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.