Cap-assisted EMR for rectal neuroendocrine tumors: comparisons with conventional EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection (with videos)

Short-term outcomes of endoscopic resection for colorectal neuroendocrine tumors: Japanese multicenter prospective C-NET STUDY

OBJECTIVES

The incidence of colorectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) has increased with colorectal cancer screening programs and increased colonoscopies. The management of colorectal NETs has recently shifted from radical surgery to endoscopic resection. We aimed to evaluate the short-term outcomes of various methods of endoscopic resection for colorectal NETs.

METHODS

Among those registered in the C-NET STUDY, patients with colorectal NETs who underwent endoscopic treatment as the initial therapy were included. Short-term outcomes, such as the en bloc resection rate and R0 resection (en bloc resection with tumor-free margin) rate, were analyzed based on treatment modalities.

RESULTS

A total of 472 patients with 477 colorectal NETs received endoscopic treatment. Of these, 418 patients with 421 lesions who met the eligibility criteria were included in the analysis. The median age of the patients was 55 years, and 56.9% of them were men. The lower rectum was the most commonly affected site (88.6%), and lesions <10 mm accounted for 87% of the cases. Endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR-L, 56.5%) was the most common method, followed by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD, 31.4%) and endoscopic mucosal resection using a cap (EMR-C, 8.5%). R0 resection rates <10 mm were 95.5%, 94.8%, and 94.3% for ESMR-L, ESD, and EMR-C, respectively. All 16 (3.8%) patients who developed treatment-related complications could be treated conservatively. Overall, 23 (5.5%) patients had incomplete resection without independent clinicopathological risk factors.

CONCLUSION

ESMR-L, ESD, and EMR-C were equally effective and safe for colorectal NETs with a diameter <10 mm.

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.

Treatment strategy and post-treatment management of colorectal neuroendocrine tumor

Following the increase in colorectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), there is a consequent increase in the importance of their appropriate treatment and post-treatment management. It is widely accepted that colorectal NETs sized ≥20 mm and those with muscularis propria invasion are indicated for radical surgery, and those sized <10 mm without the invasion are indicated for local resection. No consensus has been reached regarding the treatment strategy for those sized 10-19 mm without the invasion. Endoscopic resection has become a primary option for the local resection of colorectal NETs. For rectal NETs sized <10 mm, modified endoscopic mucosal resection, such as endoscopic submucosal resection with ligation device and endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap-fitted panendoscope, seems favorable because of its ability to achieve a high R0 resection rate, safety, and convenience. Endoscopic submucosal dissection can also be helpful for these lesions; however, this procedure may be more effective for large lesions or those in the colon. Management following local resection of colorectal NETs is based on the pathological evaluation of factors associated with metastasis, including tumor size, invasion depth, tumor cell proliferative activity (NET grading), presence of lymphovascular invasion, and resection margins. There remain unclear issues in managing cases with NET grading ≥2, positive lymphovascular invasion, and positive resection margins following local resection. In particular, there is confusion regarding managing positive lymphovascular invasion because positivity has become remarkably high with the increased use of the immunohistochemical/special staining. Further evidence based on long-term clinical outcomes is required to address these issues.

Endoscopic mucosal resection using anchored snare Tip-in versus precut technique for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Small rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) can be treated with modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). However, an optimal EMR method remains to be established. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of Tip-in EMR versus precut EMR (EMR-P) for treating rectal NETs.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial enrolled patients with rectal NETs of < 10 mm in diameter. The patients were randomly assigned to EMR-P and Tip-in EMR groups in a 1:1 ratio. Primary outcome was margin-negative (R0) resection rate between the two methods, with a noninferiority margin of 10%.

RESULTS

Seventy-five NETs in 73 patients, including 64 eligible lesions (32 lesions in each, EMR-P and Tip-in EMR groups), were evaluated. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, R0 resection rates of the EMR-P and Tip-in EMR groups were 96.9% and 90.6%, respectively, which did not demonstrate non-inferiority (risk difference, -6.3 [95% confidence interval: -18.0 to 5.5]). Resection time in the EMR-P group was longer than that in the Tip-in EMR group (p < 0.001). One case of intraprocedural bleeding was reported in each group.

CONCLUSION

We did not demonstrate the non-inferiority of Tip-in EMR compared to EMR-P for treating small rectal NETs. However, the R0 resection rates for both techniques were high enough for clinical application.

Endoscopic treatments for rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (cEMR), EMR with a transparent cap, EMR using a ligation device (EMR-L), EMR after circumferential precutting (EMR-P), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) have been used for resecting rectal neuroendocrine tumors (r-NETs). However, there is no consensus regarding which is the best treatment. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of the aforementioned 5 techniques for resecting r-NETs by network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Ovid Medline, and Web of Science) were systematically searched to include relevant studies published from inception to September 1, 2023. The en bloc resection rate, histologic complete resection rate, positive lateral margin rate, positive vertical margin rate, adverse events rate, and procedure time were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies with a total of 2112 r-NETs were included, and the mean diameter of tumors was 6.24 mm. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that EMR-L and ESD had higher en bloc resection and histologic complete resection rates and lower positive vertical margin rate than those of cEMR in resecting r-NETs. Compared with ESD, EMR-L and EMR-P achieved similar resection rates and significantly shortened the procedure time without increasing adverse events. The network meta-analysis evaluated the surface under the cumulative ranking curves and revealed that EMR-L was the best modality for treating r-NETs considering the comprehensive results of the en bloc resection rate, histologic complete resection rate, positive lateral margin rate, positive vertical margin rate, adverse events rate, and procedure time.

CONCLUSION

EMR-L should be recommended as the first-line endoscopic treatment for small r-NETs.

