OBJECTIVE: Small rectal carcinoid tumors (<10 mm) are often removed via endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). However, the use of ESD for tumors of an intermediate size (7-16 mm) is less well documented. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ESD compared with endoscopic mucosal resection using a cap (EMR-C) for the treatment of 7-16-mm rectal carcinoids. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From September 2007 to August 2012, 55 patients with large rectal carcinoid tumors were treated by EMR-C (30 cases) or ESD (25 cases). The en bloc resection rate, pathological complete response (pCR) rate, procedure time, and incidence rates of complications, local recurrence, and distant metastasis were evaluated. RESULTS: The basic and clinical characteristics of the patients in the two groups did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). The mean procedure time was longer for ESD than EMR-C (24.79 ± 4.89 vs. 9.52 ± 2.14 min, p < 0.001). The rates of en bloc resection and pCR were higher with ESD than with EMR-C (100 vs. 83.33 %, and 100 vs. 70.00 %, respectively). No patients in the EMR-C group experienced complications. However, in the ESD group, two cases of perforation occurred, and one patient experienced delayed bleeding. These complications were successfully managed via endoscopical therapy. Five cases of local recurrence were detected after EMR-C, whereas no patients experienced recurrence after ESD. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with EMR-C, ESD appears to be a more favorable therapeutic option for the treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors less than 16 mm in diameter based on improved rates of pCR and local recurrence.
OBJECTIVE: Small rectal carcinoid tumors (<10 mm) are often removed via endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). However, the use of ESD for tumors of an intermediate size (7-16 mm) is less well documented. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ESD compared with endoscopic mucosal resection using a cap (EMR-C) for the treatment of 7-16-mm rectal carcinoids. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From September 2007 to August 2012, 55 patients with large rectal carcinoid tumors were treated by EMR-C (30 cases) or ESD (25 cases). The en bloc resection rate, pathological complete response (pCR) rate, procedure time, and incidence rates of complications, local recurrence, and distant metastasis were evaluated. RESULTS: The basic and clinical characteristics of the patients in the two groups did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). The mean procedure time was longer for ESD than EMR-C (24.79 ± 4.89 vs. 9.52 ± 2.14 min, p < 0.001). The rates of en bloc resection and pCR were higher with ESD than with EMR-C (100 vs. 83.33 %, and 100 vs. 70.00 %, respectively). No patients in the EMR-C group experienced complications. However, in the ESD group, two cases of perforation occurred, and one patient experienced delayed bleeding. These complications were successfully managed via endoscopical therapy. Five cases of local recurrence were detected after EMR-C, whereas no patients experienced recurrence after ESD. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with EMR-C, ESD appears to be a more favorable therapeutic option for the treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors less than 16 mm in diameter based on improved rates of pCR and local recurrence.
Authors: Sidney J Winawer; Ann G Zauber; Robert H Fletcher; Jonathon S Stillman; Michael J O'Brien; Bernard Levin; Robert A Smith; David A Lieberman; Randall W Burt; Theodore R Levin; John H Bond; Durado Brooks; Tim Byers; Neil Hyman; Lynne Kirk; Alan Thorson; Clifford Simmang; David Johnson; Douglas K Rex Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: James C Yao; Manal Hassan; Alexandria Phan; Cecile Dagohoy; Colleen Leary; Jeannette E Mares; Eddie K Abdalla; Jason B Fleming; Jean-Nicolas Vauthey; Asif Rashid; Douglas B Evans Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: T Nagai; R Torishima; H Nakashima; H Ookawara; A Uchida; S Kai; R Sato; K Murakami; T Fujioka Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 10.093