Feasibility of salvage endoscopic mucosal resection by using a cap for remnant rectal carcinoids after primary EMR

The role of endoscopic ultrasonography for diagnosis of residual rectal neuroendocrine tumor

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is useful for assessing the depth and regional lymph node involvement in rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). However, evidence regarding the effectiveness of EUS in identifying residual lesions in patients with incompletely resected NET is limited. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of EUS in identifying residual rectal NETs and the clinical outcomes of salvage endoscopic treatment.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who were transferred to Chosun University Hospital and received salvage treatment for incompletely resected rectal NETs between January 2012 and October 2021.

RESULTS

This study included 68 incompletely resected rectal NET, of which 59 were margin-positive and 9 were margin-indeterminate. EUS detection (odds ratio (OR), 8.44; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.18-41.35) and visual detection (OR, 7.00; 95% CI, 1.50-47.48) were associated with residual lesion in patients with incompletely resected NET. EUS detection of residual lesions showed a sensitivity of 94%, specificity of 71%, positive predictive value of 88%, negative predictive value of 83%, and accuracy of 87%. All patients underwent salvage treatment with band-ligation endoscopic mucosal resection (58.8%) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (41.2%). Residual NETs were diagnosed in 47 of 68 patients (69.1%), and no recurrence was noted during the follow-up period of 51.8 ± 22.9 months.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS is a more sensitive method than visual detection for evaluating residual rectal NETs. Salvage endoscopic treatment for incompletely resected NETs is safe and effective.

Endoscopic treatment and management of rectal neuroendocrine tumors less than 10 mm in diameter

Rectal neuroendocrine tumors (rNETs) measuring less than 10 mm in diameter are defined as small rNETs. Due to the low risk of distant invasion and metastasis, endoscopic treatments, including modified endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and other transanal surgical procedures, are effective. This review article proposes a follow-up plan according to the size and histopathology of the tumor after operation.

Rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms: what the radiologists should know

Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the rectum (R-NENs) are rare; however, their incidence has increased almost threefold in the last few decades. Imaging of R-NENs includes two primary categories: anatomic/morphologic imaging comprised of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and functional/molecular imaging comprising of planar scintigraphy, single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), and positron emission tomography (PET). The management depends on stage, dimension, atypical features, histological grade, and lymphovascular invasion (LVI). Low-risk local R-NENs can be resected endoscopically, and high-risk or locally advanced neoplasms can be treated with radical surgery and lymphadenectomy and/or chemoradiation. The review article focuses on imaging illustrations and discusses applications of different imaging modalities in diagnosing and managing R-NENs.

Neuroendocrine Tumors of the Gastrointestinal Tract: A Focused Review and Practical Approach for Gastroenterologists

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are rare tumors derived from the neuroendocrine cell system, and more commonly found in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Over the last decades, the incidence of GI-NETs has been steadily increasing, partly due to the expanding indications for endoscopy. Most patients with NETs are asymptomatic, and their NETs are noticed during screening examinations; thus, endoscopists are on the frontline of the diagnosis of GI-NETs. Since GI-NETs are less frequent than other malignancies, the natural history, diagnosis, and management of these tumors may not be fully understood. In this review, we aim to update the endoscopist on key clinical features and management of patients with gastric, duodenal, and rectal NETs.

Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for management of colorectal polyps

BACKGROUND

The Japanese Society of Gastroenterology (JSGE) published ''Daicho Polyp Shinryo Guideline 2014'' in Japanese and a part of this guideline was published in English as "Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for management of colorectal polyps" in the Journal of Gastroenterology in 2015. A revised version of the Japanese-language guideline was published in 2020, and here we introduce a part of the contents of revised version.

METHODS

The guideline committee discussed and drew up a series of clinical questions (CQs). Recommendation statements for the CQs were limited to items with multiple therapeutic options. Items with established conclusions that had 100% agreement with previous guidelines (background questions) and items with no (or old) evidence that are topics for future research (future research questions: FRQs) were given descriptions only. To address the CQs and FRQs, PubMed, ICHUSHI, and other sources were searched for relevant articles published in English from 1983 to October 2018 and articles published in Japanese from 1983 to November 2018. The Japan Medical Library Association was also commissioned to search for relevant materials. Manual searches were performed for questions with insufficient online references.