Efficacy of endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device for small rectal neuroendocrine tumor: study protocol of a multicenter open-label randomized control trial (BANDIT trial)

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection is widely accepted as a local treatment for rectal neuroendocrine tumors sized ≤ 10 mm. However, there is no consensus on the best method for the endoscopic resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumors. As a simplified endoscopic procedure, endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR-L) indicates a histologically complete resection rate comparable to that of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). We hypothesized that ESMR-L than ESD would be preferred for rectal neuroendocrine tumors. Hence, this trial aimed to verify whether ESMR-L is non-inferior to ESD in terms of histologically complete resection rate.

METHODS

This is a prospective, open-label, multicenter, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial of two parallel groups, conducted at the Shizuoka Cancer Center and 31 other institutions in Japan. Patients with a lesion endoscopically diagnosed as a rectal neuroendocrine tumor ≤ 10 mm are eligible for inclusion. A total of 266 patients will be recruited and randomized to undergo either ESD or ESMR-L. The primary endpoint is the rate of en bloc resection with histologically tumor-free margins (R0 resection). Secondary endpoints include en bloc resection rate, procedure time, adverse events, hospitalization days, total devices and agents cost, adverse event rate between groups with and without resection site closure, outcomes between expert and non-expert endoscopists, and factors associated with R0 resection failure. The sample size is determined based on the assumption that the R0 resection rate will be 95.2% in the ESD group and 95.3% in the ESMR-L group, with a non-inferiority margin of 8%. With a one-sided significance level of 0.05 and a power of 80%, 226 participants are required. Assuming a dropout rate of 15%, 266 patients will be included in this study.

DISCUSSION

This is the first multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing ESD and ESMR-L for the R0 resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumors ≤ 10 mm. This will provide valuable information for standardizing endoscopic resection methods for rectal neuroendocrine tumors.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials, jRCTs042210124. Registered on Jan 6, 2022.

Clinical Value of Clip-and-Snare Assisted Endoscopic Submucosal Resection in Treatment of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors

Introduction

The aim of the study was to introduce a new endoscopic technology, clip-and-snare assisted endoscopic submucosal resection (CS-ESMR), for treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and then to investigate the therapeutic value of CS-ESMR.

Methods

In this retrospective study, 67 patients who underwent endoscopic treatment of rectal NETs from March 2017 to December 2021 were analyzed. According to the endoscopic resection methods (endoscopic mucosal resection [EMR], CS-ESMR, and endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD]), the cases were divided into CS-ESMR group (27 cases), ESD group (31 cases), and EMR group (9 cases). The pathological R0 resection rate and the incidence of adverse events (bleeding and perforation) were compared among the three groups.

Results

There was a significant difference about the pathological R0 resection between the CS-ESMR group and the EMR group and between the CS-ESMR group and the ESD group (both p < 0.05). Compared with ESD group, the procedure time, intraoperative bleeding, and the cost of CS-ESMR group are significantly decreased (p < 0.001, p < 0.05, p < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusion

CS-ESMR may be a safe and effective treatment for rectal NETs with a diameter of less than 10 mm, without muscularis propria invasion and metastasis.

Cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection as a salvage technique for challenging colorectal laterally spreading tumors

BACKGROUND

Cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-c) has emerged as a potential alternative to standard piecemeal wide-field EMR (WF-EMR) for the resection of laterally spreading tumors (LSTs). However, clear indications for this technique are still lacking. Our objective was to investigate the performance of salvage EMR-c after WF-EMR failure in the resection of large colorectal LSTs.

METHODS

The data of consecutive patients undergoing WF-EMR for large colorectal LSTs (2015-2021) were analyzed in this single-center, retrospective, observational study. In the event of a WF-EMR failure, the procedure was switched to EMR-c in the same session. The efficacy of the two techniques was evaluated in terms of complete endoscopic resection, R0 resection, and recurrence rate. Safety was also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, the data from 81 WF-EMRs were collected. Eighteen cases of WF-EMR failure were switched to EMR-c in the same session and complete endoscopic resection was achieved in 17/18 patients (94.4%). No statistically significant difference was observed between WF-EMR and salvage EMR-c in terms of macroscopic radicality (P = 0.40) and R0 resection (P = 0.12). However, recurrence was more common with EMR-c (44.4% vs. 23.5%; P = 0.05), as were adverse events, particularly intraprocedural bleeding (27.8% vs. 7.9%; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

EMR-c is an effective salvage technique for challenging colorectal LSTs following WF-EMR failure. Due to the elevated risk of adverse events associated with this procedure, careful patient selection, endoscopic expertise, and close follow-up are strongly recommended.

European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) 2023 guidance paper for colorectal neuroendocrine tumours

This ENETS guidance paper, developed by a multidisciplinary working group, provides an update on the previous colorectal guidance paper in a different format. Guided by key clinical questions practical advice on the diagnosis and management of neuroendocrine tumours (NET) of the caecum, colon, and rectum is provided. Although covered in one guidance paper colorectal NET comprises a heterogeneous group of neoplasms. The most common rectal NET are often small G1 tumours that can be treated by adequate endoscopic resection techniques. Evidence from prospective clinical trials on the treatment of metastatic colorectal NET is limited and discussion of patients in experienced multidisciplinary tumour boards strongly recommended. Neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC) and mixed neuroendocrine non-neuroendocrine neoplasms (MiNEN) are discussed in a separate guidance paper.

Rectal neuroendocrine tumours and the role of emerging endoscopic techniques

Rectal neuroendocrine tumours represent a rare colorectal tumour with a 10 fold increased prevalence due to incidental detection in the era of colorectal screening. Patient outcomes with early diagnosis are excellent. However endoscopic recognition of this lesion is variable and misdiagnosis can result in suboptimal endoscopic resection with subsequent uncertainty in relation to optimal long-term management. Endoscopic techniques have shown particular utility in managing this under-recognized neuroendocrine tumour.

