Efficacy and safety of hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors and risk factors associated with incomplete endoscopic resection

Outcome of Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors ≤ 10 mm

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Guidelines suggest endoscopic resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (rNETs) < 10 mm, but the most appropriate resection technique is unclear. In real-life clinical practice, the endoscopic removal of unrecognized rNETs can take place with "simple" techniques and without preliminary staging. The aim of the current study is to report our own experience at a referral center for both neuroendocrine neoplasms and endoscopy.

METHODS

Retrospective analyses of polypectomies were performed at the Humanitas Research Hospital for rNETs (already diagnosed or previously unrecognized).

RESULTS

A total of 19 patients were included, with a median lesion size of 5 mm (range 3-10 mm). Only five lesions were suspected as NETs before removal and underwent endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) before resection, being removed with advanced endoscopic techniques. Unsuspected rNETs were removed by cold polypectomy in eleven cases, EMR in two, and biopsy forceps in one. When described, the margins were negative in four cases, positive in four (R1), and indeterminate in one. The median follow-up was 40 months. A 10 mm polypoid lesion removed with cold snare polypectomy (G2 R1) needed subsequent surgery. Eighteen patients underwent EUS after a median time of 6.5 months from resection. The EUS identified local recurrence after 14 months in a 7 mm polypoid lesion removed with cold snare polypectomy (G1 R1); the lesion was treated with cap-assisted EMR. For all the other lesions, the follow-up was negative.

CONCLUSIONS

When rNETs are improperly removed without prior staging, caution must be exercised. The data from our cohort suggest that even if inappropriate resection had happened, patients may be safely managed with early EUS evaluation.

Risk factors for positive resection margins after endoscopic resection for gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND

In recent years, the incidence of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors (GI-NETs) has remarkably increased due to the widespread use of screening gastrointestinal endoscopy. Currently, the most common treatments are surgery and endoscopic resection. Compared to surgery, endoscopic resection possesses a higher risk of resection margin residues for the treatment of GI-NETs.

METHODS

A total of 315 patients who underwent surgery or endoscopic resection for GI-NETs were included. We analyzed their resection modality (surgery, ESD, EMR), margin status, Preoperative marking and Prognosis.

RESULTS

Among 315 patients included, 175 cases underwent endoscopic resection and 140 cases underwent surgical treatment. A total of 43 (43/175, 24.57%) and 10 (10/140, 7.14%) patients exhibited positive resection margins after endoscopic resection and surgery, respectively. Multivariate regression analysis suggested that no preoperative marking and endoscopic treatment methods were risk factors for resection margin residues. Among the patients with positive margin residues after endoscopic resection, 5 patients underwent the radical surgical resection and 1 patient underwent additional ESD resection. The remaining 37 patients had no recurrence during a median follow-up of 36 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with surgery, endoscopic therapy has a higher margin residual rate. During endoscopic resection, preoperative marking may reduce the rate of lateral margin residues, and endoscopic submucosal dissection may be preferred than endoscopic mucosal resection. Periodical follow-up may be an alternative method for patients with positive margin residues after endoscopic resection.

The Incidence of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors Is Increasing in Younger Adults in the US, 2001-2020

Prior non-comparative data showed increasing incidence of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (RNET) in the US. We aimed to evaluate age-specific RNET incidence rates and time-trends in demographic- and tumor-specific populations. The RNET age-adjusted incidence rates were calculated from the United States Cancer Statistics (USCS) database between 2001 and 2020. The population was stratified by age into older (≥55 years) and younger adults (<55 years), as well as by sex and race. The tumors were categorized by their stage at diagnosis into early and late. The annual percentage change (APC) and average APC (AAPC) were estimated using joinpoint regression and Monte Carlo permutation analysis. Pairwise comparison assessed for parallelism and coincidence. There were 59,846 patients diagnosed with RNET between 2001 and 2020 (50.3% women). Overall, the RNET incidence rates during this period were increasing in younger but not older adults (AAPC = 3.12 vs. -1.10; AAPC difference = 4.22, p < 0.001), with non-identical non-parallel data (p-values < 0.001). While similar results were seen in men, a greater age-specific difference was noted in women (AAPC = 3.31 vs. -1.10; AAPC difference = 4.41, p = 0.003). The difference between younger and older adults was seen in non-Hispanic White (AAPC-difference = 4.89; p < 0.001) and non-Hispanic Black (AAPC-difference = 3.33; p = 0.03) patients, and, in most years, among Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander patients, and it was mostly driven by early-stage tumors (AAPC-difference = 3.93; p < 0.001). The nationwide data show a significantly increasing RNET incidence in younger adults, most notably in younger women and in early-stage tumors, seen in various races. Future studies should evaluate RNET risk factors and outcomes in demographic-specific populations.