RESULTS

The professional committee created 18 CQs and statements concerning the current concept and diagnosis/treatment of various colorectal polyps, including their epidemiology, screening, pathophysiology, definition and classification, diagnosis, management, practical treatment, complications, and surveillance after treatment, and other colorectal lesions (submucosal tumors, nonneoplastic polyps, polyposis, hereditary tumors, ulcerative colitis-associated tumors/carcinomas).

CONCLUSIONS

After evaluation by the moderators, evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for management of colorectal polyps were proposed for 2020. This report addresses the therapeutic related CQs introduced when formulating these guidelines.

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

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.

Endoscopic, transanal, laparoscopic, and transabdominal management of rectal neuroendocrine tumors

Rectal neuroendocrine tumors (RNET) are rare tumors but their prevalence is constantly increasing due to a prolonged survival and rising incidence related to a growing number of colonoscopies and improved knowledge. Their main prognostic determinant is tumor stage. While most RNET are localized, their management should be tailored depending on the presence or absence of the factors predictive of lymph-node metastases including tumor size, endoscopic aspect, T stage, grade and lymphovascular invasion. Endoscopic ultrasonography is the most relevant technique for locoregional assessment. Low-risk RNET can be treated using advanced endoscopic resection techniques or transanal endoscopic microsurgery, in expert centers because they require technicity and experience. Conversely, radical surgery with lymphadenectomy should be proposed in the presence of any pejorative factor. The long-term evolution of RNET remains to be specified, and prospective studies should be conducted in order to determine the relevance of the current management strategies.

Endoscopic treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors

The rectum is one of the most frequent location where gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are found. With the increasingly widespread availability of colonoscopy screening, the detection rate of rectal NETs has markedly increased, most of which are localized lesions without regional invasion or distant metastasis. Therefore, endoscopic resection is acknowledged as a leading therapeutic approach. Endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and transanal endoscopic microsurgery are therapies that have been prevalently applied and technically improved in recent years, which assure increasing complete resection rate and good overall prognosis.

Neuroendocrine neoplasms of rectum: A management update

The estimated annual incidence of R-NENs is 1.04 per 100,000 persons although the real incidence may be underestimated, as not all R-NEN are systematically reported in registers. Also the prevalence has increased substantially, reflecting the rising incidence and indolent nature of R-NENs, showing the highest prevalence increase among all site of origin of NENs. The size of the tumor reveals the behavior of R-NENs where the risk for metastatic spread increases for lesions > 10 mm. Applying the WHO 2010 grading system to whole NENs originating in the gastroenteropancreatic system, R-NENs are classified as Well-Differentiated Neuroendocrine Tumors (WD-NET), which contain NET G1 and NET G2, and Poorly-Differentiated Carcinomas (PD-NEC) enclosing only G3 neoplasms for which the term carcinoma is applied. The treatment is endoscopic resection in most cases: conventional polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for smaller lesions or endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR-L), cap-assisted EMR (EMR-C) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). However it is important to know when the endoscopic treatment is not enough, and surgical treatment is indicated, or when the latter could be unnecessary. For PD-NECs, it has recently been demonstrated that chemoradiotherapy is associated with a similar long-term survival to that obtained with surgery. As well, new targeted-agents chemotherapy may be indicated for metastatic WD-NETs.

Comparison of endoscopic therapies for rectal carcinoid tumors: Endoscopic mucosal resection with circumferential incision versus endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Although various endoscopic resection techniques have been established for rectal carcinoid tumors, there remains controversy regarding the best endoscopic treatment modality for these tumors. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the therapeutic efficacy and safety of EMR with circumferential incision (EMR-CI) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for endoscopic resection of rectal carcinoid tumors.

