0.4% in patients undergoing esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy[3,4]. Surgical treatment of non-ampullary duodenal tumors can be invasive because of anatomical complexities. Recent developments in endoscopic technology, such as high-resolution endoscopy and image-enhanced endoscopy, may increase the chances of detecting superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumor (SNADET) lesions and allow their resection without surgery[5,6]. The prognosis of patients with advanced duodenal carcinomas is poor[7], and early detection and treatment are essential.

Endoscopic resection (ER) is a minimally invasive, local treatment that can be used in cases of SNADET with no risk of metastasis[8]. However, the incidence of complications, such as perforation, that are associated with the use of ER to treat SNADET is significantly higher than in any other part of the digestive tract[6,9,10] because of the thinness of the duodenal wall and its exposure to bile and pancreatic juice[9,11,12]. A preoperative diagnosis is required to distinguish between lesions that should be followed up and those that require treatment. Follow-up without ER for low-grade adenoma (LGA) is acceptable because its risk of progression to cancer is approximately 5%[9,13]. However, because SNADET is rare, much remains unknown about its preoperative endoscopic diagnosis.

SNADET is defined as a sporadic tumor that is confined to the mucosa or submucosa that does not arise from Vater’s papilla, and it includes adenoma and adenocarcinoma. This review focuses on the present status of the preoperative endoscopic diagnosis of SNADETs.

HISTOPATHOLOGICAL DIAGNOSES REFERRED TO THE REVISED VIENNA CLASSIFICATION AND CLINICAL MANAGEMENT

Recently, a new set of categories for classifying gastrointestinal neoplasias (i.e., the Vienna classification) has been proposed (Table 1) to bridge the East-West gap[14]. Adenomas of the gastrointestinal tract can be categorized as LGA (category 3) and high-grade dysplasia (HGD; category 4.1), according to the diagnostic classification of dysplasia established in the revised Vienna classification. Several previous studies[13,15,16] have classified histopathological diagnoses of SNADETs based on the revised Vienna classification. For the purposes of these studies, LGA was included in the revised Vienna Category 3 (C3), and HGD and superficial adenocarcinoma were included in the revised Vienna Category 4 (C4), such that all C3 lesions were non-malignant, and all C4 lesions were classified as cancer. In this review, only LGA lesions are considered to be sporadic non-ampullary adenomas because LGA lesions show a low risk of progression to adenocarcinoma[9,13], and non-ampullary duodenal cancers are also considered to be C4 lesions.

Table 1 The revised Vienna classification and clinical management.
CategoryDiagnosisClinical management
1Negative for neoplasiaOptional follow-up
2Indefinite for neoplasiaFollow-up
3Mucosal low-grade neoplasiaEndoscopic resection or follow-up
Low-grade adenoma
Low-grade dysplasia
4Mucosal high-grade neoplasiaEndoscopic or surgical local resection
4.1 High-grade adenoma/dysplasia
4.2 Noninvasive carcinoma (carcinoma in situ)
4.3 Suspicious for invasive carcinoma
4.4 Intramucosal carcinoma
5Submucosal invasion by carcinomaSurgical resection

The choice of treatment depends on the overall size of a lesion; the depth of its invasion as assessed endoscopically, radiologically, or ultrasonographically; and general factors, such as a patient’s age and comorbid conditions. For gastric, esophageal, and non-polypoid colorectal carcinomas that are well differentiated or moderately differentiated and show only minimal submucosal invasion (sm1) without lymphatic involvement, local resection is sufficient. Likewise, for polypoid colorectal carcinomas with deeper submucosal invasion in the stalk/base but without lymphatic or blood vessel invasion, complete local resection is considered adequate treatment[14,17].

DEFINITION OF SPORADIC NON-AMPULLARY ADENOMA

Duodenal adenomas that do not involve the major duodenal papilla are characterized as benign epithelial tumors of the small bowel. They may occur sporadically or in the context of genetic syndromes, such as familial adenomatous polyposis or Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. A sporadic non-ampullary adenoma is regarded as a precancerous lesion. Previous reports have suggested that there are two carcinogenesis pathways of duodenal cancer: the adenoma-carcinoma sequence and the development of de novo cancer[18-20]. Sporadic non-ampullary adenoma should be differentiated from polyps that occur in genetic syndromes or at the papilla. Polyps are associated with an increased risk of malignancy, and they require different diagnostic and therapeutic strategies than those for sporadic non-ampullary adenomas[21,22]. Sporadic non-ampullary adenomas account for up to 7% of duodenal polyps that are biopsied using upper endoscopy, which is a prevalence of 1-3 cases per 1000[3,23]. The mean age at diagnosis is usually in the seventh decade, and the incidence is approximately equal among men and women. The majority of patients are asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis[24].