Current status of the role of endoscopy in evaluation and management of gastrointestinal and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

The incidence of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) has increased over the last several decades. In general, NETs are slow-growing neoplasms and the data on the natural history is still evolving. The availability and improved utilization of advanced imaging modalities have allowed the selection of cases suitable for endotherapy. In this regard, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has emerged as a central imaging modality to assess the depth of infiltration in gastroduodenal as well as rectal NETs. Enhanced EUS modalities, including contrast-enhanced EUS and EUS elastography, reliably differentiate pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) from adenocarcinomas and may enable prediction of aggressive PNETs. With recent developments in therapeutic endoscopy, a large proportion of GEP-NETs can be safely managed endoscopically. Endoscopic resection techniques, including endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), allow the safe removal of gastroduodenal and rectal NETs. Recent data indicate that modified EMR techniques may be superior to conventional EMR with regard to histologically complete resection. Device-assisted endoscopic full thickness resection is emerging as a safe and effective technique for upper gastrointestinal as well as rectal NETs. In selected cases with PNETs, who are otherwise unfit for surgery, EUS-guided ablation is increasingly being recognized as a safe treatment option. This review focusses on evidence-based approaches to endoscopic evaluation and the management of GEP-NETs with special emphasis on recent advancements.

Comparison of endoscopic submucosal resection with ligation and endoscopic submucosal dissection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: A multicenter retrospective study

Objectives

Endoscopic submucosal resection with band ligation (ESMR‐L) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are both standard endoscopic resection methods for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) <10 mm in size. However, there is no definitive consensus on which is better. Here, we compared the efficacy of ESMR‐L and ESD for small rectal NETs.

Methods

This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study including 205 patients with rectal NETs who underwent ESMR‐L or ESD. Treatment outcomes were compared by univariate analysis, multivariate analysis, and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) using propensity scores. Subgroup analysis evaluated the impact of the endoscopist's experience on the technical outcome.

Results

Eighty‐nine patients were treated by ESMR‐L and 116 by ESD. The R0 resection rate was not significantly different between the two (90% vs. 92%, p = 0.73). The procedure time of ESMR‐L was significantly shorter than for ESD (17 min vs. 52 min, p < 0.01) and the hospitalization period was also significantly shorter (3 days vs. 5 days, p < 0.01). These results were confirmed by multivariate analysis and also after IPTW adjustment. The procedure time of ESD was significantly prolonged by a less‐experienced endoscopist (49 min vs. 70 min, p = 0.02), but that of ESMR‐L was not affected (17 min vs. 17 min, p = 0.27).

Conclusions

For small rectal NETs, both ESMR‐L and ESD showed similar high complete resection rates. However, considering the shorter procedure time and shorter hospitalization period, ESMR‐L is the more efficient treatment method, especially for less‐experienced endoscopists.

Endoscopic mucosal resection with double band ligation versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection remains an effective method for the treatment of small rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) (≤ 10 mm). Moreover, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with double band ligation (EMR-dB), a simplified modification of EMR with band ligation, is an alternative strategy to remove small rectal NETs.

AIM

To evaluate the feasibility and safety of EMR-dB for the treatment of small rectal NETs (≤ 10 mm).

METHODS

A total of 50 patients with small rectal NETs, without regional lymph node enlargement or distant metastasis confirmed by endoscopic ultrasound, computerized tomography scan, or magnetic resonance imaging, were enrolled in the study from March 2021 to June 2022. These patients were randomly assigned into the EMR-dB (n = 25) group or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) group (n = 25). The characteristics of the patients and tumors, procedure time, devices cost, complete resection rate, complications, and recurrence outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 25 patients (13 males, 12 females; age range 28-68 years old) in the EMR-dB group, and the ESD group contained 25 patients (15 males, 10 females; age range 25-70 years old). Both groups had similar lesion sizes (EMR-dB 4.53 ± 1.02 mm, ESD 5.140 ± 1.74 mm; P = 0.141) and resected lesion sizes(1.32 ± 0.52 cm vs 1.58 ± 0.84 cm; P = 0.269). Furthermore, the histological complete resection and en bloc resection rates were achieved in all patients (100% for each). In addition, there was no significant difference in the complication rate between the two groups. However, the procedure time was significantly shorter and the devices cost was significantly lower in the EMR-dB group. Besides, there was no recurrence in both groups during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

The procedure time of EMR-dB was shorter compared with ESD, and both approaches showed a similar curative effect. Taken together, EMR-dB was a feasible and safe option for the treatment of small rectal NETs.

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.

Multiple ligation-assisted endoscopic submucosal resection combined with endoscopic ultrasonography: a novel method to treat rectal neuroendocrine tumors

OBJECTIVE

The first choice of treatment for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (R-NETs) 10 mm in size is endoscopic resection, there is still controversy concerning the optimal endoscopic treatment for resecting R-NETs. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of multiple ligation-assisted endoscopic submucosal resection combined with endoscopic ultrasonography (EMR-MLUS) for R-NETs.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 62 patients with R-NETs ≤10 mm in size who underwent EMR-MLUS or ligation-assisted endoscopic submucosal resection combined with endoscopic ultrasonography (EMR-LUS) between May 2019 and April 2022, including tumor characteristics, endoscopic complete resection, pathological complete resection, the procedure time, adverse events, and follow-up were compared between the two groups of patients.

RESULTS

Of the 62 patients, 19 underwent EMR-MLUS and 43 underwent EMR-LUS. The endoscopic morphology of lesions was statistically different between group EMR-MLUS and group EMR-LUS ( P = 0.015), and most of them were flat and slightly raised lesions in group EMR-MLUS. Although the pathological complete resection rate was slightly higher in the EMR-MLUS group than in the EMR-LUS group (94.74% vs. 90.70%; P = 0.290), the endoscopic complete resection rate was high in both groups. Involvement of the lateral resection margin was found four cases in the ESMR-LUS group; one case of deep resection margin involvement in the EMR-MLUS group. The mean procedure time was longer in the EMR-MLUS group than in the EMR-LUS group (12.79 ± 1.01 min vs. 11.08 ± 1.89 min; P = 0.041). In group EMR-LUS, there were two cases of immediate bleeding; in group EMR-MLUS, one case of perforation, all of them were successfully treated by endoscopy. No recurrence, progression, or metastasis was found in all patients.

