Resectability of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors Using Endoscopic Mucosal Resection with a Ligation Band Device and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Author:

Lim Hong Kyu1,Lee Seong Jun1,Baek Dong Hoon1ORCID,Park Do Youn2,Lee Bong Eun1,Park Eun Young1,Park Joon Woo1,Kim Gwang Ha1,Song Geun Am1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine, and Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea

2. Department of Pathology, Pusan National University School of Medicine and Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea

Abstract

Background. Rectal neuroendocrine tumors NETs<10mm in diameter, limited to the submucosa without local or distant metastasis, can be treated endoscopically. Endoscopic mucosal resection with a ligation band device (EMR-L) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) have been employed to resect rectal NETs. We evaluated and compared the clinical outcomes of EMR-L and ESD for endoscopic resection of rectal NETs G1<10mm in diameter. Methods. We conducted a retrospective study of 82 rectal NETs in 82 patients who underwent either EMR-L or ESD. Therapeutic outcomes (en bloc resection and complete resection rates), procedure time, and procedure-related adverse events were evaluated. Additionally, we measured the distance of the lateral and vertical margins from the border of the tumor in pathologic specimens and compared the resectability between EMR-L and ESD. Results. Sixty-six lesions were treated using EMR-L and 16 using ESD. En bloc resection was achieved in all patients. The complete resection rate with EMR-L was significantly higher than that with ESD (95.5% vs.75.0%, p=0.025). The prevalence of vertical margin involvement was significantly higher in the ESD group than in the EMR-L group (12.5% vs. 0%, p=0.036), and ESD was more time consuming than EMR-L (24.21±12.18 vs. 7.05±4.53min, p<0.001). The lateral and vertical margins were more distant in the EMR-L group than in the ESD group (lateral margin distance, 1661±849 vs. 1514±948μm; vertical margin distance, 277±308 vs. 202±171μm). Conclusions. EMR-L is more favorable for small rectal NETs with respect to therapeutic outcomes, procedure time, and technical difficulties. Additionally, EMR-L enables achievement of sufficient vertical margin distances.

Publisher

Hindawi Limited

Subject

Gastroenterology,Hepatology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3