Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection therapies for rectal carcinoid tumors: a meta-analysis

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.

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.

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.

Classification and Locoregional Treatment of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors

A 43-year-old male presented to his primary care physician's office with a complaint of painless rectal bleeding with a concomitant weight loss of 10-15 pounds and intermittent abdominal pain. Endoscopic evaluation was remarkable for a 5 mm rectal polyp roughly 10 cm from the anal verge. Resection was performed and the pathology was consistent with a low-grade neuroendocrine/carcinoid tumor. Immunostaining for synaptophysin, chromogranin, CD56, and CAM5.2 were positive while staining for CK20 was negative. Given the absence of metastasis on radiographic and endoscopic evaluation, the patient was managed conservatively thereafter with observation. Despite having an indolent clinical course, resection is recommended for all rectal neuroendocrine tumors. Locoregional endoscopic resection versus radical resection can be used for adequate tissue removal depending on the characteristics of the tumor and the degree of invasion.

Clinical outcomes and risk factors associated with poor prognosis after endoscopic resection of 10-20 mm rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a multicenter, retrospective study of 10-year experience

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of endoscopic resection for of 10-20 mm rectal neuroendocrine tumor (NET) remains controversial. We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes and risk factors associated with poor prognosis after endoscopic resection of 10-20 mm rectal NET and to determine the optimal treatment.

METHODS

Patients who underwent endoscopic resection for rectal NET in four tertiary hospitals were enrolled, and data on with the clinical outcomes and risk factors related to poor prognosis were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 105 patients who underwent endoscopic submucosal resection (ESD; n = 65, 61.9%), modified endoscopic mucosal resection (mEMR; n = 31, 29.5%), and conventional EMR (cEMR; n = 9, 8.6%) were enrolled. The mean follow-up period was 41.2 ± 21.9 months. In the morphologic findings, the mean diameter was 11.6 mm (range 10-19); the shape was sessile (50.5%) and mixed type (49.5%), and surface depression was observed in 41.9% of patients. In the histologic findings, 87.6% of patients had G1 and 12.4% G2 tumor grade, and 3.8% of patients had lymphovascular invasion. The overall en bloc and histologically complete (R0) resections were 99.1% and 76.2%, respectively. cEMR was a less-frequently developed R0 resection. In the univariate and multivariate analyses for R0 resection, only surface depression was significantly associated. Regional or distant organs metastasis during follow-up developed in three patients (2.9%) and was significantly associated with female sex, redness, G2 tumor grade, and non-ESD methods.

CONCLUSION

Patients who underwent endoscopic resection of 10-20 mm rectal NET had good prognosis; therefore, endoscopic resection can be considered as the first-line treatment, particularly for 10-14 mm rectal NET. However, the risk factors, such as female sex, redness, G2 tumor grade and non-ESD methods, were associated with regional or distant metastases during follow-up. Therefore, patients with these risk factors should be carefully monitored.

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.

Trends in incidence and survival in patients with gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors: A SEER database analysis, 1977-2016

Objectives

We aimed to determine trends in incidence and survival in patients with gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors (GI-NETs) from 1977 to 2016, and then analyze the potential risk factors including sex, age, race, grade, Socioeconomic status (SES), site, and stage.

Methods

Data were obtained from Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, relative survival rates (RSRs), and Cox proportional risk regression model were used to evaluate the relationship between these factors and prognosis.

Results

Compared with other sites, the small intestine and rectum have the highest incidence, and the appendix and rectum had the highest survival rate. The incidence was higher in males than in females, and the survival rate in males was close to females. Blacks had a higher incidence rate than whites, but similar survival rates. Incidence and survival rates were lower for G3&4 than for G1 and G2. Age, stage, and grade are risk factors.

Conclusions

This study described changes in the incidence and survival rates of GI-NETs from 1977 to 2016 and performed risk factor analyses related to GI-NETs.

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.

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.

State of the Art in Endoscopic Therapy for the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

OPINION STATEMENT

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP NENs) comprise a heterogeneous group of slow growing tumors arising from the neuroendocrine cells of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Although they are considered relatively rare, their incidence is rising and it is believed that the more frequent use of endoscopy and imaging studies have at least in part contributed to the increased diagnosis especially of localized neoplasms. The management of these neoplasms should be guided by a multidisciplinary NEN team following appropriate staging investigations. Localized neoplasms of the GI tract may be suitable for endoscopic therapy, while patients with pancreatic NENs, unsuitable for surgery, should be considered for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided ablation. In this review, we discuss the evidence regarding endoscopic resection of luminal NENs and EUS-guided therapy of pancreatic NENs. The efficacy, safety, and other longer-term outcomes of these techniques are summarized. In conclusion, this review of endoscopic therapies for localized NENs may be a useful guide for NEN clinicians and endoscopists who are considering these therapeutic options for the management of focal GEP NENs.