CONCLUSION

EMR-MLUS is a safe and effective technique that could be considered when removing small rectal NETs, especially flat and slightly raised lesions.

Modified Cap-Assisted Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for the Treatment of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors ≤10 mm: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial

INTRODUCTION

Although recent guidelines recommend endoscopic resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NET) ≤10 mm, there is no consensus on which endoscopic modality should be performed. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of modified cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (mEMR-C) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) methods for the treatment of rectal NET ≤10 mm.

METHODS

A randomized noninferiority trial comparing mEMR-C and ESD was conducted. The primary outcome was the histological complete resection rate; the secondary outcomes included en bloc resection rate, operation time, complications, and so on. Subgroup analyses and follow-up were also performed.

RESULTS

Ninety patients were enrolled, and 79 patients with pathologically confirmed rectal NET were finally analyzed, including 38 cases of mEMR-C and 41 cases of ESD. Histological complete resection rate was 97.4% in the mEMR-C group and 92.7% in the ESD group. The noninferiority of mEMR-C compared with that of ESD was confirmed because the absolute difference was 4.7% (2-sided 90% confidence interval, -3.3% to 12.2%; P = 0.616). En bloc resection and successful removal of rectal NET were achieved in all patients. Advantages of mEMR-C over ESD included shorter operation time (8.89 ± 4.58 vs 24.8 ± 9.14 minutes, P < 0.05) and lower hospitalization cost ($2,233.76 ± $717.70 vs $2,987.27 ± $871.81, P < 0.05). Postoperative complications were recorded in 4 patients who received mEMR-C and 2 patients in the ESD group (11.5% vs 4.9%, P = 0.509), which were all well managed using endoscopy. Similar findings were observed when subgroup analysis was performed.

DISCUSSION

mEMR-C is noninferior to ESD with a similar complete resection rate. In addition, mEMR-C had shorter procedure duration time and lower hospitalization costs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03982264.

Research trends on endoscopic mucosal resection: A bibliometric analysis from 1991 to 2021

Background

In recent years, the rapid development of digestive endoscopy technology has brought revolutionary changes to endoscopic therapy. A growing number of articles have been published annually. We aimed to explore global scientific outputs and hotspots of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) published by different countries, organizations, and authors.

Methods

We extracted relevant publications from the Web of Science Core Collection (WOSCC) on June 23, 2022. We examined the retrieved data by bibliometric analysis (e.g., cocited and cluster analysis, keyword co-occurrence) using the software CiteSpace and VOSviewer to analyze and predict the trends and hot spots in this field.

Results

A total of 2,695 papers were finally identified. The results showed that the number of articles fluctuated with the year and reached its peak in 2021. NATIONAL CANCER CENTER JAPAN was the most influential institution. MICHAEL J BOURKE and YUTAKA SAITO are two of the most prolific scholars. ENDOSCOPY and GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY were the most productive journals. “Early gastric cancer” and “Barrett's esophagus” were the focus of EMR research. “Adverse events”, “cold snare polypectomy” and “outcomes” have become increasingly popular in recent years and could become hot spots in the future.

Conclusion

In this study, we summarized the characteristics of the publications; identified the most influential countries, institutions, and journals; and identified the leading topics in the EMR field.

Diagnosis, treatment, and current concepts in the endoscopic management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) are rare tumors derived from the neuroendocrine cell system, which that have increased in incidence and prevalence in recent years. Despite improvements in radiological and metabolic imaging, endoscopy still plays a pivotal role in the number of GEP-NENs. Tumor detection, characterization, and staging are essential in management and treatment planning. Upper and lower gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is essential for correct localization of the primary tumor site of GI NENs. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has an important role in the imaging and tissue acquisition of pancreatic NENs and locoregional staging of GI neuroendocrine tumors. Correct staging and histological diagnosis have important prognostic implications. Endoscopic operating techniques allow the removal of small GI NENs in the early stage of mucosal or submucosal invasion of the intestinal wall. Preoperative EUS-guided techniques may help the surgeon locate small and deep tumors, thus avoiding formal pancreatic resections in favor of parenchymal-sparing surgery. Finally, locoregional ablative treatments have been proposed in recent studies with promising results in selected patients.

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

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.

Comparison between endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap and endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors

Background

The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap (EMR-c) with those of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (R-NETs) ≤ 15 mm in diameter, and to analyze the risk factors of incomplete resection.

Methods

A total of 122 patients who underwent EMR-c or ESD for R-NETs at the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University between February 2007 and December 2020 were invovled in this study. The clinical outcomes of two groups were compared and evaluated.

Results

A total of 122 patients with 128 R-NETs underwent endoscopic resection (EMR-c, 80; ESD, 48). In terms of duration of operation, EMR-c was significantly shorter than ESD (p < 0.001). Univariate analysis and multivariate analysis suggested that tumor diameter ≥ 8 mm was an independent risk factor for incomplete resection in patients with R-NETs in this study.

Conclusions

Both EMR-c and ESD were safe and effective treatments for R-NETs ≤ 15 mm in diameter. In addition, tumor diameter ≥ 8 mm was an independent risk factor for incomplete resection.