METHODS

From March 2012 to June 2016, 66 rectal carcinoid tumors in 66 patients were resected by using EMR-CI (n=30) or ESD (n=36). The rates of both en bloc resection and complete resection, procedure time, procedure-related complications, and local or metastatic recurrence were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The en bloc resection rate was 96.7% (29/30) and 100% (36/36) for EMR-CI and ESD groups, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.455). The complete resection rate of the ESD group was 97.2% (35/36) and significantly higher than 76.7% (23/30) of the EMR-CI group (P=0.030). The mean procedure time of the ESD group was 20.44±6.64minutes, which was significantly longer than that of the EMR-CI group at 8.47±3.40minutes (P<0.001). The complication rates for ESD and EMR-CI did not differ significantly (0% for EMR-CI vs. 2.8% for ESD, P=1.000). No local or metastatic recurrence was found in either group during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

This study suggested that ESD may be a safe, effective, and feasible endoscopic technique for removing rectal carcinoid tumors. ESD showed a similar safety profile and superior efficacy to EMR-CI.

Diagnosis and Management of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors

The incidence of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) has increased by almost ten-fold over the past 30 years. There has been a heightened awareness of the malignant potential of rectal NETs. Fortunately, many rectal NETs are discovered at earlier stages due to colon cancer screening programs. Endoscopic ultrasound is useful in assessing both residual tumor burden after retrospective diagnosis and tumor characteristics to help guide subsequent management. Current guidelines suggest endoscopic resection of rectal NETs ≤10 mm as a safe therapeutic option given their low risk of metastasis. Although a number of endoscopic interventions exist, the best technique for resection has not been identified. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has high complete and en-bloc resection rates, but also an increased risk of complications including perforation. In addition, ESD is only performed at tertiary centers by experienced advanced endoscopists. Endoscopic mucosal resection has been shown to have variable complete resection rates, but modifications to the technique such as the addition of band ligation have improved outcomes. Prospective studies are needed to further compare the available endoscopic interventions, and to elucidate the most appropriate course of management of rectal NETs.

Evolving role of the endoscopist in management of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are uncommon gastrointestinal neoplasms but have been increasingly recognized over the past few decades. Luminal NETs originate from the submucosa of the gastrointestinal tract and careful endoscopic exam is a key for accurate diagnosis. Despite their reputation as indolent tumors with a good prognosis, some NETs may have aggressive features with associated poor long-term survival. Management of NETs requires full understanding of tumor size, depth of invasion, local lymphadenopathy status, and location within the gastrointestinal tract. Staging with endoscopic ultrasound or cross-sectional imaging is important for determining whether endoscopic treatment is feasible. In general, small superficial NETs can be managed by endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). In contrast, NETs larger than 2 cm are almost universally treated with surgical resection with lymphadenectomy. For those tumors between 11-20 mm in size, careful evaluation can identify which NETs may be managed with endoscopic resection. The increasing adoption of ESD may improve the results of endoscopic resection for luminal NETs. However, enthusiasm for endoscopic resection must be tempered with respect for the more definitive curative results afforded by surgical treatment with more advanced lesions.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery as optimal option in treatment of rare rectal lesions: A single centre experience

AIM

To analyze the outcomes of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) in the treatment of rare rectal condition like mesenchymal tumors, condylomas, endometriosis and melanoma.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a twenty-three years database. Fifty-two patients were enrolled in this study. The lesions were considered suitable for TEM if they were within 20 cm from the anus. All of them underwent an accurate preoperative workup consisting in clinical examination, total colonoscopy with biopsies, endoscopic ultrasonography, and pelvic computerized tomography or pelvic magnetic resonance imaging. Operative time, intraoperative complications, rate of conversion, tumor size, postoperative morbidity, mortality, the length of hospital stay, local and distant recurrence were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the 1328 patients treated by TEM in our department, the 52 patients with rectal abnormalities other than adenoma or adenocarcinoma represented 4.4%. There were 30 males (57.7%) and 22 females (42.3%). Mean age was 55 years (median = 60, range = 24-78). This series included 14 (26.9%) gastrointestinal stromal tumors, 21 neuroendocrine tumors (40.4%), 1 ganglioneuroma (1.9%), 2 solitary ulcers in the rectum (3.8%), 6 cases of rectal endometriosis (11.5%), 6 cases of rectal condylomatosis (11.5%) and 2 rectal melanomas (3.8%). Mean lesion diameter was 2.7 cm (median: 4, range: 0.4-8). Mean distance from the anal verge was 9.5 cm (median: 10, range: 4-15). One patient operated for rectal melanoma developed distant metastases and died two years after the operation. We experienced 2 local recurrences (3.8%) with an overall survival equal to 97.6% (95%CI: 95%-99%) at the end of follow-up and a disease free survival of 98% (95%CI: 96%-99%).