DEFINITION OF EARLY NON-AMPULLARY DUODENAL CANCER

Owing to the low prevalence of SNADET, there is no established definition for early non-ampullary duodenal cancer regarding its depth of invasion and risk of lymph node metastasis[8]. Previous studies have followed the rules that are used for early colorectal[25] or gastric cancer[26] and for tumor invasion into the lamina propria, muscularis mucosa (T1a) or submucosa (T1b), regardless of lymph node metastasis[18,27,28]. There is little information regarding the pathological risk factors for lymph node metastasis of T1a and T1b in non-ampullary duodenal cancer. Nagatani et al[29] found no incidence of lymph node metastasis among 40 pT1a cancers, while Fujisawa et al[27] reported no metastasis among 166 pT1a cancers. The incidence of lymph node metastasis among pT1b cancers was reported to be 5.3%-5.4%[27,28].

DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS BETWEEN SNADET C3 AND C4 LESIONS
Characterization using conventional white light imaging

C3 lesions are usually solitary and sessile; and although they can be located in any part of the duodenum, they are found distally in the majority of patients[3]. Both C3 and C4 lesions arise most frequently in the second portion of the duodenum, especially in the periampullary area[18,30,31].

In a Japanese multicenter study, the mean tumor diameter of C4 lesions was significantly larger than that of C3 lesions. C4 lesions were solitary or showed a predominantly red color significantly more frequently than C3 lesions. There were no significant differences between final histological grade and other endoscopic findings, such as tumor location and macroscopic type (Table 2)[5]. Okada et al[13] showed that a lesion diameter of ≥ 20 mm was significantly predictive of progression to adenocarcinoma. A tumor diameter > 5 mm also seemed indicative for C4 lesion tumors, and this might suggest a recent increase in the number of small C4 lesions of 6-10 mm in diameter[5]. In addition, out of 139 SNADETs, this case series found 46 mucosal carcinomas (33%) and one submucosal carcinoma that had a tumor diameter of 6-10 mm[5]. Lesions with a depression component also tended to have a higher cancerous component[32,33]. Endoscopic features of C4 lesions included a red color in the tumor and a nodular, rough surface[27,32].

Table 2 Relationship between endoscopic findings and final histological grade.
Category3(n = 121)Category4(n = 275)P value
Diameter (mean, mm)11.5 ± 0.717.5 ± 0.7< 0.0001
Location (portion)
First2319%4617%NS
Second9276%20574%
Third or fourth65%249%
Color
Red3630%12445%< 0.01
Isochromatic or white8570%15155%
Macroscopic type
0-I2924%5821%NS
0-IIa7159%17062%
0-IIc2117%4717%
Whitish villus, milk-white mucosa, and white opaque substance

Inatsuchi et al[34] reported that 84% of SNADETs had a whitish villus, which may be helpful in recognizing these lesions under conventional endoscopy. Yoshimura et al[15] showed that 92% of SNADETs had a milk-white mucosa on conventional endoscopy, which is a common endoscopic finding for C3 and C4 lesions. A white opaque substance (WOS) was reported first by Yao et al[35] as a substance in the superficial area of a gastric neoplasia that is visualized in magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging (M-NBI). WOS represents intramucosal accumulation of lipid droplets using oil red O staining[36]. Tanaka et al[37] suggested that whitish villi were a result of lipids in epithelial cells at the villi tips. Whitish villus, milk-white mucosa, and WOS are thought to have the same appearance.

It has been reported that the distribution pattern of milk-white mucosa is classified as either entire or marginal, and the frequency of the marginal type of milk-white mucosa (Figure 1) is significantly higher in C4 lesions compared to C3 lesions[15]. Whitish villus, milk-white mucosa, and WOS are characteristic of SNADETs, and their individual characteristics may also be useful in differentiating between C3 and C4 lesions.

Figure 1
Figure 1 Duodenal adenocarcinoma imaged with magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging. White opaque substance (WOS) in lesion margins on magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging (M-NBI). Speckled WOS is found at the lesion margins (arrows), and little is in the central area.
Characterization using magnifying endoscopy with NBI

NBI is an innovative optical image-enhancing technology that uses narrow blue and green wavelengths to increase the conspicuity of vessels[38]. M-NBI enables clear visualization of superficial microanatomy and can be used to differentiate between cancerous and non-cancerous lesions of the digestive tract more accurately than conventional endoscopy[39-44]. However, there have been only a few reports characterizing SNADET using M-NBI.

Yoshimura et al[15] showed that the frequency of a microvascular pattern network type was significantly higher in C4 lesions. Recently, Kikuchi et al[16] have proposed a diagnostic algorithm of M-NBI for SNADET, as shown in Figure 2. They defined vessels that were dilated, tortuous, or had irregular diameter, size, or shape as having an “unclassified pattern”; all C4 lesions had this pattern[16]. In previous studies, the frequency of an ill-defined mucosal pattern (Figure 3) and mixed-type lesions with multiple surface patterns (Figure 4) were distinctive findings in C4 lesions[15,16].

