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.
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.
Authors: Jin Lee; Yong Eun Park; Joon Hyuk Choi; Nae-Yun Heo; Jongha Park; Seung Ha Park; Young Soo Moon; Kyung Han Nam; Tae Oh Kim Journal: Ann Gastroenterol Date: 2020-05-10
Authors: Matthew W Stier; Christopher G Chapman; Steven Shamah; Kianoush Donboli; Lindsay Yassan; Irving Waxman; Uzma D Siddiqui Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2021-01-01