TY - JOUR
T1 - An evaluation of resectability among endoscopic treatment methods for rectal neuroendocrine tumors <10 mm
AU - Toriyama, Kazuhiro
AU - Yamamura, Takeshi
AU - Nakamura, Masanao
AU - Maeda, Keiko
AU - Sawada, Tsunaki
AU - Mizutani, Yasuyuki
AU - Ishikawa, Eri
AU - Furukawa, Kazuhiro
AU - Ishikawa, Takuya
AU - Ohno, Eizaburo
AU - Kawashima, Hiroki
AU - Fujishiro, Mitsuhiro
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Pan-Arab Association of Gastroenterology
PY - 2021/6
Y1 - 2021/6
N2 - Background and Study Aims: With respect to rectal neuroendocrine tumor (NET) resection, it remains unclear which of the following methods is the most effective: conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (cEMR), EMR using a fitted cap (EMR-C), EMR with a ligation band device (EMR-L), or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Thus, in this study, we aim to retrospectively evaluate the most effective endoscopic resection for rectal NETs < 10 mm. Patients and methods: In total, 61 consecutive patients with primary rectal NETs < 10 mm in diameter were included in this study; they were then divided into three groups: those with cEMR; those with modified EMR (mEMR) involving EMR-C and EMR-L; and those with ESD. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the difference in the complete en bloc resection rate. The secondary endpoint was to investigate differences in procedure time and complications. Results: Among the three groups, a significant difference was found in procedure time (cEMR vs ESD, P < .01; mEMR vs ESD, P < .01), en bloc resection rate (cEMR vs mEMR, P = .015), tumor size (mEMR vs ESD, P < .01), percentage of tumor diameter ≥ 5 mm (mEMR vs ESD, P < .01), and complete en bloc resection rate (cEMR vs mEMR, P = .014). Meanwhile, no significant difference was noted in terms of complication rate among the three groups. Conclusion: The mEMR was the most suitable resection method for rectal NETs < 10 mm with respect to the risks and benefits from procedure-related factors, such as complete en bloc resection rate, procedure time, and complication rate.
AB - Background and Study Aims: With respect to rectal neuroendocrine tumor (NET) resection, it remains unclear which of the following methods is the most effective: conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (cEMR), EMR using a fitted cap (EMR-C), EMR with a ligation band device (EMR-L), or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). Thus, in this study, we aim to retrospectively evaluate the most effective endoscopic resection for rectal NETs < 10 mm. Patients and methods: In total, 61 consecutive patients with primary rectal NETs < 10 mm in diameter were included in this study; they were then divided into three groups: those with cEMR; those with modified EMR (mEMR) involving EMR-C and EMR-L; and those with ESD. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the difference in the complete en bloc resection rate. The secondary endpoint was to investigate differences in procedure time and complications. Results: Among the three groups, a significant difference was found in procedure time (cEMR vs ESD, P < .01; mEMR vs ESD, P < .01), en bloc resection rate (cEMR vs mEMR, P = .015), tumor size (mEMR vs ESD, P < .01), percentage of tumor diameter ≥ 5 mm (mEMR vs ESD, P < .01), and complete en bloc resection rate (cEMR vs mEMR, P = .014). Meanwhile, no significant difference was noted in terms of complication rate among the three groups. Conclusion: The mEMR was the most suitable resection method for rectal NETs < 10 mm with respect to the risks and benefits from procedure-related factors, such as complete en bloc resection rate, procedure time, and complication rate.
KW - Endoscopic mucosal resection
KW - Endoscopic submucosal dissection
KW - Neuroendocrine tumors
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85107152980&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85107152980&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ajg.2021.05.007
DO - 10.1016/j.ajg.2021.05.007
M3 - Article
C2 - 34053887
AN - SCOPUS:85107152980
SN - 1687-1979
VL - 22
SP - 104
EP - 110
JO - Arab Journal of Gastroenterology
JF - Arab Journal of Gastroenterology
IS - 2
ER -