The meaning of R1 resection after endoscopic removal of gastric, duodenal and rectal neuroendocrine tumors

INTRODUCTION

Well-differentiated gastric, duodenal, and rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms (NETs) are rare diseases usually managed by endoscopic treatment. Although several endoscopic techniques are available, the number of patients with incomplete (R1) resection is significant.

AREAS COVERED

This review focuses on the meaning of incomplete R1 findings after endoscopic resection in type I gastric NETs; nonfunctioning, non-ampullary duodenal NETs; and small rectal NETs. Data were identified by MEDLINE database search without publication date limitation.

EXPERT OPINION

An incomplete R1 finding may have no significant impact on a patient's clinical outcome, particularly in small G1 type I gastric NETs, which have an indolent course. A 'stepwise approach,' which uses more advanced endoscopic techniques, or minimally invasive surgery may be justified to achieve complete margin-free resection. This approach must balance the tumor features and the procedure-related risk of complications, particularly in the duodenum, where the role of deep endoscopic resections is limited due to the thin duodenal wall. Gastric and rectal NETs that are incompletely removed after initial resection are more easily amenable to deep endoscopic techniques. However, this might not be necessary for patients with comorbidities, elderly, or both due to the uncertainty of how R1 finding impacts a patient's clinical outcome.

Clinicopathological characteristics of rectal multiple neuroendocrine neoplasms and literature review

BACKGROUND

There are only a few epidemiological reports available for reference. The clinicopathological features are not clear, so there is no consensus on treating rectal multiple neuroendocrine neoplasms. This study aims to summarize the clinicopathological characteristics and preliminarily discuss the clinical diagnosis and treatment of rectal multiple neuroendocrine neoplasms.

METHODS

This study retrospectively analyzed rectal neuroendocrine neoplasm patients diagnosed and treated at the Fourth Hospital of Hebei Medical University from February 2007 to May 2021. The clinicopathological characteristics of rectal multiple neuroendocrine neoplasms were summarized and analyzed in combination with 14 studies on rectal multiple neuroendocrine neoplasms.

RESULTS

The incidence of RM-NENs accounted for 3.8% of all R-NENs in this study. The number of tumors varied to some extent, the size of tumors was basically no more than 10 mm, and there were more G1 grade tumors. In the analysis of 46 cases with known lymph node metastasis, the difference in lymph node metastasis rate between the number of tumors < 8 and ≥ 8 was statistically significant (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of rectal multiple neuroendocrine neoplasms accounted for 3.8% of all rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms. For rectal multiple neuroendocrine neoplasms, the lymph node metastasis rate was higher when the number of tumors was ≥ 8. The influence of the number of tumors on lymph node metastasis should be considered in the selection of treatment.

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.

Optimising Outcomes and Surveillance Strategies of Rectal Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

Rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms are increasing in incidence, in part due to increased endoscopic procedures being performed for bowel cancer screening. Whilst most of these lesions are low-grade well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours, they can have a varied clinical behaviour. Frequently, these lesions are incorrectly characterised at endoscopy and, therefore, incompletely excised using standard polypectomy techniques. Furthermore, some cases are not fully staged prior to or post resection. In this article we discuss the endoscopic and surgical options available to improve the likelihood of achieving an R0 resection and the staging procedures that should be used in these NETs. We also review factors that may suggest a higher risk of nodal involvement or recurrence. This information may help determine whether endoscopic or surgical resection techniques should be considered. In cases of R1 resection we discuss the management options available and the long-term surveillance options and when these should be offered to patients.

