Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jan;9(1):E4-E8.
doi: 10.1055/a-1300-1017. Epub 2021 Jan 1.

Endoscopic resection is more effective than biopsy or EUS to detect residual rectal neuroendocrine tumor

Affiliations

Endoscopic resection is more effective than biopsy or EUS to detect residual rectal neuroendocrine tumor

Matthew W Stier et al. Endosc Int Open. 2021 Jan.

Abstract

Background and study aims Rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are often discovered incidentally and may be misidentified as adenomatous polyps. This can result in a partial resection at the index procedure, and lesions are often referred for staging or evaluation for residual disease at the resection site. The aim of this study was to identify the ideal method to confirm complete excision of small rectal NETs. Patients and methods Data from patients with a previously resected rectal NET referred for follow-up endoscopy or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate analysis was performed on categorical data using the Chi-squared test. Results Forty-nine patients with rectal NETs were identified by pathology specimens. Of those, 39 underwent follow-up endoscopy or EUS and were included. Baseline characteristics included gender (71 % F, 29 % M), age (57.2 ± 13.4 yrs) lesion size (7.3 ± 4.2 mm) and location. The prior resection site was identified in 37/39 patients who underwent tissue sampling. Residual NET was found histologically in 14/37 lesions. All residual disease was found during salvage endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and 43 % had a normal-appearing scar. Every patient undergoing EUS had an unremarkable exam. Initial cold biopsy polypectomy ( P = 0.006), visible lesions ( P = 0.001) and EMR/ESD of the prior resection site ( P = 0.01) correlated with residual NET. Conclusions Localized rectal NETs may be incompletely removed with standard polypectomy. If an advanced resection is not performed initially, repeat endoscopy with salvage EMR or ESD of the scar should be considered. For small rectal NETs, biopsy may miss residual disease when there is no visible lesion and EUS appears to have no benefit.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flowchart.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Top left: Healthy-appearing scar after initial resection. Top right: Saline lift for EMR of the scar. Bottom left: EMR resection site. Bottom right: Histopathology showing residual carcinoid tissue.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Anthony L B, Strosberg J R, Klimstra D S et al.The NANETS Consensus Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastrointestinal Neuroendocrine Tumors (NETs): Well-Differentiated NETs of the Distal Colon and Rectum. Pancreas. 2010;39:767–774. - PubMed
    1. Caplin M, Sundin A, Nillson O et al.ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the management of patients with digestive neuroendocrine neoplasms: colorectal neuroendocrine neoplasms. Neuroendocrinology. 2012;95:88–97. - PubMed
    1. Chablaney S, Zator Z A, Kumta N A. Diagnosis and management of rectal neuroendocrine tumors. Clin Endosc. 2017;50:530–536. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dasari A, Shen C, Halperin D et al.Trends in the incidence, prevalence, and survival outcomes in patients with neuroendocrine tumors in the United States. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:1335–1342. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yao J C, Hassan M, Phan A et al.One hundred years after "carcinoid": epidemiology of and prognostic factors for neuroendocrine tumors in 35,825 cases in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3063–3072. - PubMed