Efficacy and safety of ligation-assisted endoscopic submucosal resection combined with endoscopic ultrasonography for treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors

OBJECTIVE

Rectal neuroendocrine tumors (R-NETs) usually invade the submucosa, and so complete resection is difficult. The treatment of choice for R-NETs ≤10 mm in size is endoscopic resection, but there is still controversy concerning the best endoscopic method. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ligation-assisted endoscopic submucosal resection combined with endoscopic ultrasonography (ESMR-LUS) for treatment of R-NETs.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of 101 patients with R-NETs ≤10 mm in size who underwent ESMR-LUS (n = 48) or conventional ligation-assisted endoscopic submucosal resection (ESMR-L; n = 53) between May 2019 and September 2021 at the 900th Hospital of Joint Logistics Support Force. Complete resection rate, pathological complete resection rate, procedure time, and adverse events were compared between the two groups of patients.

RESULTS

The endoscopic complete resection rate was slightly higher in the ESMR-LUS group than in the ESMR-L group (100 vs. 96.2%, p = .496). The pathological complete resection rate was also slightly higher in the ESMR-LUS group (97.9 vs. 88.7%, p = .152), these findings, though statistically non-significant, have practical clinical significance. Margin involvement was less common in ESMR-LUS patients than in ESMR-L patients (1 vs. 6). Involvement of the lateral resection margin was found one patient in the ESMR-LUS group versus two patients in the ESMR-L group, and deep resection margin involvement in no patient in the ESMR-LUS group versus four patients in the ESMR-L group. Mean procedure time was longer in the ESMR-LUS group than in the ESMR-L group (11.08 ± 1.89 min vs. 9.38 ± 2.09 min, p = .061). Immediate bleeding occurred in two patients in the ESMR-LUS group vs. seven patients in the ESMR-L group. Two patients in the ESMR-L group also suffered perforation; both patients were successfully treated by endoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

ESMR-LUS appears to be a safe and effective technique for removal of small rectal NETs confined to the submucosal layer without metastasis. Further studies are warranted to compare the efficacy and safety of different methods.

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.

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.

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.

Oncological outcomes according to the treatment modality based on the size of rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Owing to an increased number of colonoscopy screenings, the incidence of diagnosed rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) has also increased. Tumor size is one of the most frequently regarded factors when selecting treatment; however, it may not be the determinant prognostic variable. We aimed to evaluate oncological outcomes according to the treatment modality based on the size of rectal NETs.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who were treated for rectal NETs between March 2000 and January 2016 at the Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea. Patients who underwent endoscopic removal, local surgical excision, and radical resection were included. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival (RFS). Data were specified and analyzed following the 2019 World Health Organization classification (WHO).

RESULTS

A total of 644 patients were categorized under three groups according to the treatment modality used: endoscopic removal (n = 567), surgical local excision (n = 56), and radical resection (n = 21). Of a total of 35 recurrences, 27 were local, whereas eight were distant. The RFS rate did not differ significantly between the treatment groups in the same tumor-size group ([Formula: see text]1 cm group: P = .636, 1-2 cm group: P = .160). For T1 tumors, RFS rate was not different between local excision and radical resection ([Formula: see text]1 cm group: P = .452, 1-2 cm group: P = .700). Depth of invasion, a high Ki-67 index, and margin involvement were confirmed as independent risk factors for recurrence. Among patients treated with endoscopic removal, endoscopic biopsy was a significant factor for worse RFS (P < .001), while tumor size did not affect the RFS.

CONCLUSION

The current guideline recommends treatment options according to tumor size. However, more oncologically important prognostic factors include muscularis propria invasion and a higher Ki-67 index.

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.

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

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

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors: a 10-year data analysis of Northern China

Objective: Endoscopy is the main method to treat gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors (GI-NETs), but the specific indications are still controversial. We aim to investigate the clinical outcomes of GI-NETs patients who experienced endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the clinical features and prognosis of 65 GI-NETs patients who underwent ESD between 2008 and 2018. Results: A total of 65 patients diagnosed with GI-NETs pathologically, bearing 75 lesions, were found by endoscopy incidentally for other symptoms. The locations of these lesions were stomach (n = 24), duodenal bulb (n = 4) and rectum (n = 47). The diameter of 75 tumors were as follows: size ≤ 1 cm (78.7%), 1 cm < size ≤ 2 cm (17.3%), 2 cm < size ≤ 3.5 cm (4.0%). Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) suggested that 72 lesions were confined to submucosa and 3 lesions invaded into muscularis propria. The rates of en bloc resection and complete resection were all 100% and the rates of intraoperative bleeding and perforation were 2.7% and 1.3%, respectively. None of the 65 patients had lymph nodes and distant metastasis during the period of study. Conclusion: For GI-NETs without lymph nodes and distant metastases, the lesion confined to submucosa with the diameter ≤1 cm is absolute indication of ESD. For rectal neuroendocrine tumors limited in submucosa with the diameter between 1 and 2 cm, and Type 1 gastric neuroendocrine tumors predicted to be T2, ESD should be prioritized to preserve gastrointestinal volume and function at initial treatment.