Efficacy of Endoscopic Resection for Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors Smaller than 15 mm

BACKGROUND

Local resection, including endoscopic resection, is recommended for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) < 15 mm in patients without risk factors for metastasis, though the short- and long-term outcomes are unclear.

AIMS

This study investigates the efficacy of endoscopic resection for rectal NETs < 15 mm.

METHODS

The short- and long-term outcomes of patients with rectal NETs < 15 mm who underwent endoscopic resection and the outcomes of each endoscopic technique were analyzed. The tumors were stratified as < 10 mm (small-size group, SSG) and 10-14 mm (intermediate-size group, IMG).

RESULTS

Overall, 139 lesions (SSG, n = 118; IMG, n = 21) were analyzed. All tumors were classified as G1 (n = 135) or G2 (n = 4) according to the 2019 World Health Organization grading criteria. The complete resection rate was not different between the groups (P = 0.151). Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR-L) achieved complete resection rates > 90% in the SSG. The ESMR-L procedure time (P < 0.001) and hospitalized period (P < 0.001) were significantly shorter than those of ESD. ESD achieved a complete resection rate of 80.0% in the IMG. The tumor size did not affect the overall survival or rate of lymph node/distant metastases.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection is a feasible and effective treatment for patients with rectal NETs < 15 mm without the risk factors of metastasis. ESMR-L and ESD are optimal techniques for resecting tumors smaller than 10 mm and 10-14 mm, respectively.

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.

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.

Endoscopic techniques for diagnosis and treatment of gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: Where we are

BACKGROUND

The correct localization of the primary tumor site and a complete histological diagnosis represent the milestones for the proper management of gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs).

AIM

To analyze current evidence on the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis/treatment of GEP-NENs.

METHODS

An extensive bibliographical search was performed in PubMed to identify guidelines and primary literature (retrospective and prospective studies, systematic reviews, case series) published in the last 15 years, using both medical subject heading (MeSH) terms and free-language keywords: gastro-entero-pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms; endoscopy; ultrasound endoscopy; capsule endoscopy; double-balloon enteroscopy; diagnosis; therapy; staging.

RESULTS

In the diagnostic setting, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) represents the diagnostic gold standard for pancreatic NENs and the technique of choice for the locoregional staging of gastric, duodenal and rectal NENs. The diagnosis of small bowel NENs (sbNENs) has been improved with the advent of video capsule endoscopy and double-balloon enteroscopy, which allow for direct visualization of the entire small bowel; however, data regarding the efficacy/safety of these techniques in the detection of sbNENs are scanty and often inconclusive. From a therapeutic point of view, endoscopic removal is the treatment of choice for the majority of gastric NENs (type 1/2), for well-differentiated localized nonmetastatic duodenal NENs < 1 cm, confined to the submucosa layer and for < 10 mm, stage T1–T2, rectal NENs. EUS-guided pancreatic locoregional ablative treatments have been proposed in recent studies with promising results in order to control symptoms or reduce tumor burden in selected patients.

CONCLUSION

Standard axial endoscopy and EUS still play a pivotal role in several GEP-NENs. Advanced techniques for increasing the rate of R0 resection should be reserved for high-volume referral centers.

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.

Rectal neuroendocrine tumors: Current advances in management, treatment, and surveillance

Rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms (r-NENs) are considered among the most frequent digestive NENs, together with small bowel NENs. Their incidence has increased over the past few years, and this is probably due to the widespread use of endoscopic screening for colorectal cancer and the advanced endoscopic procedures available nowadays. According to the current European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) guidelines, well-differentiated r-NENs smaller than 10 mm should be endoscopically removed in view of their low risk of local and distant invasion. R-NENs larger than 20 mm are candidates for surgical resection because of their high risk of distant spreading and the involvement of the muscularis propria. There is an area of uncertainty regarding tumors between 10 and 20 mm, in which the metastatic risk is intermediate and the endoscopic treatment can be challenging. Once removed, the indications for surveillance are scarce and poorly codified by international guidelines, therefore in this paper, a possible algorithm is proposed.