Figure 2
Figure 2 Diagnostic algorithm of magnifying endoscopy with narrow band imaging for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumor. From Kikuchi et al[16].
Figure 3
Figure 3 Duodenal adenocarcinoma imaged with magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging. An indistinct area of a marginal crypt epithelium (MCE) structure as imaged by magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging (M-NBI). There are no discernible microsurface features (yellow circle).
Figure 4
Figure 4 Duodenal adenocarcinoma imaged with magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging. Because of uneven distribution of white opaque substance (WOS) on magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging (M-NBI), this lesion displays multiple microsurface patterns as mixed-type (yellow circle).
Vessel plus surface classification system for magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging

Between December 2008 and January 2015, we retrospectively used ER to investigate both the endoscopic findings and the resected specimens of 64 SNADETs at our hospital. We used the established vessel plus surface (VS) classification system and M-NBI to diagnose early gastric cancer[41], which is the most commonly used system in clinical practice[42].

We determined whether there was a demarcation line (DL) between a lesion and the background mucosa. Microvascular (MV) patterns and microsurface (MS) patterns were categorized as regular, irregular, or absent. Lesions presenting with an irregular MV pattern with a DL and/or an irregular MS pattern with a DL were diagnosed as cancerous (C4)[42].

Table 3 shows a comparison of the M-NBI findings for the 64 lesions based on the VS classification. DLs were observed in all of the lesions (100%). There was no significant difference in MV patterns between the C3 and C4 groups. In the SNADETs, there was a tendency for irregular MV patterns to be observed in C3 and C4 lesions. More than 90% of all of the SNADETs in this study demonstrated WOS in the superficial parts of the lesions, obscuring the morphology of subepithelial microvessels in approximately 40% of all lesions. One explanation might be that WOS made it difficult to evaluate the overall distribution and arrangement of microvessels. An irregular MS pattern was present in 14 lesions (52%) in the C3 group and in 33 lesions (89%) in the C4 group, indicating a significant intergroup difference (P = 0.0008). An irregular MS pattern was a reliable marker for differentiating between benign and malignant gastric lesions[40]. Typical cases in the C3 and C4 groups where M-NBI findings were useful for distinguishing between C3 and C4 are shown in Figure 5A-C (C3) and in Figure 6A-C (C4). False-positive cases characterized by malignant M-NBI diagnoses and benign pathological diagnoses are shown in Figure 7A-C. We found that an irregular MS pattern was significantly more frequent in the C4 group, while there was no significant difference in MV patterns between the C3 and C4 groups. These findings may be useful in distinguishing between carcinomas and benign lesions in SNADETs. However, the additional advantages of M-NBI remain unclear, and further studies, including ones on the relationship between histopathological type and MS findings, are required to clarify these issues.

Table 3 Comparison of magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging findings according to vessel plus surface classification system and final histological grade in all 64 superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors.
Diagnosis from ER specimens
P value
Category 3(n = 27)Category 4(n =37)
Demarcation line27100%37100%1
Microvascular pattern; V
Regular/Absent10/837%/30%5/1714%/46%0.56
Irregular933%1541%
Microsurface pattern; S
Regular1348%411%0.0008
Irregular1452%3389%
Figure 5
Figure 5 Magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging imaging of a duodenal adenoma. A: Endoscopic findings using conventional endoscopy with white light imaging. A pale, slightly elevated lesion (10 mm in diameter, arrow) is observed in the proximal duodenum; B: Endoscopic findings using magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging (M-NBI). A demarcation line (DL, arrows) separates changes in the mucosal microsurface (MS) structure from the surrounding normal mucosa. Vessel plus surface (VS) classifications: V, Because of the white opaque substance (WOS), the morphology of the subepithelial microvessels cannot be observed, making this an absent microvascular (MV) pattern; S, The WOS has a regular reticular pattern with a symmetrical distribution and regular arrangement. Thus, this lesion is graded as a regular MS pattern using WOS as a marker for the MS pattern. The VS classification of this lesion was absent MV pattern and regular MS pattern (WOS+) with a DL. Therefore, the M-NBI diagnosis was benign; C: The final histological diagnosis was of a low-grade adenoma.
Figure 6
Figure 6 Duodenal adenocarcinoma with typical magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging findings. A: Endoscopic findings using conventional endoscopy with white light imaging. A reddish, slightly elevated lesion (13 mm in diameter, arrows) is observed in the second portion of the duodenum; B: Endoscopic findings using magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging findings (M-NBI). A clear demarcation line (DL) is visible because of differences in the vessel plus surface (VS) component between the cancerous and noncancerous mucosa. V: Proliferation of microvessels with variable sizes, asymmetrical distribution and irregular arrangement make this an irregular microvascular (MV) pattern; S: There are areas where the marginal crypt epithelium (MCE) cannot be visualized and where the visible MCE shows a variety of morphologies, an asymmetrical distribution and an irregular arrangement. This lesion is assessed as an irregular mucosal microsurface (MS) pattern. The VS classification of this lesion was an irregular MV pattern and irregular MS pattern with a DL. Therefore, the M-NBI diagnosis was cancer; C: The final histological diagnosis was a well-differentiated intramucosal adenocarcinoma.
Figure 7
Figure 7 False-positive magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging diagnosis. A: Endoscopic findings using conventional endoscopy with white light imaging. A whitish, slightly depressed lesion (5 mm in diameter) is observed in the second portion of the duodenum. In this case, magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging diagnosis (M-NBI) examination was conducted before biopsy; B: Endoscopic findings using M-NBI. A clear demarcation line (DL) is visible because of differences in the vessel plus surface (VS) component between the tumor and surrounding mucosa. V: The individual vessels show a variety of morphologies, such as open- and closed-looped and coil-shaped, with no two microvessels sharing the same morphology. The microvessels are anastomosing with each other within the intervening parts but show no consistent regularity. Therefore, this lesion was assessed as an irregular microvascular (MV) pattern; S: This individual section of marginal crypt epithelium (MCE) shows a curved morphology but lacks continuity or a consistent directionality, and the intervening parts are also irregular with unequal sizes. Therefore, this lesion was assessed as an irregular mucosal microsurface (MS) pattern. The VS classification of this lesion was an irregular MV pattern and irregular MS pattern with a DL. Therefore, the M-NBI diagnosis was cancer; C: The final histological diagnosis was a low-grade adenoma.
Magnifying chromoendoscopy