Endoscopic submucosal resection with an endoscopic variceal ligation device for the treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection is recommended for rectal neuroendocrine tumors < 1 cm in diameter; the three techniques (mucosal resection, submucosal dissection, and mucosal resection with variceal ligation device) of endoscopic resection of neuroendocrine tumor were reported; however, the optimal endoscopic technique remains unclear.

PURPOSE

We compared the efficacy and safety of three endoscopic rectal neuroendocrine tumor resection methods.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 52 patients with rectal neuroendocrine tumors treated by endoscopy at Aichi Medical University Hospital and Nagoya City University Hospital between May 2003 and June 2017. We compared clinical outcomes in three groups based on the endoscopic treatment method.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients underwent endoscopic rectal neuroendocrine tumor treatment (mucosal resection, 14; submucosal dissection, 19; mucosal resection with an endoscopic variceal ligation device, 19). In the endoscopic mucosal resection, submucosal dissection, and mucosal resection with variceal ligation device groups, R0 resection occurred in 50.0, 94.7, and 89.5%, respectively (mucosal resection vs. mucosal resection with variceal ligation device, p < 0.05; mucosal resection vs. submucosal dissection, p < 0.01), while the median procedure times were 6.5, 43, and 6.0 min, respectively (submucosal dissection vs. mucosal resection with variceal ligation device procedure times, p < 0.01; mucosal resection vs. submucosal resection procedure times, p < 0.01). Postoperative bleeding occurred after endoscopic mucosal resection (1/14) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (4/19), but not after endoscopic mucosal resection with a ligation device.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic mucosal resection with an endoscopic variceal ligation device was a safe, effective treatment for rectal neuroendocrine tumors.

Clinical and pathological characteristics of 35 cases of rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms

AIM

To analyze the clinical, endoscopic, and pathological characteristics of rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs), and to explore their correlation.

METHODS

The clinical, endoscopic, and pathological features of 35 cases of rectal NENs were analyzed retrospectively. The correlation of data was analyzed by Spearman correlation analysis using SPSS software.

RESULTS

Most rectal NENs were located 4-10 cm from the anus. Tumor diameter, chromogranin A (CgA) positivity, and depth of invasion were significantly correlated with lymph node metastasis. Tumor diameter, CgA positivity, and World Health Organization (WHO) pathological grade were significantly correlated with liver metastasis.

CONCLUSION

Rectal NENs lack specific clinical manifestations. Tumor diameter and depth of invasion affect treatment options and prognosis. WHO pathological grading and immunohistochemistry have great value in predicting lymph node and liver metastasis. CgA-positive patients are recommended to undergo early abdominal CT examination, abdominal ultrasound, and superficial lymph node ultrasound to assess lymph nodes and liver metastasis as early as possible.

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic mucosal resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumor

Background

The incidence of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) is rapidly increasing because of the frequent use of endoscopic screening for colorectal cancers. However, the clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection for rectal NETs are still unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the rates of histologically complete resection (H-CR) and recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for rectal NETs.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent EMR for rectal NETs between January 2002 and March 2015 at Seoul National University Hospital. Primary outcomes were H-CR and recurrence rates after endoscopic resection. H-CR was defined as the absence of tumor invasion in the lateral and deep margins of resected specimens.

Results

Among 277 patients, 243 (88%) were treated with conventional EMR, 23 (8%) with EMR using a dual-channel endoscope, and 11 (4%) with EMR after precutting. The median tumor size was 4.96 mm (range, 1–22) in diameter, and 264 (95%) lesions were confined to the mucosa and submucosal layer. The en-bloc resection rate was 99% and all patients achieved endoscopically complete resection. The H-CR rates were 75, 74, and 73% for conventional EMR, EMR using a dual-channel endoscope, and EMR after precutting, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that H-CR was associated with tumor size regardless of endoscopic treatment modalities (p = 0.023). Of the 277 patients, 183 (66%) underwent at least 1 endoscopic follow-up. Three (2%) of these 183 patients had tumor recurrence, which was diagnosed at a median of 62.5 months (range 19–98) after endoscopic resection. There was 1 case of disease-related death, which occurred 167 months after endoscopic treatment because of bone marrow failure that resulted from tumor metastasis.

Conclusions

Although the en-bloc resection rate was 99% in rectal NETs, H-CR rates were 72–74% for various EMR procedures. H-CR may be associated with tumor size regardless of endoscopic treatment modalities.

