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 Sep 1;2(1):e35.
doi: 10.1002/deo2.35. eCollection 2022 Apr.

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors: Advantages of endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device compared to conventional EMR and ESD

Yuki Kamigaichi  1 , Ken Yamashita  1 , Shiro Oka  2 , Hirosato Tamari  2 , Yasutsugu Shimohara  2 , Tomoyuki Nishimura  2 , Katsuaki Inagaki  2 , Yuki Okamoto  2 , Hidenori Tanaka  1 , Ryo Yuge  1 , Yuji Urabe  3 , Koji Arihiro  4 , Shinji Tanaka  1
Affiliations

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors: Advantages of endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device compared to conventional EMR and ESD

Yuki Kamigaichi et al. DEN Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: There are some endoscopic resection (ER) methods for neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), however, which method is most useful remains unclear. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of different ER techniques, such as conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (cEMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), and endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR-L) for rectal NETs.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 96 consecutive patients with 102 rectal NETs of less than 10 mm in diameter who underwent ER between January 2001 and December 2019 at Hiroshima University Hospital. We compared the clinical outcomes of each ER method (cEMR 60 lesions, ESD 21 lesions, and ESMR-L 21 lesions), divided according to the treatment periods, and evaluated the risk factors for vertical margin (VM) positivity in relation to clinicopathological and endoscopic characteristics.

Results: As for the mean procedure time, ESD took significantly longer to perform than the other methods. The histological complete resection rate was 80% (48/60) for cEMR, 85.7% (18/21) for ESD, and 100% (21/21) for ESMR-L, and the VM positive rate was 20% (12/60) for cEMR, 14.3% (3/21) for ESD, and 0% (0/21) for ESMR-L, with no significant difference. However, the tumor-front-to-VM distance was significantly longer in the ESMR-L group than in the cEMR and ESD groups. cEMR and ESD were both significant risk factors for VM positivity. No perforation or local recurrence was observed in all methods.

Conclusions: ESMR-L is the most useful ER method for small rectal NETs.

Keywords: endoscopic mucosal resection; endoscopic submucosal dissection; endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device; rectal neuroendocrine tumor.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Patients enrolled in this study *Overlapped. Abbreviations: cEMR, conventional endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; ESMR‐L, endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device; NET, neuroendocrine tumor .
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Each endoscopic resection procedures for rectal neuroendocrine tumors Abbreviations: cEMR, conventional endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; ESMR‐L, endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    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: 1335–42. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ito T, Igarashi H, Nakamura K, et al. Epidemiological trends of pancreatic and gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors in Japan: A nationwide survey analysis. J Gastroenterol 2015; 50: 58–64. - PubMed
    1. Tanaka S, Saitoh Y, Matsuda T, et al. Evidence‐based clinical practice guidelines for management of colorectal polyps. J Gastroenterol 2021; 56: 323–35. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ramage JK, De Herder WW, Delle Fave G, et al. ENETS consensus guidelines update for colorectal neuroendocrine neoplasms. Neuroendocrinology 2016; 103: 139–43. - PubMed
    1. Bertani E, Ravizza D, Milione M, et al. Neuroendocrine neoplasms of rectum: A management update. Cancer Treat Rev 2018; 66: 45–55. - PubMed