Chromoendoscopy was introduced to improve the success of duodenal polyp detection and differentiation[45,46]. Chromoendoscopy in combination with magnifying endoscopy is useful in distinguishing neoplastic from non-neoplastic colorectal polyps[47]. It has been important to show that magnifying endoscopy combined with chromoendoscopy is useful to discriminate between neoplastic and non-neoplastic colonic polyps, based on the pit-pattern classification[48-51]. Endo et al[1,52] diagnosed patients with sporadic non-ampullary adenoma or non-ampullary duodenal cancer based on magnified images that were stained with crystal violet through the use of the pit-pattern classification for colonic mucosa. Using magnification endoscopy, they categorized SNADETs into convoluted, leaf-like, reticular/sulciolar, and colon-like patterns[1,52].

Preoperative diagnosis using biopsy

Okada et al[13] analyzed 68 sporadic non-ampullary duodenal adenomas that were diagnosed using biopsy and reported that LGA lesions show a low risk of progression to adenocarcinoma, whereas HGD lesions show a high risk of progression to adenocarcinoma. In a preoperative diagnosis, accurately differentiating cancer from adenoma is difficult based on biopsy findings alone. Forceps biopsy is recommended for all suspect lesions, although 15%-56% of cancers may be missed at biopsy due to sampling error compared with using surgically resected specimens[53,54]. In a multicenter study, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of preoperative diagnosis using biopsy for final HGD and superficial adenocarcinoma histology were 58%, 93%, and 68%, respectively[5]. In another study, T1a cancer was observed in 13.5% of patients in whom initial biopsies indicated simple adenomas[55]. Owing to the thinness of the duodenal wall, the biopsy procedure itself may induce unintended fibrosis associated with a lesion, which may complicate subsequent ER[10]. Consequently, it is necessary to perform a biopsy while causing a minimal amount of damage, and ER as a diagnostic therapy should be considered in some cases that are endoscopically diagnosed as carcinoma.

Confocal laser endomicroscopy and autofluorescence imaging

In recent years, many new imaging modalities have been developed and explored for use in the real-time diagnosis of duodenal lesions[56-58]. Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) is a powerful technology that provides magnification × 1000 imaging using intravenous fluorescein as a contrast agent[59]. Currently, there are two types of CLE: probe-based CLE (pCLE) and endoscopic-based CLE (eCLE)[60]. In a recent study, pCLE was used along with NBI (GIF H-180; Olympus) for duodenal adenoma diagnosis, and it was concluded that pCLE provided better sensitivity than NBI (92% vs 83%, P = 0.8); duodenal adenoma diagnosis criteria for pCLE and NBI in this study were based on Barrett’s esophagus criteria[58]. Pittayanon et al[61] reported that the diagnostic criteria for duodenal non-adenomatous and adenomatous lesions using pCLE were normal epithelium border with regular capillary pattern and dark/irregular/non-structural mucosa with normal or abnormal capillary networks, respectively. Autofluorescence imaging (AFI) is an endoscopic technique that uses autofluorescence that is emitted from an endogenous fluorophore following exposure to short-wavelength photoexcitation[62]. AFI has not been used to evaluate duodenal and periampullary lesions. Many new imaging modalities seem to be useful, but because of insufficient data on this uncommon entity, a large multicenter study is required to support this concept.