CONCLUSION

We could conclude that TEM is an important therapeutical option for rectal rare conditions.

Review article: the investigation and management of rectal neuroendocrine tumours

BACKGROUND

Rectal neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are increasingly identified at endoscopy possibly as a result of bowel cancer screening programmes.

AIM

To present a review of the literature to aid clinicians in the diagnosis and management of rectal neuroendocrine tumours.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted through MEDLINE using search terms: rectal, rectum, carcinoid, NET, therapy, endoscopy, mucosal resection, submucosal dissection. Relevant articles were identified through manual review with reference lists reviewed for additional articles.

RESULTS

The incidence of rectal neuroendocrine tumours is approximately 1 per 100 000 population per year with the majority (80-90%) being <1 cm and localised to the submucosa. Metastatic disease is infrequent (<20%) with risk factors including size, atypical appearance, grade and depth of invasion. The primary resection modality influences complete resection rates and the need for secondary therapy. A thorough pre-resection diagnostic work up is required for lesions that are at higher risk of invasion and metastasis. Device-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection are used to resect localised rectal neuroendocrine tumours <2 cm. Transanal surgery is also used to resect localised 1-2 cm rectal neuroendocrine tumours. Oncological surgical resection is used for rectal neuroendocrine tumours that are >2 cm or with invasion and regional disease. The treatment of advanced disease is multimodal.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term tumour biology of small rectal neuroendocrine tumours remains unclear. There is uncertain impact from bowel cancer screening programmes on rectal neuroendocrine tumour incidence, morbidity and mortality. Referral to neuroendocrine tumour centres for patients with locally advanced disease or metastatic disease is recommended.

Neuroendocrine Rectal Tumors: Main Features and Management

The incidence of neuroendocrine tumors of the rectum has been increasing in the last decades, partly due to improved investigation. They are mostly well-differentiated small tumors with a rather good overall prognosis. In the last few years, some aspects of neuroendocrine tumors have been evolving. In 2010, the World Health Organization proposed a new classification, indicating that these tumors, as a category, should be considered malignant. Afterwards the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society published their guidelines for the management of colorectal neoplasms. Treatment algorithm is mainly based on tumor size and grading and, in general, well-differentiated rectal tumors <2 cm can be endoscopically resected. Endorectal ultrasound plays a particularly important role by accurately assessing tumor size and depth of invasion prior to resection. There are no specific recommendations on the optimal endoscopic resection method, but data from recent studies suggests that modified endoscopic mucosal resection techniques and endoscopic submucosal dissection have superior complete resection rates.

Which endoscopic treatment is the best for small rectal carcinoid tumors?

The incidence of rectal carcinoids is rising because of the widespread use of screening colonoscopy. Rectal carcinoids detected incidentally are usually in earlier stages at diagnosis. Rectal carcinoids estimated endoscopically as < 10 mm in diameter without atypical features and confined to the submucosal layer can be removed endoscopically. Here, we review the efficacy and safety of various endoscopic treatments for small rectal carcinoid tumors, including conventional polypectomy, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), cap-assisted EMR (or aspiration lumpectomy), endoscopic submucosal resection with ligating device, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and transanal endoscopic microsurgery. It is necessary to carefully choose an effective and safe primary resection method for complete histological resection.