Spannungsfeld endoskopische Resektionsverfahren bei GEP-NET // Endoscopic resection for GEP-NET

Neuroendokrine Tumoren des Verdauungstraktes (GEP-NET) sind eine seltene Tumorentität, die häufig als Zufallsbefund diagnostiziert werden. Ein großer Teil dieser Zufallsdiagnosen wird im Rahmen einer endoskopischen Untersuchung gestellt. Während die vollständige Entfernung des Tumors im Sinne einer kurativen chirurgischen Resektion nach onkologischen Kriterien das Standardvorgehen für lokalisierte Tumorerkrankungen ist, kann bei kleinen Tumoren ohne Hinweis und Risiko für eine lymphogene Metastasierung eine endoskopische Abtragung in gleicher Intention erfolgen. Während dies für Magen-, Duodenum- und Rektum-NET der Standard ist, sollten NET des Jejunums und Ileums aufgrund der hohen Metastasierungsrate trotz geringer Tumorgröße regelhaft nicht endoskopisch angegangen werden. Die Grenze für eine endoskopische Resektion ergibt sich sowohl durch die technische Machbarkeit im Sinne des Erreichens einer R0-Resektion, der erwarteten Komplikationen im Sinne von Blutung und Perforationen als auch durch das vermutete Risiko für eine lymphogene Metastasierung. Generell wird eine endoskopische Resektion bei Befunden < 1 cm regelhaft empfohlen, da sowohl die gute technische Machbarkeit als auch das geringe Metastasierungsrisiko für eine endoskopische Resektion sprechen. Bei allen Befunden über 2 cm Größe sind sowohl die technischen Erfolgsaussichten so niedrig als auch das Metastasierungsrisiko so hoch, dass in dieser Situation regelhaft ein chirurgisches Vorgehen erfolgen sollte. Es bleibt somit ein Graubereich bei der Tumorgröße zwischen 1 und 2 cm, wo sowohl endoskopische, aber auch chirurgische Resektionsverfahren sinnvoll eingesetzt werden können. Zunehmend kommen auch gemeinsame Eingriffe im Sinne eines endoskopisch-laparoskopischen Rendezvous-Verfahrens zum Einsatz – insbesondere im Duodenum bieten sich diese Eingriffe an, um eine minimale Resektion mit größtmöglicher R0-Erfolgsrate und niedriger Perforationsrate zu erreichen.

Comparison of endoscopic full-thickness resection and cap-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection in the treatment of small (≤1.5 cm) gastric GI stromal tumors

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

With the increasing incidence of small GI stromal tumors (GISTs), endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) and cap-assisted EFTR (EFTR-C) have been suggested as 2 effective resection methods. We aimed to compare the outcomes of EFTR and EFTR-C for the treatment of small (≤1.5 cm) gastric GISTs.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 67 patients who underwent EFTR and 46 patients who underwent EFTR-C at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital. Clinicopathologic features, adverse events (AEs), and outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. Univariate and multivariate linear and logistic regressions were used to analyze the effects of the procedure on the therapeutic outcomes of patients and adjusted for covariates in the multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

The tumor size in the EFTR group tended to be larger (P = .005). The resection time in the EFTR-C group was shorter than that in the EFTR group (38.3 ± 20.7 minutes vs 15.0 ± 11.8 minutes, P < .001), which retained statistical significance with adjustment for the covariates (adjusted mean difference, 22.2; 95% confidence interval, 15.0-29.4; P < .001). The R0 resection rate of the EFTR group was 94.0% and of the EFTR-C group 97.8% (P = .355). The EFTR-C group was superior to the EFTR group in terms of perioperative therapeutic outcomes, AEs, and postoperative recovery. No recurrence occurred in the EFTR and EFTR-C groups.

CONCLUSIONS

EFTR-C was found to be the preferable technique for small (≤1.5 cm) gastric GISTs with shorter operation times, lower AEs, faster postoperative recovery, and shorter hospitalization times as compared with EFTR.

Therapeutic strategies for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: State-of-the-art and future perspectives

Although gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) have always been considered rare tumors, their incidence has risen over the past few decades. They represent a highly heterogeneous group of neoplasms with several prognostic factors, including disease stage, proliferative index (Ki67), and tumor differentiation. Most of these neoplasms express somatostatin receptors on the cell surface, a feature that has important implications in terms of prognosis, diagnosis, and therapy. Although International Guidelines propose algorithms aimed at guiding therapeutic strategies, GEP-NEN patients are still very different from one another, and the need for personalized treatment continues to increase. Radical surgery is always the best option when feasible; however, up to 80% of cases are metastatic upon diagnosis. Regarding medical treatments, as GEP-NENs are characterized by relatively long overall survival, multiple therapy lines are adopted during the lifetime of these patients, but the optimum sequence to be followed has never been clearly defined. Furthermore, although new molecular markers aimed at predicting the response to therapy, as well as prognostic scores, are currently being studied, their application is still far from being part of daily clinical practice. As they represent a complex disease, with therapeutic protocols that are not completely standardized, GEP-NENs require a multidisciplinary approach. This review will provide an overview of the available therapeutic options for GEP-NENs and attempts to clarify the possible approaches for the management of these patients and to discuss future perspectives in this field.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for rectal carcinoid tumor. A meta-analysis and meta-regression with single-arm analysis

OBJECTIVE

As there has been so far no consensus on the best endoscopic resection technique, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for treating rectal carcinoid tumors.

METHODS

MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for articles on the treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors using ESD vs EMR published up to October 2020 for outcomes including en bloc and complete resection, margin involvement, procedure time, requirement for additional surgery, bleeding, perforation and recurrence. Risk ratio and weighted mean differences were used for a DerSimonian and Laird random effects pairwise meta-analysis. Single-arm meta-analyses of proportions and random effects meta-regression analysis were also conducted.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies involving 1360 rectal carcinoid tumors were included, in which 655 and 705 rectal carcinoid tumors were resected with ESD and EMR, respectively. The resection efficacy of ESD was comparable to that of EMR for tumors <10 mm. However, there were a significantly higher complete resection rate, and lower rates of vertical margin involvement and requirement for additional surgery using ESD than using EMR for tumors ≤20 mm. ESD had a longer procedure time and an increased likelihood of bleeding than EMR.

CONCLUSIONS

ESD is more effective in providing a curative treatment for rectal carcinoid tumors ≤20 mm in size as ESD can achieve a higher complete resection rate with lower vertical margin involvement than EMR. While they are suitable for treating rectal carcinoid tumors <10 mm as both techniques provide similar efficacy.

