Endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors 7-16 mm in diameter

EMR-C is safe and efficient for rectal neuroendocrine tumor, and easily manageable for novice endoscopists of digestive endoscopy center

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection assisted by a transparent cap (EMR-C) for rectal neuroendocrine tumor (R-NET) by novice endoscopists of digestive endoscopy center.

METHODS

R-NET patients consulted in department of digestive endoscopy center of Guangdong Provincial Peolple's Hospital from 2022 to 2023, were recruited in this study. Novice endoscopists who had no ESD experience before were randomly to accomplish the EMR-C operation. Each novice endoscopist separately completed at least 3 cases after simple training by teachers and the operation time was counted on average. Vertical and horizontal margins of the specimens were further analyzed to determine whether radical resection was successful or not. R-NET patients were followed up at 12 months after operation.

RESULTS

30 cases of R-NET patients (13 males and 17 females, (53.83 ± 13.31) y), originated from the deep or submucosal layers of the intestinal wall mucosa by ultrasound colonoscopy, were recruited in all of our study. 10 novice endoscopists (each for 3 cases) were arranged to complete EMR-C operations by 2 teachers. The average time was (8.87 ± 1.87) minutes and the sections were clean and no bleeding and further clipped by 2-4 metal clips. Pathological and immunohistochemical results were further made to confirm the diagnosis. The en bloc resection rate was 100.00% and the R0 rate was 83.33% (horizontal margins were 100.00% negative and the vertical margins were 83.33% negative). No recurrence was found during the followed up at 12 months after operation.

CONCLUSIONS

EMR-C is safe and efficient for R-NET, and easily manageable for novice endoscopists of digestive endoscopy center.

Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection and modified endoscopic mucosal resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors

Although some studies have compared the treatment outcomes between modified endoscopic mucosal resection (m-EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), the results are based on the experience of experts from a single high-volume center. This multicenter study aimed to compare the outcomes between m-EMR and ESD for rectal NETs, with emphasis on the operator's level. Data of patients with rectal NETs treated using m-EMR or ESD at seven institutions that included general hospitals in Japan were retrospectively reviewed. Patients treated using m-EMR and those treated using ESD were matched for age, sex, lesion size, lesion location, and operator level through propensity score matching. The treatment outcomes were compared between the two groups. In total 304 patients (m-EMR = 178, ESD = 126) were included, with 218 in the matched groups (m-EMR = 109, ESD = 109). The R0 resection rate was not significantly different between the two groups (90.0% vs. 82.3%, P = .221). However, the procedural time was significantly shorter for the m-EMR group than that for the ESD group (6 vs. 26 min, P < .001). No significant difference in adverse events was observed between the two groups (postprocedure bleeding rate: 5.5% vs. 2.8%, P = .335; perforation rate: 0.9% vs. 0.9%, P = 1.00). Subgroup analysis revealed that the R0 resection rate for the trainees was significantly higher in the m-EMR group than in the ESD group (87.9% vs. 64.5%, P = .017). m-EMR is the preferred technique for the treatment of rectal NETs and should be considered, particularly for the trainees.

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.

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.

Role of Advanced Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in the Comprehensive Management of Neuroendocrine Neoplasms

Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs), also called neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), are relatively uncommon, heterogenous tumors primarily originating in the gastrointestinal tract. With the improvement in technology and increasing use of cross-sectional imaging and endoscopy, they are being discovered with increasing frequency. Although traditionally considered indolent tumors with good prognoses, some NENs exhibit aggressive behavior. Timely diagnosis, risk stratification, and management can often be a challenge. In general, small NENs without local invasion or lymphovascular involvement can often be managed using minimally invasive advanced endoscopic techniques, while larger lesions and those with evidence of lymphovascular invasion require surgery, systemic therapy, or a combination thereof. Ideal management requires a comprehensive and accurate understanding of the stage and grade of the tumor. With the recent advancements, a therapeutic advanced endoscopist can play a pivotal role in diagnosing, staging, and managing this rare condition. High-definition white light imaging and digital image enhancing technologies like narrow band imaging (NBI) in the newer endoscopes have improved the diagnostic accuracy of traditional endoscopy. The refinement of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) over the past decade has revolutionized the role of endoscopy in diagnosing and managing various pathologies, including NENs. In addition to EUS-directed diagnostic biopsies, it also offers the ability to precisely assess the depth of invasion and lymphovascular involvement and thus stage NENs accurately. EUS-directed locoregional ablative therapies are increasingly recognized as highly effective, minimally invasive treatment modalities for NENs, particularly pancreatic NENs. Advanced endoscopic resection techniques like endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic submucosal resection (EMR), and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) have been increasingly used over the past decade with excellent results in achieving curative resection of various early-stage gastrointestinal luminal lesions including NENs. In this article, we aim to delineate NENs of the different segments of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract (esophagus, gastric, pancreatic, and small and large intestine) and their management with emphasis on the endoscopic management of these tumors.

