Prognosis of rectal neuroendocrine tumors after endoscopic resection: a single-center retrospective study

Zheng, Yue; Guo, Kehang; Zeng, Ruijie; Chen, Zhendao; Liu, Wanwei; Zhang, Xiaoguang; Liang, Weimin; Liu, Jianhua; Chen, Hao; Sha, Weihong

doi:10.21037/jgo-21-391

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Both EMR-C and EMR-L are useful for removing rectal NETs <10 mm in diameter. 42 , 43 In a recently published meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of EMR with suction and ESD for small rectal NETs, EMR with suction was superior to ESD for small rectal NETs (≤10 mm) with a higher complete resection rate (OR, 4.08; 95% CI, 2.42–6.88, p <0.00001), shorter procedure time (standard mean difference, –1.59, 95% CI, –2.27% to –0.90%, p <0.00001), and similar overall complication rate (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.28–1.14; p =0.11) and recurrence rate (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.11–5.07; I 2 , 48%). 47 In a study comparing ESD with EMR-L, EMR-L had a higher complete resection rate than ESD (95.5% vs. 75.0%, p =0.025).…”

Section: Which Methods Is Best?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data comparing different endoscopic methods used for the management of rectal NETs, including complete resection rates and complications, are presented in Table 3. 7,[27][28][29][30][31][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][44][45][46][47][48] Various factors should be considered to determine which method is better. Although a method with a high histologic complete resection rate is mandatory, the complication rate, status of the equipment in the hospital, proficiency of the therapeutic endoscopists and assistants, short procedure time, and length of hospital stay should be considered.…”

Section: Which Methods Is Best?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have reported the complete resection rate of ESD as 87.1% to 100%. 29,31,38,[40][41][42][43] Hybrid ESD is an effective and safe endoscopic resection technique for rectal NETs as an alternative to conventional ESD. Hybrid ESD involves a circumferential incision after submucosal injection similar to ESD.…”

Section: Endoscopic Submucosal Dissectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Endoscopic treatment for rectal neuroendocrine tumor: which method is better?

Hong

Baek

2022

Clin Endosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, research on rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) has increased during the last few decades. Rectal NETs measuring <10 mm without atypical features and confined to the submucosal layer have only 1% risk of metastasis, and the long-term survival probability of patients without metastasis at the time of diagnosis is approximately 100%. Therefore, the current guidelines suggest endoscopic resection of rectal NETs of <10 mm is regarded as a safe therapeutic option. However, there are currently no clear recommendations for technique selection for endoscopic resection. The choice of treatment modality for rectal NETs should be based on the lesion size, endoscopic characteristics, grade of differentiation, depth of vertical involvement, lymphovascular invasion, and risk of metastasis. Moreover, the complete resection rate, complications, and experience at the center should be considered. Modified endoscopic mucosal resection is the most suitable resection method for rectal NETs of <10 mm, because it is an effective and safe technique that is relatively simple and less time-consuming compared with endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endoscopic submucosal dissection should be considered when the tumor size is >10 mm, suctioning is not possible due to fibrosis in the lesion, or when the snaring for modified endoscopic mucosal resection does not work well.

show abstract

Section: Which Methods Is Best?mentioning

confidence: 99%