The effectiveness of endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device for small rectal carcinoid tumors: focused on previously biopsied tumors. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2014;24:264-269. [PMID: 24710234 DOI: 10.1097/sle.0b013e3182901176]

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.

Assessing risk stratification in long-term outcomes of rectal neuroendocrine tumors following endoscopic resection: a multicenter retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

While endoscopic resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) has significantly increased, long-term data on risk factors for recurrence are still lacking. Our aim is to analyze the long-term outcomes of patients with rectal NETs after endoscopic resection through risk stratification.

METHODS

In this multicenter retrospective study, we included patients who underwent endoscopic resection of rectal NETs from 2009 to 2018 and were followed for ≥12 months at five university hospitals. We classified the patients into three risk groups according to the clinicopathological status of the rectal neuroendocrine tumors: low, indeterminate, and high. The high-risk group was defined if the tumors have any of the followings: size ≥ 10 mm, lymphovascular invasion, muscularis propria or deeper invasion, positive resection margins, or mitotic count ≥2/10.

RESULTS

A total of 346 patients were included, with 144 (41.6%), 121 (35.0%), and 81 (23.4%) classified into the low-, indeterminate-, and high-risk groups, respectively. Among the high-risk group, seven patients (8.6%) received salvage treatment 28 (27-67) days after the initial endoscopic resection, with no reported extracolonic recurrence. Throughout the follow-up period, 1.1% (4/346) of patients experienced extracolonic recurrences at 56.5 (54-73) months after the initial endoscopic resection. Three of these patients (75%) were in the high-risk group and did not undergo salvage treatment. The risk of extracolonic recurrence was significantly higher in the high-risk group compared to the other groups (p = 0.039).

CONCLUSION

Physicians should be concerned about the possibility of metastasis during long-term follow-up of high-risk patients and consider salvage treatment.

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.

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.

Current Endoscopic Resection Techniques for Gastrointestinal Lesions: Endoscopic Mucosal Resection, Submucosal Dissection, and Full-Thickness Resection

Background

Endoscopic resection of dysplastic lesions in early stages of cancer reduces mortality rates and is recommended by many national guidelines throughout the world. Snare polypectomy and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) are established techniques of polyp removal. The advantages of these methods are their relatively short procedure times and acceptable complication rates. The latter include delayed bleeding in 0.9% and a perforation risk of 0.4-1.3%, depending on the size and location of the resected lesion. EMR is a recent modification of endoscopic resection. A limited number of studies suggest that larger lesions can be removed en bloc with low complication rates and short procedure times. Novel techniques such as endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are used to enhance en bloc resection rates for larger, flat, or sessile lesions. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is employed for non-lifting lesions or those not easily amenable to resection. Procedures such as ESD or EFTR are emerging standards for lesions inaccessible to EMR techniques.

Summary

Endoscopic treatment is now regarded as first-line therapy for benign lesions.

Key Message

Endoscopic resection of dysplastic lesions or early stages of cancer is recommended. A plethora of different techniques can be used dependent on the lesions.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for small submucosal tumors of the rectum compared with endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for small rectal submucosal tumors (SMTs).

METHODS

Between August 2008 and March 2016, 39 patients were treated with endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR-L) (n = 21) or ESD (n = 18) for small rectal SMTs in this study. Twenty-five lesions were confirmed by histological evaluation of endoscopic biopsy prior to the procedure, and 14 lesions were not evaluated by endoscopic biopsy. The results for the ESMR-L group and the ESD group were retrospectively compared, including baseline characteristics and therapeutic outcomes.

RESULTS

The rate of en bloc resection was 100% in both groups. Although the rate of complete endoscopic resection was higher in the ESD group than in the ESMR-L group (100% vs 95.2%), there were no significant differences between the two groups (P = 0.462). In one patient in the ESMR-L group with a previously biopsied tumor, histological complete resection with a vertical margin involvement of carcinoid tumor could not be achieved, whereas there was no incomplete resection in the ESD group. The mean length of the procedure was significantly greater in the ESD group than in the ESMR-L group (14.7 ± 6.4 min vs 5.4 ± 1.7 min, P < 0.05). The mean period of the hospitalization was also significantly longer in the ESD group than in the ESMR-L group (3.7 ± 0.9 d vs 2.8 ± 1.5 d, P < 0.05). Postoperative bleeding was occurred in one patient in the ESMR-L group.

CONCLUSION

Both ESMR-L and ESD were effective for treatment of small rectal SMTs. ESMR-L was simpler to perform than ESD and took less time.

Evaluation and long-term outcomes of the different modalities used in colonic endoscopic mucosal resection

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) has been used in western countries to remove colonic polyps for at least the last two decades. Significant experience has been accumulated and the efficacy of the method has recently been evaluated in a large meta-analysis. A number of variations to modify the technique, including knife-assisted, cap-assisted, ligation devices, and underwater EMR, have been developed in an attempt to improve outcomes. However, to date there are only limited data comparing these techniques or demonstrating the superiority of any one of them. This article reviews the current evidence on the efficacy of each of these modified techniques.

Endoscopic treatments for rectal neuroendocrine tumors smaller than 16 mm: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), including conventional EMR (c-EMR) and modified EMR (m-EMR), was applied to remove small rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). We aim to evaluate treatment outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), m-EMR and c-EMR for rectal NETs <16 mm.

METHODS

The PubMed, Cochrane Library and Elsevier Science Direct were searched to identify eligible articles. After quality assessment and data extraction, meta-analysis was performed. The main outcomes were complete resection rate, overall complication rate, procedure time and local recurrence rate.

RESULTS

Compared with c-EMR, ESD could achieve higher complete resection rate (OR = 4.38, 95%CI: 2.43-7.91, p < 0.00001) without increasing overall complication rates (OR = 2.21, 95%CI: 0.56-8.70, p = 0.25). However, ESD was more time-consuming than c-EMR (MD = 6.72, 95%CI: 5.84-7.60, p < 0.00001). Compared with m-EMR, ESD did not differ from m-EMR in complete resection and overall complication rates (OR = 0.80, 95%CI: 0.51-1.27, p = 0.34; OR = 1.91, 95%CI: 0.75-4.86, p = 0.18, respectively). However, ESD was more time-consuming than m-EMR (MD = 12.21, 95%CI: 7.78-16.64, p < 0.00001). Compared with c-EMR, m-EMR could achieve higher complete resection rate (OR = 4.23, 95%CI: 2.39-7.50, p < 0.00001) without increasing overall complication rate (OR = 1.07, 95%CI: 0.35-3.32, p = 0.90). Moreover, m-EMR was not time-consuming than c-EMR (MD = 2.01, 95%CI: -0.37-4.40, p= 0.10). The local recurrence rate was 0.84% (9/1067) during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Both ESD and m-EMR have great advantages over c-EMR in complete resection rate without increasing safety concern while m-EMR shares similar outcomes with ESD for rectal NETs <16 mm. The results should be confirmed by well-designed, multicenter, randomized controlled trials with large samples and long-term follow-ups from more countries.