ENDOSCOPIC DIAGNOSIS OF SNADET EXTENT AND INVASION DEPTH

Determining SNADET margins using conventional endoscopy is easy, as it is similar to detecting epithelial tumors of the colon or rectum[1]. However, it is difficult to differentiate T1a from T1b non-ampullary duodenal cancer using barium studies or endoscopy[27]. Central dimpling or ulceration observed during endoscopy suggests invasive carcinoma[63]. Several previous studies have classified morphological types of superficial SNADETs based on the classification criteria that are used for colorectal tumors[20,27,28]. Macroscopic types based on endoscopic features include the protruded pedunculated (Ip), protruded sessile (Is), and semipedunculated (Isp) types and the superficial elevated (IIa), flat (IIb), and superficial shallow or depressed (IIc) types[26]. Previous studies showed that 0-I or 0-IIa + IIc macroscopic types with a red color were usually endoscopic features of submucosal carcinoma[5,29]. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is accurate in diagnosing gastrointestinal abnormalities because of its ability to image intestinal wall architecture and its surrounding structures in detail[64]. Tio et al[65] reported that EUS is accurate in diagnosing duodenal sessile villous adenomas, and it is, therefore, useful in planning treatment. EUS helps to evaluate larger lesions (greater than 2 cm in size) to establish the relationship of a duodenal polyp to the pancreatobiliary tree and to determine endoscopic resectability when biopsy specimens have shown HGD[66]. Preoperative EUS for six submucosal carcinomas enabled the prediction of submucosal invasion with 67% accuracy[5].

CONCLUSION

From this review, a suggested algorithm for the management of SNADET is shown in Figure 8. Given the heterogeneity of the lesions and the patient population, it is difficult to set guidelines that would encompass all possible scenarios, so each case must be taken on an individual basis. Because the incidence of SNADET is extremely rare, endoscopic findings that suggest early non-ampullary duodenal cancer have not yet been established. As indications for endoscopy increase and as techniques evolve, the rate of duodenal adenoma and duodenal adenocarcinoma detection, especially of small lesions, will likely increase. Newer endoscopic techniques, including magnifying endoscopy, may help to guide these diagnostics, but their additional advantages remain unclear, and further studies are required to clarify these issues.

Figure 8
Figure 8 Suggested algorithm for the management of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumor according to depth of invasion; tumor size; endoscopic findings, including magnifying endoscopy; and biopsy results. Endoscopic features of cancer are a red color in the tumor; a nodular, rough surface on conventional white light imaging; a marginal type of milk-white mucosa; an unclassified vascular pattern; a frequency of ill-defined mucosal pattern; and a population of mixed-type lesions with multiple surface patterns on magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging. Endoscopic features of submucosal carcinoma are ulceration and a 0-I or 0-IIa + IIc macroscopic type with a red color. SNADET: Superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumor; C-WLI: Conventional white-light imaging; M-NBI: Magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging; LDA: Low-grade adenoma; EUS: Endoscopic ultrasonography; ER: Endoscopic resection.
Footnotes

P- Reviewer: Oner OZ, Ono S S- Editor: Yu J L- Editor: Filipodia E- Editor: Wang CH

