As one type of mucinous lesion of the colon and rectum, pseudoinvasion or pseudo-carcinomatous invasion represents prolapse of adenomatous glands into its stalk.1,6,7 It is known that most pseudoinvasion in adenomatous polyps occurs in pedunculated polyps located in the sigmoid colon.2,6,8 In 1973, the 'pseudoinvasion' was first term to describe these lesions.6 Pseudoinvasion in adenomatous polyps is commonly reported in the literature.2,9 Past studies employed histopathologic analysis of polyps retrieved from patients who underwent colonoscopic polypectomies. Although several reports identified cystic changes in the stalk of the colonic adenoma, the cyst size was small.2,8 Very large cyst confirmed by surgical operation like our case is rare.3
The most likely mechanisms that displace glands into the submucosa of the stalk are repeated twisting of the stalk, ischemia, or prior biopsy. These glands may become dilated with mucin, even rupturing into the stalk, mimicking an invasive carcinoma that can arise inside an adenoma.1,2,6
Distinguishing a colonic adenomatous polyp with pseudoinvasion into its stalk from invasive carcinoma arising within the adenomatous polyp is an important problem irrespective of lesion size, especially in light of current treatment modalities.1 Currently, there are no definite endoscopic or clinical methods to differentiate between the two lesions; diagnosis depends on pathologic findings.9 In pseudoinvasion, the displaced glands are cytologically similar to the overlying adenoma and are often admixed with nonadenomatous glands. The glands of pseudoinvasion are rounded, and are surrounded by a rim of normal lamina propria. In addition, desmoplastic responses are absent, and hemosiderin is usually present in the lamina propria. Finally, the adenomatous epithelium typically remains at the periphery of the mucinous pool instead of floating within it. These features are in contrast with those of an invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma.1,2,6-9
In spite of the many characteristics unique to pseudoinvasion, various pathologic methods are employed because it still remains difficult for clinician to differentiate between manifestations of peudoinvasion and microinvasive tumors.8,9
From the view point of recent development of endoscopic technology, EUS may be helpful to discriminate between pseudoinvasion and malignant submucosal invasion because it can elucidate cystic changes, which are prominent features of pseudoinvasion. Further research on this problem is called for and encouraged.
In conclusion, our case of a large pedunculated polyp exemplifies the difficulty inherent in distinguishing between pseudoinvasion and invasive carcinoma, even with endoscopic and morphologic examination. However, EUS has been shown to help in differentiating these manifestations. Accordingly, it is necessary for clinicians to be aware of pseudoinvasion in adenomatous polyps and to recognize its histopathologic characteristics. In order to confirm the practical usefulness of EUS, further studies are needed. Also, there is a real and current need for development of new endoscopic modalities, techniques and equipment to aid in distinguishing these lesions. The recognition and differentiation of these lesions may prevent unnecessary surgical treatment and false reports.