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.

Current updates and future directions in diagnosis and management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms are a heterogenous group of rare neoplasms that are increasingly being discovered, often incidentally, throughout the gastrointestinal tract with varying degrees of activity and malignant potential. Confusing nomenclature has added to the complexity of managing these lesions. The term carcinoid tumor and embryonic classification have been replaced with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasm, which includes gastrointestinal neuroendocrine and pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms. A comprehensive multidisciplinary approach is important for clinicians to diagnose, stage and manage these lesions. While histological diagnosis is the gold standard, recent advancements in endoscopy, conventional imaging, functional imaging, and serum biomarkers complement histology for tailoring specific treatment options. In light of developing technology, our review sets out to characterize diagnostic and therapeutic advancements for managing gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, including innovations in radiolabeled peptide imaging, circulating biomarkers, and endoscopic treatment approaches adapted to different locations throughout the gastrointestinal system.

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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.

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.

Endoloop ligation after endoscopic mucosal resection using a transparent cap: A novel method to treat small rectal carcinoid tumors

BACKGROUND

Local endoscopic resection is an effective method for the treatment of small rectal carcinoid tumors, but remnant tumor at the margin after resection remains to be an issue.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of resection of small rectal carcinoid tumors by endoloop ligation after cap-endoscopic mucosal resection (LC-EMR) using a transparent cap.

METHODS

Thirty-four patients with rectal carcinoid tumors of less than 10 mm in diameter were treated by LC-EMR (n = 22) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) (n = 12) between January 2016 and December 2017. Demographic data, complete resection rates, pathologically complete resection rates, operation duration, and postoperative complications were collected. All cases were followed for 6 to 30 mo.

RESULTS

A total of 22 LC-EMR cases and 12 ESD cases were enrolled. The average age was 48.18 ± 12.31 and 46.17 ± 12.57 years old, and the tumor size was 7.23 ± 1.63 mm and 7.50 ± 1.38 mm, respectively, for the LC-EMR and ESD groups. Resection time in the ESD group was longer than that in the LC-EMR group (15.67 ± 2.15 min vs 5.91 ± 0.87 min; P < 0.001). All lesions were completely resected at one time. No perforation or delayed bleeding was observed in either group. Pathologically complete resection (P-CR) rate was 86.36% (19/22) and 91.67% (11/12) in the LC-EMR and ESD groups (P = 0.646), respectively. Two of the three cases with a positive margin in the LC-EMR group received transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and tumor cells were not identified in the postoperative specimens. The other case with a positive margin chose follow-up without further operation. One case with remnant tumor after ESD received further local ligation treatment. Neither local recurrence nor lymph node metastasis was found during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

LC-EMR appears to be an efficient and simple method for the treatment of small rectal carcinoid tumors, which can effectively avoid margin remnant tumors.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Endoscopic treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors

The rectum is one of the most frequent location where gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are found. With the increasingly widespread availability of colonoscopy screening, the detection rate of rectal NETs has markedly increased, most of which are localized lesions without regional invasion or distant metastasis. Therefore, endoscopic resection is acknowledged as a leading therapeutic approach. Endoscopic mucosal resection, endoscopic submucosal dissection, and transanal endoscopic microsurgery are therapies that have been prevalently applied and technically improved in recent years, which assure increasing complete resection rate and good overall prognosis.