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.

Indications and outcomes of endoscopic resection for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions: A narrative review

In the last years, endoscopic techniques gained a crucial role in the treatment of colorectal flat lesions. At the same time, the importance of a reliable assessment of such lesions to predict the malignancy and the depth of invasion of the colonic wall emerged. The current unsolved dilemma about the endoscopic excision techniques concerns the necessity of a reliable submucosal invasive cancer assessment system that can stratify the risk of the post-procedural need for surgery. Accordingly, this narrative literature review aims to compare the available diagnostic strategies in predicting malignancy and to give a guide about the best techniques to employ. We performed a literature search using electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). We collected all articles about endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) registering the outcomes. Moreover, we analyzed all meta-analyses comparing EMR vs ESD outcomes for colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions of any size, preoperatively estimated as non-invasive. Seven meta-analysis studies, mainly Eastern, were included in the analysis comparing 124 studies and overall 22954 patients who underwent EMR and ESD procedures. Of these, eighty-two were retrospective, twenty-four perspective, nine case-control, and six cohorts, while three were randomized clinical trials. A total of 18118 EMR and 10379 ESD were completed for a whole of 28497 colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions > 5-10 mm in size. In conclusion, it is crucial to enhance the preoperative diagnostic workup, especially in deciding the most suitable endoscopic method for radical resection of flat colorectal lesions at risk of underlying malignancy. Additionally, the ESD necessitates further improvement because of the excessively time-consuming as well as the intraprocedural technical hindrances and related complications. We found a higher rate of en bloc resections and R0 for ESD than EMR for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions. Nevertheless, despite the lower local recurrence rates, ESD had greater perforation rates and needed lengthier procedural times. The prevailing risk for additional surgery in ESD rather than EMR for complications or oncologic reasons is still uncertain.

UNDERWATER ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION FOR SMALL RECTAL NEUROENDOCRINE TUMORS

BACKGROUND

A common site of neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) is the rectum. The technique most often used is endoscopic mucosal resection with saline injection. However, deep margins are often difficult to obtain because submucosal invasion is common. Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection (UEMR) is a technique in which the bowel lumen is filled with water rather than air, precluding the need for submucosal lifting.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of UEMR for removing small rectal neuroendocrine tumors (rNETs).

METHODS

Retrospective study with patients who underwent UEMR in two centers. UEMR was performed using a standard colonoscope. No submucosal injection was performed. Board-certified pathologists conducted histopathologic assessment.

RESULTS

UEMR for small rNET was performed on 11 patients (nine female) with a mean age of 55.8 years and 11 lesions (mean size 7 mm, range 3-12 mm). There were 9 (81%) patients with G1 rNET and two patients with G2, and all tumors invaded the submucosa with only one restricted to the mucosa. None case showed vascular or perineural invasion. All lesions were removed en bloc. Nine (81%) resections had free margins. Two patients had deep margin involvement; one had negative biopsies via endoscopic surveillance, and the other was lost to follow-up. No perforations or delayed bleeding occurred.

CONCLUSION

UEMR appeared to be an effective and safe alternative for treatment of small rNETs without adverse events and with high en bloc and R0 resection rates. Further prospective studies are needed to compare available endoscopic interventions and to elucidate the most appropriate endoscopic technique for resection of rNETs.

Comparison of endoscopic therapies for rectal neuroendocrine tumors: endoscopic submucosal dissection with myectomy versus endoscopic submucosal dissection

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been a valuable treatment of choice for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). However, the vertical margin may remain positive after ESD because the neuroendocrine tumors develop in a submucosal tumor (SMT)-like way. Endoscopic submucosal dissection with myectomy (ESD-ME), a new method for rectal NETs, may overcome this problem.

METHODS

From August 2013 to August 2020, the medical records of 69 patients (72 rectal neuroendocrine tumors) who received endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or endoscopic submucosal dissection with myectomy (ESD-ME) for rectal NETs were investigated retrospectively. The characteristics of the patients and tumors, the rate of complete resection, and the rate of complications were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The ESD-ME group contained 27 patients (12 males, 15 females; age range 29-72 years) and the ESD group contained 42 patients (21 males, 21 females; age range 29-71 years). Both groups had similar mean rectal neuroendocrine tumor diameters (ESD-ME 6.1 ± 1.8 mm, ESD 6.7 ± 2.6 mm; P = 0.219). The procedure time was not different significantly between groups (ESD-ME 21.1 ± 6.3, ESD 19.3 ± 3.1; P = 0.115). The endoscopic complete resection rate did not differ significantly between the ESD-ME and ESD groups (100% for each). The histological complete resection rate was 100% (27 of 27) in the ESD-ME group and 81.0% (34 of 42) in the ESD group (P = 0.043). Delayed bleeding occurred in 1 ESD-ME patient (3.7%) and in 2 ESD patients (4.8%) (P = 1.000). Perforation occurred in 1 ESD-ME patient (3.7%) and the patient was successfully managed by conservative measure, and there was no perforation after ESD (P = 0.391).

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with ESD, ESD-ME resulted in a higher histological complete resection rate, had a similar complication rate, and took similar time to perform. ESD-ME can be considered an effective and safe resection method for rectal NETs < 16 mm in diameter without metastasis.

Anchoring the snare tip is a feasible endoscopic mucosal resection method for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors

Small rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) can be treated using cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-C), which requires additional effort to apply a dedicated cap and snare. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a simpler modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) technique, so-called anchored snare-tip EMR (ASEMR), for the treatment of small rectal NETs, comparing it with EMR-C. We retrospectively evaluated 45 ASEMR and 41 EMR-C procedures attempted on small suspected or established rectal NETs between July 2015 and May 2020. The mean (SD) lesion size was 5.4 (2.2) mm and 5.2 (1.7) mm in the ASEMR and EMR-C groups, respectively (p = 0.558). The en bloc resection rates of suspected or established rectal NETs were 95.6% (43/45) and 100%, respectively (p = 0.271). The rates of histologic complete resection of rectal NETs were 94.1% (32/34) and 88.2% (30/34), respectively (p = 0.673). The mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the ASEMR group than in the EMR-C group (3.12 [1.97] vs. 4.13 [1.59] min, p = 0.024). Delayed bleeding occurred in 6.7% (3/45) and 2.4% (1/41) of patients, respectively (p = 0.618). In conclusion, ASEMR was less time-consuming than EMR-C, and showed similar efficacy and safety profiles. ASEMR is a feasible treatment option for small rectal NETs.