References
1.  Endo M, Abiko Y, Oana S, Kudara N, Chiba T, Suzuki K, Koizuka H, Uesugi N, Sugai T. Usefulness of endoscopic treatment for duodenal adenoma. Dig Endosc. 2010;22:360-365.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
2.  Alwmark A, Andersson A, Lasson A. Primary carcinoma of the duodenum. Ann Surg. 1980;191:13-18.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
3.  Jepsen JM, Persson M, Jakobsen NO, Christiansen T, Skoubo-Kristensen E, Funch-Jensen P, Kruse A, Thommesen P. Prospective study of prevalence and endoscopic and histopathologic characteristics of duodenal polyps in patients submitted to upper endoscopy. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1994;29:483-487.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
4.  Schottenfeld D, Beebe-Dimmer JL, Vigneau FD. The epidemiology and pathogenesis of neoplasia in the small intestine. Ann Epidemiol. 2009;19:58-69.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
5.  Goda K, Kikuchi D, Yamamoto Y, Takimoto K, Kakushima N, Morita Y, Doyama H, Gotoda T, Maehata Y, Abe N. Endoscopic diagnosis of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors in Japan: Multicenter case series. Dig Endosc. 2014;26 Suppl 2:23-29.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
6.  Inoue T, Uedo N, Yamashina T, Yamamoto S, Hanaoka N, Takeuchi Y, Higashino K, Ishihara R, Iishi H, Tatsuta M. Delayed perforation: a hazardous complication of endoscopic resection for non-ampullary duodenal neoplasm. Dig Endosc. 2014;26:220-227.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
7.  Howe JR, Karnell LH, Menck HR, Scott-Conner C. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer and the American Cancer Society. Adenocarcinoma of the small bowel: review of the National Cancer Data Base, 1985-1995. Cancer. 1999;86:2693-2706.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
8.  Kakushima N, Ono H, Takao T, Kanemoto H, Sasaki K. Method and timing of resection of superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors. Dig Endosc. 2014;26 Suppl 2:35-40.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
9.  Ono H, Nonaka S, Uedo N, Kaise M, Oyama T, Doyama H, Kokawa A, Kaneko K, Kodashima S, Tanabe S. Clinical issues of duodenal EMR/ESD (in Japanese with an English abstract). Stomach Intestine. 2011;46:1669-1677.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
10.  Kakushima N, Kanemoto H, Tanaka M, Takizawa K, Ono H. Treatment for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:12501-12508.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
11.  Takimoto K, Imai Y, Matsuyama K. Endoscopic tissue shielding method with polyglycolic acid sheets and fibrin glue to prevent delayed perforation after duodenal endoscopic submucosal dissection. Dig Endosc. 2014;26 Suppl 2:46-49.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
12.  Shinoda M, Makino A, Wada M, Kabeshima Y, Takahashi T, Kawakubo H, Shito M, Sugiura H, Omori T. Successful endoscopic submucosal dissection for mucosal cancer of the duodenum. Dig Endosc. 2010;22:49-52.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
13.  Okada K, Fujisaki J, Kasuga A, Omae M, Kubota M, Hirasawa T, Ishiyama A, Inamori M, Chino A, Yamamoto Y. Sporadic nonampullary duodenal adenoma in the natural history of duodenal cancer: a study of follow-up surveillance. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:357-364.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
14.  Dixon MF. Gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia: Vienna revisited. Gut. 2002;51:130-131.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
15.  Yoshimura N, Goda K, Tajiri H, Ikegami M, Nakayoshi T, Kaise M. Endoscopic features of nonampullary duodenal tumors with narrow-band imaging. Hepatogastroenterology. 2010;57:462-467.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
16.  Kikuchi D, Hoteya S, Iizuka T, Kimura R, Kaise M. Diagnostic algorithm of magnifying endoscopy with narrow band imaging for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors. Dig Endosc. 2014;26 Suppl 2:16-22.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
17.  Schlemper RJ, Kato Y, Stolte M. Diagnostic criteria for gastrointestinal carcinomas in Japan and Western countries: proposal for a new classification system of gastrointestinal epithelial neoplasia. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2000;15 Suppl:G49-G57.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
18.  Sellner F. Investigations on the significance of the adenoma-carcinoma sequence in the small bowel. Cancer. 1990;66:702-715.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
19.  Neugut AI, Santos J. The association between cancers of the small and large bowel. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1993;2:551-553.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
20.  Oka S, Tanaka S, Nagata S, Hiyama T, Ito M, Kitadai Y, Yoshihara M, Haruma K, Chayama K. Clinicopathologic features and endoscopic resection of early primary nonampullary duodenal carcinoma. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2003;37:381-386.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
21.  Pandolfi M, Martino M, Gabbrielli A. Endoscopic treatment of ampullary adenomas. JOP. 2008;9:1-8.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
22.  Offerhaus GJ, Entius MM, Giardiello FM. Upper gastrointestinal polyps in familial adenomatous polyposis. Hepatogastroenterology. 1999;46:667-669.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
23.  Culver EL, McIntyre AS. Sporadic duodenal polyps: classification, investigation, and management. Endoscopy. 2011;43:144-155.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
24.  Basford PJ, Bhandari P. Endoscopic management of nonampullary duodenal polyps. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2012;5:127-138.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