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.

Efficacy of Precut Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Treatment of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors

Background/Aims

Endoscopic resection is the first-line treatment for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) measuring <1 cm and those between 1 and 2 cm in size. However, conventional endoscopic resection cannot achieve complete resection in all cases. We aimed to analyze clinical outcomes of precut endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR-P) used for the management of rectal NET.

Methods

EMR-P was used to treat rectal NET in 72 patients at a single tertiary center between 2011 and 2015. Both, circumferential precutting and EMR were performed with the same snare device in all patients. Demographics, procedural details, and histopathological features were reviewed for all cases.

Results

Mean size of the tumor measured endoscopically was 6.8±2.8 mm. En bloc and complete resection was achieved in 71 (98.6%) and 67 patients (93.1%), respectively. The mean time required for resection was 9.0±5.6 min. Immediate and delayed bleeding developed in six (8.3%) and 4 patients (5.6%), respectively. Immediate bleeding observed during EMR-P was associated with the risk of delayed bleeding.

Conclusions

Both, the en bloc and complete resection rates of EMR-P in the treatment of rectal NETs using the same snare for precutting and EMR were noted to be high. The procedure was short and safe. EMR-P may be a good treatment choice for the management of rectal NETs.

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.

Review article: the investigation and management of rectal neuroendocrine tumours

BACKGROUND

Rectal neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are increasingly identified at endoscopy possibly as a result of bowel cancer screening programmes.

AIM

To present a review of the literature to aid clinicians in the diagnosis and management of rectal neuroendocrine tumours.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted through MEDLINE using search terms: rectal, rectum, carcinoid, NET, therapy, endoscopy, mucosal resection, submucosal dissection. Relevant articles were identified through manual review with reference lists reviewed for additional articles.

RESULTS

The incidence of rectal neuroendocrine tumours is approximately 1 per 100 000 population per year with the majority (80-90%) being <1 cm and localised to the submucosa. Metastatic disease is infrequent (<20%) with risk factors including size, atypical appearance, grade and depth of invasion. The primary resection modality influences complete resection rates and the need for secondary therapy. A thorough pre-resection diagnostic work up is required for lesions that are at higher risk of invasion and metastasis. Device-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection are used to resect localised rectal neuroendocrine tumours <2 cm. Transanal surgery is also used to resect localised 1-2 cm rectal neuroendocrine tumours. Oncological surgical resection is used for rectal neuroendocrine tumours that are >2 cm or with invasion and regional disease. The treatment of advanced disease is multimodal.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term tumour biology of small rectal neuroendocrine tumours remains unclear. There is uncertain impact from bowel cancer screening programmes on rectal neuroendocrine tumour incidence, morbidity and mortality. Referral to neuroendocrine tumour centres for patients with locally advanced disease or metastatic disease is recommended.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The incidence of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) is increasing, and most small rectal NETs can be treated endoscopically. Cap-assisted EMR (EMR-C) was suggested as an effective treatment for rectal NETs in a few studies. We aimed to compare the outcomes of conventional EMR, EMR-C, and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the treatment of rectal NETs.

METHODS

A total of 138 rectal NETs were treated endoscopically by a single endoscopist at Asan Medical Center. We analyzed 122 rectal NETs that had been removed by using EMR (n = 56), EMR-C (n = 34), or ESD (n = 32).

RESULTS

The histologic complete resection rate was higher in the EMR-C group than in the EMR group (94.1% vs 76.8%, P = .032). Intraprocedural bleeding tended to be more frequent in the EMR-C group than in the EMR group (8.8% vs 0%, P = .051). No differences in the rates of adverse events or histologic complete resections were observed between the EMR-C group and the ESD group for 6-mm to 8-mm NETs; however, the procedure time was significantly shorter in the EMR-C group (3.9 ± 1.1 minutes) than in the ESD group (19.0 ± 12.1 minutes) (P < .001). There was no recurrence in any of the 3 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

EMR-C is the preferable technique for endoscopic resection of small rectal NETs.