Tips and tricks for better endoscopic treatment of colorectal tumors: usefulness of cap and band in colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an endoscopic alternative to surgical resection of mucosal and submucosal neoplastic lesions. Prior to the development of knives, EMR could be performed with accessories to elevate the lesion. After the development of various knives, en bloc resection was possible without other accessories. So, recently, simple snaring without suction or endoscopic submucosal dissection using knife in the epithelial lesions such as adenoma or early mucosal cancer has been performed. However, for easy and complete resection of subepithelial lesions such as carcinoid tumor, a few accessories are needed. Complete resection of rectal carcinoid tumors is difficult to achieve with conventional endoscopic resection techniques because these tumors often extend into the submucosa. The rate of positive resection margin for tumor is lower in the group of EMR using a cap (EMR-C) or EMR with a ligation device (EMR-L) than conventional EMR group. EMR-C and EMR-L (or endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device) may be a superior method to conventional EMR for removing small rectal carcinoid tumors.

Efficacy of cap-assisted endoscopy for routine examining the ampulla of Vater

AIM: To determine the efficacy of a cap-assisted endoscopy (CAE) to completely visualize the ampulla of Vater (AV) in patients failed by conventional endoscopy.

METHODS: A prospective study was conducted on 120 patients > 20 years of ages who visited the Health Promotion Center of Chungbuk National University Hospital for conscious sedation esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) as a screening test from July to October, 2011. First, forward-viewing endoscopy was performed with reasonable effort using a push and pull method. We considered complete visualization of the AV when we could observe the entire AV including the orifice clearly, and reported the observation as complete or incomplete (partial or not found at all). Second, in cases of complete failure of the observation, an additional AV examination was conducted by attaching a short cap (D-201-10704, Olympus Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan) to the tip of a forward-viewing endoscope. Third, if the second method failed, we replaced the short cap with a long cap (MH-593, Olympus Medical Systems) and performed a re-examination of the AV.

RESULTS: Conventional endoscopy achieved complete visualization of the AV in 97 of the 120 patients (80.8%) but was not achieved in 23 patients (19.2%). Age (mean ± SD) and gender [male (%)] were not significantly different between the complete observation and the incomplete observation groups. Additional short CAE was performed in patients in whom we could not completely visualize the AV. This group included 13 patients (10.9%) with partial observation of the AV and 10 (8.3%) in which the AV was not found. Short CAE permitted a complete observation of the AV in 21 of the 23 patients (91.3%). Patients in whom visualization of the AV failed with short CAE had satisfactory outcomes by replacing the short cap with a long cap. The additional time for CAE took an average of 141 ± 88 s. There were no complications and no significant mucosal trauma.

CONCLUSION: CAE is safe to use as a salvage method to achieve complete visualization of the AV when a regular EGD examination fails.

Clinical and prognostic features of rectal neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND

Rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are among the most common NETs. The aim was to validate European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS)/North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (NANETS) staging and grading systems with regard to clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A comprehensive database was constructed from existing databases of the Mount Sinai Division of Gastrointestinal Pathology and the Carcinoid Cancer Foundation. Analysis was performed on 141 patients identified with rectal NETs seen at Mount Sinai Hospital between 1972 and 2011.

RESULTS

The median age was 52.7 years; 43% were males. Average tumor size was 0.88 cm. NETs <1 cm accounted for 75.6% of the tumors. Stage I, II, III and IV accounted for 79.4, 2.8, 5.0 and 12.8% of the tumors, respectively. G1 tumors accounted for 88.1%, G2 8.3% and G3 3.6%. Of G1 tumors, 94.6% were stage I and 5.4% were stage IV. The median survival time for all 141 patients was 6.8 years (range, 0.8-34.7 years). The overall 5-year survival rate was 84.4%. The 5-year survival rates for patients in stages I-IV were 92.7, 75.0, 42.9 and 33.2%, respectively. The 5-year survival rates for patients with G1-G3 tumors were 87.7, 47.6 and 33.3%, respectively. Univariate analysis of increased survival showed significance for lower stage, lower grade, smaller size, absence of symptoms and endoscopically treated tumors. Multivariate analysis showed that stage alone was statistically significant as the strongest predictor of survival.

CONCLUSION

The results of our study validated ENETS/NANETS guidelines for staging and grading of rectal NETs in the US setting of a tertiary referral center. Staging according to ENETS/NANETS guidelines should be used in the treatment algorithm rather than size alone.