An evaluation of resectability among endoscopic treatment methods for rectal neuroendocrine tumors <10 mm

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

With respect to rectal neuroendocrine tumor (NET) resection, it remains unclear which of the following methods is the most effective: conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (cEMR), EMR using a fitted cap (EMR-C), EMR with a ligation band device (EMR-L), or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Thus, in this study, we aim to retrospectively evaluate the most effective endoscopic resection for rectal NETs < 10 mm.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In total, 61 consecutive patients with primary rectal NETs < 10 mm in diameter were included in this study; they were then divided into three groups: those with cEMR; those with modified EMR (mEMR) involving EMR-C and EMR-L; and those with ESD. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the difference in the complete en bloc resection rate. The secondary endpoint was to investigate differences in procedure time and complications.

RESULTS

Among the three groups, a significant difference was found in procedure time (cEMR vs ESD, P < .01; mEMR vs ESD, P < .01), en bloc resection rate (cEMR vs mEMR, P = .015), tumor size (mEMR vs ESD, P < .01), percentage of tumor diameter ≥ 5 mm (mEMR vs ESD, P < .01), and complete en bloc resection rate (cEMR vs mEMR, P = .014). Meanwhile, no significant difference was noted in terms of complication rate among the three groups.

CONCLUSION

The mEMR was the most suitable resection method for rectal NETs < 10 mm with respect to the risks and benefits from procedure-related factors, such as complete en bloc resection rate, procedure time, and complication rate.

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.

The outcomes of modified endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors and the value of endoscopic morphology classification in endoscopic resection

BACKGROUND

To compare the outcomes of modified endoscopic mucosal resection (m-EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) and evaluate the value of endoscopic morphology classification in endoscopic resection (ER).

METHODS

Patients with rectal NET diameters less than 2 cm who were treated between April 2007 and January 2019 were enrolled. The endoscopic morphology of rectal NETs was classified based on the endoscopic views. Patients who underwent ESD and m-EMR were compared. Baseline characteristics as well as en bloc resection, complete resection, the procedure time, adverse events and the risk factors associated with incomplete resection were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 429 patients with 449 rectal NETs were enrolled for the classification of endoscopic morphology and were classified into four types (Ia, IIb, II, and III). There were 79 patients in the m-EMR group and 259 patients in the ESD group before matching. Propensity score matching created 77 pairs between the two groups that were well balanced. The mean procedure time was significantly shorter for m-EMR than for ESD (9.1 ± 4.4 min vs 16.0 ± 7.9 min, P = 0.000). The rates of en bloc resection (98.7% vs 100%; P = 1.000), complete resection (90.9% vs 93.5%, P = 0.548) and adverse events (2.6% vs 2.6%, P = 1.000) were similar between the two groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that histopathological grade and endoscopic morphology were associated with incomplete resection.

CONCLUSION

Both ESD and m-EMR are effective and safe for the treatment of rectal NETs. Endoscopic morphology should be considered along with histopathological grade for ER.

Comparison between cap-assisted and ligation-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors

Background:

Modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is considered a treatment option for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) <10 mm in diameter. In this study, we evaluated the clinical outcomes of cap-assisted EMR (EMR-C) and EMR with a ligating device (EMR-L).

Methods:

We retrospectively analyzed 158 patients with 162 rectal NETs treated endoscopically at a single Korean tertiary hospital between March 2010 and November 2017. We evaluated the rates of endoscopic en bloc resection, histologic complete resection, and procedural complications according to the treatment method.

Results:

Among 162 rectal NETs, 42 were treated with EMR-C and 120 with EMR-L. The endoscopic en bloc resection rate was higher in the EMR-L group than in the EMR-C group (100% vs. 92.9%, P=0.003). A trend was observed towards a superior histologic complete resection rate in the EMR-L group, but it was not statistically significant (92.5% vs. 83.3%, P=0.087). There were no significant differences in procedural complications (P=0.870). In a multivariate analysis, a tumor located ≥10 cm from the anal verge was related to histologic incomplete resection (P=0.039).

Conclusion:

EMR-L may be the preferable treatment method, considering both endoscopic en bloc resection rate and histologic complete resection rate.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection: an update on tools and accessories

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a minimally invasive therapeutic procedure to remove larger polyps or early non-metastatic lesions. It has long been used in Asia, but is now fast growing in popularity in the West. There are multiple challenges faced by ESD practitioners. While the practice of ESD in gastric lesions is relatively well established, the oesophagus with its narrow lumen and challenging workspace, and the colon with its tortuous course and folds are more challenging frontiers. The nature of performing a procedure endoscopically means that conventional methods offer no mechanism for providing counter-traction while performing dissection, impeding visibility and increasing the rate of complications. There are a multitude of tools available to those performing ESD for the different stages of the procedure. This article reviews the accessories currently used in regular ESD practice including the knives used to cut and dissect lesions, the cap and hood devices used to improve visibility and safety, injection fluids to lift the submucosal plane, haemostatic devices, generators, and finally, emerging traction apparatus. There is some evidence behind the use of these tools, however, ESD remains the domain of a small number of practitioners and the practice relies heavily on expert experience. Evolution of the ESD toolbox will make the procedure more accessible to more endoscopists, which in turn will drive the development of a more substantial evidence base to evaluate efficacy and safety of the multitude of tools.