25.  Japanese Society for Cancer of the Colon and Rectum Japanese classification of colorectal carcinoma. 8th ed. Tokyo: Kanehara Shuppan 2013; 9-10.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
26.  Japanese Gastric Cancer Association Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma. 14th ed. Tokyo: Kanehara Shuppan 2010; 7-8.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
27.  Fujisawa T, Tomofuji Y, Kuroda N, Hagino H, Sakamoto N, Sakashita M, Maeda M, Kouno T, Matsuno Y. A case of early duodenal cancer with tubulo-villous adenoma: report of a case and clinicopathological review of Japanese literature (in Japanese). Gastroenterol Endosc. 1995;37:2768-2775.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
28.  Takahashi T, Ando T, Kabeshima Y, Kawakubo H, Shito M, Sugiura H, Omori T. Borderline cases between benignancy and malignancy of the duodenum diagnosed successfully by endoscopic submucosal dissection. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2009;44:1377-1383.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
29.  Nagatani K, Takekoshi T, Baba Y, Kaku S, Koizumi K, Fujii A, Ogata E, Ohta H, Nishi M, Kato Y. Indications for endoscopic treatment of early duodenal cancer based on cases reported in the literature (in Japanese). Endosc Digest. 1993;5:969-976.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
30.  Shimizu N, Tanaka S, Morikawa J, Yorioka S, Fukuda S, Yamashita S, Bamba M, Hattori T, Hosoda S. [Early duodenal cancer of the bulb--report of a case]. Gan No Rinsho. 1989;35:100-106.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
31.  Schulten MF, Oyasu R, Beal JM. Villous adenoma of the duodenum. A case report and review of the literature. Am J Surg. 1976;132:90-96.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
32.  Yamanaka T, Yamamichi N, Konishi F. Clinicopathological study of duodenal adenoma (in Japanese with an English abstract). Gastroenterol Endosc. 1987;29:3070-3079.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
33.  Tanaka K, Toyoda H, Inoue H, Hamada Y, Aoki M, Kosaka R, Takamura M, Imoto I. Depressed-type early duodenal carcinoma (carcinoma in situ) observed by enhanced magnification endoscopy. Endoscopy. 2007;39 Suppl 1:E125-E126.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
34.  Inatsuchi S, Maeda Y. Magnifying endoscopy with narrow band imaging for diagnosis of nonampullary duodenal adenomas and early cancers (in Japanese with an English abstract). Stomach and intestine. 2011;46:1604‒1617.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
35.  Yao K, Iwashita A, Tanabe H, Nishimata N, Nagahama T, Maki S, Takaki Y, Hirai F, Hisabe T, Nishimura T. White opaque substance within superficial elevated gastric neoplasia as visualized by magnification endoscopy with narrow-band imaging: a new optical sign for differentiating between adenoma and carcinoma. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:574-580.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
36.  Yao K, Iwashita A, Nambu M, Tanabe H, Nagahama T, Maki S, Ishikawa H, Matsui T, Enjoji M. Nature of white opaque substance in gastric epithelial neoplasia as visualized by magnifying endoscopy with narrow-band imaging. Dig Endosc. 2012;24:419-425.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
37.  Tanaka M, Usuda K, Okura Y, Fujimori T, Ito H, Nanasawa H, Orihara T, Iwamoto M, Makimoto S, Shinagawa K. Significance of magnifying endoscopy in diagnosis of duodenal elevated lesions (in Japanese with an English abstract). Stomach and intestine. 2003;38:1709-1720.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
38.  Gono K, Obi T, Yamaguchi M, Ohyama N, Machida H, Sano Y, Yoshida S, Hamamoto Y, Endo T. Appearance of enhanced tissue features in narrow-band endoscopic imaging. J Biomed Opt. 2004;9:568-577.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
39.  Nakanishi H, Doyama H, Takemura K, Yoshida N, Tsuji K, Takeda Y, Asahina Y, Kito Y, Ito R, Hayashi T. Detection of pharyngeal cancer in the overall population undergoing upper GI endoscopy by using narrow-band imaging: a single-center experience, 2009-2012. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79:558-564.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
40.  Yao K, Takaki Y, Matsui T, Iwashita A, Anagnostopoulos GK, Kaye P, Ragunath K. Clinical application of magnification endoscopy and narrow-band imaging in the upper gastrointestinal tract: new imaging techniques for detecting and characterizing gastrointestinal neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2008;18:415-33, vii-viii.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
41.  Yao K, Anagnostopoulos GK, Ragunath K. Magnifying endoscopy for diagnosing and delineating early gastric cancer. Endoscopy. 2009;41:462-467.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
42.  Ezoe Y, Muto M, Uedo N, Doyama H, Yao K, Oda I, Kaneko K, Kawahara Y, Yokoi C, Sugiura Y. Magnifying narrowband imaging is more accurate than conventional white-light imaging in diagnosis of gastric mucosal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2011;141:2017-2025.e3.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
43.  Miwa K, Doyama H, Ito R, Nakanishi H, Hirano K, Inagaki S, Tominaga K, Yoshida N, Takemura K, Yamada S. Can magnifying endoscopy with narrow band imaging be useful for low grade adenomas in preoperative biopsy specimens? Gastric Cancer. 2012;15:170-178.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
44.  Sano Y, Ikematsu H, Fu KI, Emura F, Katagiri A, Horimatsu T, Kaneko K, Soetikno R, Yoshida S. Meshed capillary vessels by use of narrow-band imaging for differential diagnosis of small colorectal polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:278-283.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
