Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Outcome of Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors ≤ 10 mm
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Outcome of Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors ≤ 10 mm
Do you wish to request the book?
Outcome of Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors ≤ 10 mm
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Outcome of Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors ≤ 10 mm
2024
Overview
Background and aim: Guidelines suggest endoscopic resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (rNETs) < 10 mm, but the most appropriate resection technique is unclear. In real-life clinical practice, the endoscopic removal of unrecognized rNETs can take place with “simple” techniques and without preliminary staging. The aim of the current study is to report our own experience at a referral center for both neuroendocrine neoplasms and endoscopy. Methods: Retrospective analyses of polypectomies were performed at the Humanitas Research Hospital for rNETs (already diagnosed or previously unrecognized). Results: A total of 19 patients were included, with a median lesion size of 5 mm (range 3–10 mm). Only five lesions were suspected as NETs before removal and underwent endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) before resection, being removed with advanced endoscopic techniques. Unsuspected rNETs were removed by cold polypectomy in eleven cases, EMR in two, and biopsy forceps in one. When described, the margins were negative in four cases, positive in four (R1), and indeterminate in one. The median follow-up was 40 months. A 10 mm polypoid lesion removed with cold snare polypectomy (G2 R1) needed subsequent surgery. Eighteen patients underwent EUS after a median time of 6.5 months from resection. The EUS identified local recurrence after 14 months in a 7 mm polypoid lesion removed with cold snare polypectomy (G1 R1); the lesion was treated with cap-assisted EMR. For all the other lesions, the follow-up was negative. Conclusions: When rNETs are improperly removed without prior staging, caution must be exercised. The data from our cohort suggest that even if inappropriate resection had happened, patients may be safely managed with early EUS evaluation.
Publisher
MDPI AG