Endoscopic mucosal resection with suction vs. endoscopic submucosal dissection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

There are no guidelines or consensus on the optimal treatment measures for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) at present. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) with suction and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the small rectal NETs.

METHODS

The literature searches were conducted using Pubmed and Embase databases, and then a meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcome was complete resection rate, and the secondary outcomes were complication rate, procedure time, and recurrence rate.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies with 823 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The overall complete resection rates in EMR with suction and ESD procedure were 93.65% (472/504) and 84.08% (243/289), respectively. The pooled analysis showed that EMR with suction could achieve a higher complete resection rate than ESD with significance (OR: 4.08, 95% CI: 2.42-6.88, p < .00001) when the outlier study was excluded, and procedure time was significantly shorter in the EMR with suction group than in the ESD group (SMD: -1.59, 95% CI: -2.27 to -0.90, p < .00001). Moreover, there was no significant difference in overall complication rate (OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.28-1.14, p = .11) and overall recurrence rate (OR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.11-5.07, I²=48%) between EMR with suction and ESD group.

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis mostly based on retrospective studies show that EMR with suction is superior to ESD for small rectal NETs (≤10 mm) with higher complete resection rate, shorter procedure time, and similar overall complication rate and recurrence.

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.

Local surgical excision versus endoscopic resection for rectal carcinoid: A meta-analysis

Purpose: To date, there is not enough evidence concerning the optimal treatment strategy for early rectal carcinoids, we conducted a meta-analysis in order to determine the feasible local treatment for these selected patients. Methods: We searched the studies from the PubMed, Cochrane database, Medline, Ovid, SpringerLink, PMC and Embase between January 2007 and April 2017. Studies of local surgical excision compared with endoscopic resection for rectal carcinoids less than 20mm without adverse features were included. Data were analyzed by using Stata SE 12.0. Results: Seven studies were included in this meta-analysis, with a total of 1056 patients. The data showed that local surgical excision was associated with higher complete resection rate than that of endoscopic resection (OR 5.837, 95%CI 2.048 to 16.632, P=0.001) but consuming longer procedural time (SMD 1.757, 95% CI 1.263 to 2.251, P=0.000). Additionally, incidences of recurrence and en bloc resection rate were comparable between two kinds of resections. The difference of post-operative complications remained unclear. Conclusions: For rectal carcinoids sized 20mm or smaller without adverse features, endoscopic resection might be an efficient treatment, which achieved a comparable oncological safety as local surgical excision.

Early Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Endoscopic Therapy and Surveillance

Neuroendocrine neoplasias (NEN) of the stomach, duodenum, pancreas, appendix, or rectum that are ≤1 cm in size as well as well-differentiated with World Health Organization grade 1 (G1) can be considered 'early' neuroendocrine tumors; they have a very good prognosis. Regarding prognosis, neuroendocrine tumors (NET) G1 must be distinguished from well-differentiated NET G2 and poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC) G3. NET are increasing, with a rise in the age-adjusted incidence in the USA by about 700% in the last 40 years. Earlier diagnosis of NET is one of the main epidemiological changes of clinically detected NEN. The general availability of high-resolution endoscopy and advanced radiological imaging techniques has contributed to a shift in the discovery to smaller-sized (≤10 mm) gastrointestinal and pancreatic NET and earlier tumor stages at diagnosis. Thus, screening colonoscopy is effective in the early diagnosis not only of colorectal adenomas and adenocarcinomas but also of rectal NET. Endoscopic resection is the treatment of choice in NET G1 of the stomach, duodenum (despite gastrinoma), and rectum that are ≤10 mm in size, do not infiltrate the muscularis propria (T1), and do not show angioinvasion (V0, L0). Similarly, histologically proven, early pancreatic NET G1 (≤10 mm) may be managed conservatively by regular surveillance. In contrast, small (≤1 cm) NET G1 of the jejunum or ileum are not 'early' tumors and have to be resected surgically with lymph node dissection.

Frequent Presence of Lymphovascular Invasion in Small Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors on Immunohistochemical Analysis

Rectal neuroendocrine tumors (RNETs) have become common in recent years and are good candidates for endoscopic resection (ER). To achieve clear resection margins, more advanced techniques such as endoscopic submucosal dissection, endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device, and cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection are available for ER. After ER, lymphovascular invasion (LVI) is regarded as an important predictor of nodal metastasis. Previous studies have shown that small RNETs with LVI were uncommon (0-8.3%). However, using immunohistochemical analysis, a recent study revealed the frequent occurrence of LVI in small RNETs in a systematic manner (46.7%). There is a possibility that the actual detection rate of LVI in small RNETs is not always evaluated accurately because of the limited detection sensitivity of conventional hematoxylin-eosin staining. In addition, the correlation between LVI detected using immunohistochemical analysis and the development of metastasis remains unclear. Further prospective studies are required to clarify the role of LVI detected using immunohistochemical analysis.

[Rectal neuroendocrine tumors: endoscopic therapy]

Clinically detected neuroendocrine neoplasms of the rectum have increased 10- to 30-fold in frequency over the past 45 years in Germany. Endoscopic ultrasonography is the method of choice for exact determination of the size of the tumor, depth of infiltration and detection of local lymph node metastases. Well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors ≤ 10.0 mm in size that do not infiltrate the muscularis propria can be endoscopically resected. In the case of lymphatic or blood vessel invasion or spread to lymph nodes, surgical lymph node dissection is indicated. The management of well-differentiated, neuroendocrine rectal tumors 10.1-20 mm in size is still a matter of debate. Old age and multimorbidity favor a conservative endoscopic approach; however, in the case of fit young patients, surgical management has to be considered. For neuroendocrine rectal neoplasms ≥ 20 mm in size, the risk of metastatic spread increases to 60-80 % indicating that an endoscopic resection is not adequate. Due to the introduction of screening colonoscopy, neuroendocrine rectal tumors are nowadays diagnosed mostly at a prognostically favorable early stage.