45.  Picasso M, Filiberti R, Blanchi S, Conio M. The role of chromoendoscopy in the surveillance of the duodenum of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Dig Dis Sci. 2007;52:1906-1909.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
46.  Kiesslich R, Mergener K, Naumann C, Hahn M, Jung M, Koehler HH, Nafe B, Kanzler S, Galle PR. Value of chromoendoscopy and magnification endoscopy in the evaluation of duodenal abnormalities: a prospective, randomized comparison. Endoscopy. 2003;35:559-563.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
47.  Tischendorf JJ, Wasmuth HE, Koch A, Hecker H, Trautwein C, Winograd R. Value of magnifying chromoendoscopy and narrow band imaging (NBI) in classifying colorectal polyps: a prospective controlled study. Endoscopy. 2007;39:1092-1096.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
48.  Kudo S, Tamura S, Nakajima T, Yamano H, Kusaka H, Watanabe H. Diagnosis of colorectal tumorous lesions by magnifying endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;44:8-14.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
49.  Kato S, Fujii T, Koba I, Sano Y, Fu KI, Parra-Blanco A, Tajiri H, Yoshida S, Rembacken B. Assessment of colorectal lesions using magnifying colonoscopy and mucosal dye spraying: can significant lesions be distinguished? Endoscopy. 2001;33:306-310.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
50.  Eisen GM, Kim CY, Fleischer DE, Kozarek RA, Carr-Locke DL, Li TC, Gostout CJ, Heller SJ, Montgomery EA, Al-Kawas FH. High-resolution chromoendoscopy for classifying colonic polyps: a multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;55:687-694.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
51.  Konishi K, Kaneko K, Kurahashi T, Yamamoto T, Kushima M, Kanda A, Tajiri H, Mitamura K. A comparison of magnifying and nonmagnifying colonoscopy for diagnosis of colorectal polyps: A prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:48-53.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
52.  Endo M, Matsumoto T, Sugai T. Diagnosis and treatment of duodenal tumors (in Japanese with an English abstract). Gastroenterol Endosc. 2014;56:3763-377.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
53.  Blackman E, Nash SV. Diagnosis of duodenal and ampullary epithelial neoplasms by endoscopic biopsy: a clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study. Hum Pathol. 1985;16:901-910.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
54.  Matsui K, Kitagawa M. Biopsy study of polyps in the duodenal bulb. Am J Gastroenterol. 1993;88:253-257.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
55.  Lépilliez V, Chemaly M, Ponchon T, Napoleon B, Saurin JC. Endoscopic resection of sporadic duodenal adenomas: an efficient technique with a substantial risk of delayed bleeding. Endoscopy. 2008;40:806-810.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
56.  Dekker E, Boparai KS, Poley JW, Mathus-Vliegen EM, Offerhaus GJ, Kuipers EJ, Fockens P, Dees J. High resolution endoscopy and the additional value of chromoendoscopy in the evaluation of duodenal adenomatosis in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Endoscopy. 2009;41:666-669.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
57.  Shahid MW, Buchner A, Gomez V, Krishna M, Woodward TA, Raimondo M, Wallace MB. Diagnostic accuracy of probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy and narrow band imaging in detection of dysplasia in duodenal polyps. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;46:382-389.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
58.  Lopez-Ceron M, van den Broek FJ, Mathus-Vliegen EM, Boparai KS, van Eeden S, Fockens P, Dekker E. The role of high-resolution endoscopy and narrow-band imaging in the evaluation of upper GI neoplasia in familial adenomatous polyposis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77:542-550.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
59.  Polglase AL, McLaren WJ, Skinner SA, Kiesslich R, Neurath MF, Delaney PM. A fluorescence confocal endomicroscope for in vivo microscopy of the upper- and the lower-GI tract. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62:686-695.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
60.  Meining A. Confocal endomicroscopy. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2009;19:629-635.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
61.  Pittayanon R, Imraporn B, Rerknimitr R, Kullavanijaya P. Advances in diagnostic endoscopy for duodenal, including ampullary, adenoma. Dig Endosc. 2014;26 Suppl 2:10-15.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
62.  Uedo N, Iishi H, Tatsuta M, Yamada T, Ogiyama H, Imanaka K, Sugimoto N, Higashino K, Ishihara R, Narahara H. A novel videoendoscopy system by using autofluorescence and reflectance imaging for diagnosis of esophagogastric cancers. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62:521-528.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
63.  Ryan D, Schapiro R, Warshaw A. Villous tumours of the duodenum. Ann Surg. 1986;103:301.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
64.  Kimmey MB, Martin RW, Haggitt RC, Wang KY, Franklin DW, Silverstein FE. Histologic correlates of gastrointestinal ultrasound images. Gastroenterology. 1989;96:433-441.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
65.  Tio TL, Sie LH, Verbeek PC, Dé Wit LT, Tytgat GN. Endosonography in diagnosing and staging duodenal villous adenoma. Gut. 1992;33:567-568.  [PubMed]  [DOI]
66.  Adler DG, Qureshi W, Davila R, Gan SI, Lichtenstein D, Rajan E, Shen B, Zuckerman MJ, Fanelli RD, Van Guilder T. The role of endoscopy in ampullary and duodenal adenomas. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006;64:849-854.  [PubMed]  [DOI]