Recurrence After Endoscopic Resection of Small Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Purpose

According to the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society consensus guidelines, rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) up to 10 mm in size and without poor prognostic factors could be safely removed with endoscopic resection, suggesting omitting surveillance colonoscopy after complete resection. However, the benefit of surveillance colonoscopy is still unknown. In this study, we aimed to report the outcomes after endoscopic resection of small rectal NETs using our surveillance protocol.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent endoscopic resection for rectal NETs sized up to 10 mm from January 2013 to December 2019 at our center. We excluded patients without surveillance colonoscopy and those lost to follow-up. We strictly performed surveillance colonoscopy 1 year after endoscopic resection, and every 2 to 3 years thereafter. The primary outcomes were tumor recurrence and occurrence of metachronous tumors during follow-up.

Results

Of the 54 patients who underwent endoscopic resection for rectal NETs during the study period, 46 were enrolled in this study. The complete resection rates by endoscopic mucosal resection, precutting endoscopic mucosal resection, and endoscopic submucosal dissection were 92.3% (12 of 13), 100% (21 of 21), and 100% (12 of 12), respectively. There was no local or distant recurrence during the median follow-up of 39 months. However, we found that 8.7% (4 of 46) of patients developed metachronous NETs. All metachronous lesions were treated with precutting endoscopic mucosal resection.

Conclusion

Surveillance colonoscopy is reasonable after endoscopic resection of small rectal NETs for timely detection and treatment of metachronous lesions. However, larger collaborative studies are needed to influence the guidelines.

Diagnosis and Management of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors (NETs)

Rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are rare, with an incidence of 0.17%, but they represent 12% to 27% of all NETs and 20% of gastrointestinal NETs. Although rectal NETs are uncommon tumors, their incidence has increased over the past few years, and this is probably due to the improvement in detection rates made by advanced endoscopic procedures. The biological behavior of rectal NETs may be different: factors predicting the risk of metastases have been identified, such as size and grade of differentiation. The tendency for metastatic diffusion generally depends on the tumor size, muscular and lymphovascular infiltration, and histopathological differentiation. According to the current European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) guidelines, tumors that are smaller than 10 mm and well differentiated are thought to have a low risk of lymphovascular invasion, and they should be completely removed endoscopically. Rectal NETs larger than 20 mm have a higher risk of involvement of muscularis propria and high metastatic risk and are candidates for surgical resection. There is controversy over rectal NETs of intermediate size, 10–19 mm, where the metastatic risk is considered to be 10–15%: assessment of tumors endoscopically and by endoanal ultrasound should guide treatment in these cases towards endoscopic, transanal, or surgical resection.

EMR/ESD: Techniques, Complications, and Evidence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss endoscopic resection techniques of early gastrointestinal malignancy. The review will focus on the indications and outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).

RECENT FINDINGS

EMR is indicated for upper GI lesions less than 20 mm provided they can be easily lifted and have a low risk of submucosal invasion (SMI). ESD should be considered for esophageal and gastric lesions that are bulky, show intramucosal carcinoma, or have a risk of superficial submucosal invasion. With regard to colonic polyps, EMR is acceptable for the removal of large colonic polyps using a piecemeal technique. ESD can be reserved for rectal neuroendocrine tumors, fibrotic polyps, or polyps harboring early malignancy. In selected cases, particularly in lesions less than 2 cm in size, EMR can be safe and effective. For larger lesions or lesions with submucosal invasion, ESD is effective and curative. Choosing the best approach can be tailored for each patient depending on lesion size, pathology, and availability of local expertise.