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.

Evolving role of the endoscopist in management of gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors

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

Comparison of Endoscopic Mucosal Resection With Circumferential Incision and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Rectal Carcinoid Tumor

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been a valuable treatment of choice for rectal carcinoid tumors that are endoscopically treatable because of its satisfactory resection rate and low recurrence rate. For treatment of small rectal carcinoids, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is more often chosen by endoscopists because of its safety and time efficiency. We applied circumferential incision and endoscopic mucosal resection (CI-EMR), which is a modification of EMR, to treat rectal carcinoid tumors and compared their efficacy and safety.

METHODS

Between January 2008 and December 2013, we enrolled 66 patients (30 in the ESD group and 36 in the CI-EMR group) at Shengjing Hospital who were pathologically diagnosed with rectal carcinoid tumors <15 mm in diameter. We retrospectively analyzed en bloc resection rates, pathologic complete resection rates, incidences of complications, follow-up outcomes, and procedure times.

RESULTS

The en bloc resection rate and the histologic complete resection rate were similar, but the procedure time was longer in the ESD group than in the CI-EMR group. In cases that were incompletely resected, neither local recurrence nor distant metastasis was detected during follow-up. Similarly minor bleeding occurred in both groups, and no perforation occurred after either procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

CI-EMR showed comparable en bloc resection and histologically complete resection rates and is technically simpler and minimally invasive compared with ESD. Because of its easier performance and shorter procedure time, CI-EMR may be preferable to ESD for resection of rectal carcinoid tumors <15 mm in diameter without invasion or distant metastases.

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.

Long-Term Outcome and Surveillance Colonoscopy after Successful Endoscopic Treatment of Large Sessile Colorectal Polyps

PURPOSE

Although there is a consensus about the need for surveillance colonoscopy after endoscopic resection, the interval remains controversial for large sessile colorectal polyps. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcome and the adequate surveillance colonoscopy interval required for sessile and flat colorectal polyps larger than 20 mm.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 204 patients with large sessile and flat polyps who received endoscopic treatment from May 2005 to November 2011 in a tertiary referral center were included.

RESULTS

The mean age was 65.1 years and 62.7% of the patients were male. The mean follow-up duration was 44.2 months and the median tumor size was 25 mm. One hundred and ten patients (53.9%) received a short interval surveillance colonoscopy (median interval of 6.3 months with range of 1-11 months) and 94 patients (46.1%) received a long interval surveillance colonoscopy (median interval of 13.6 months with range of 12-66 months). There were 14 patients (6.9%) who had local recurrence at the surveillance colonoscopy. Using multivariate regression analysis, a polyp size greater than 40 mm was shown to be independent risk factor for local recurrence. However, piecemeal resection and surveillance colonoscopy interval did not significantly influence local recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic treatment of large sessile colorectal polyps shows a favorable long-term outcome. Further prospective study is mandatory to define an adequate interval of surveillance colonoscopy.

A comparison of endoscopic treatments in rectal carcinoid tumors

BACKGROUND

Various endoscopic techniques for rectal carcinoid tumors have been developed recently. In this study, we compared the outcomes of conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), strip biopsy, and EMR after circumferential precutting (EMR-P).

METHODS

From March 2004 to July 2014, the medical records of 188 patients (190 rectal carcinoid tumors) who were treated with an endoscopic procedure for rectal carcinoid tumors were investigated retrospectively. The characteristics of the patients and tumors, the selection of the treatment method, the rate of complete resection, and the rate of complications were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Forty-seven, 75 and 68 cases of EMR, strip biopsy and EMR-P were performed, respectively. The mean procedure time was not significantly different between the EMR, strip biopsy and EMR-P cases (5.6, 6.5 and 7.4 min, respectively, P = 0.119). En bloc resection was achieved in most of the cases (97.8, 98.7 and 95.5 % in the EMR, strip biopsy and EMR-P cases, respectively). However, histologic examination showed positive lateral or deep resection margins in 57 out of 190 cases (30.0 %). Multivariate analysis showed that the strip biopsy and EMR-P methods were independent factors for pathologic complete resection (negative in both lateral and deep resection margins), with odds ratios for margin involvement of 0.20 and 0.43 with 95 % confidence intervals from 0.08 to 0.47 and 0.19 to 0.96, respectively. In all the follow-up cases (81 of 190, 42.6 %), no local recurrence or distal metastasis was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to conventional EMR, strip biopsy and EMR-P had a lower risk of incomplete resection. The procedure time and complication rate did not differ between the three groups, and no recurrence was detected during the follow-up period. Strip biopsy and EMR-P are safe and effective methods for the treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors.

Neuroendocrine Rectal Tumors: Main Features and Management

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