Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of endoscopic therapies for rectal neuroendocrine tumors: endoscopic submucosal dissection with myectomy versus endoscopic submucosal dissection

  • Dynamic Manuscript
  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been a valuable treatment of choice for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). However, the vertical margin may remain positive after ESD because the neuroendocrine tumors develop in a submucosal tumor (SMT)-like way. Endoscopic submucosal dissection with myectomy (ESD-ME), a new method for rectal NETs, may overcome this problem.

Methods

From August 2013 to August 2020, the medical records of 69 patients (72 rectal neuroendocrine tumors) who received endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) or endoscopic submucosal dissection with myectomy (ESD-ME) for rectal NETs were investigated retrospectively. The characteristics of the patients and tumors, the rate of complete resection, and the rate of complications were analyzed retrospectively.

Results

The ESD-ME group contained 27 patients (12 males, 15 females; age range 29–72 years) and the ESD group contained 42 patients (21 males, 21 females; age range 29–71 years). Both groups had similar mean rectal neuroendocrine tumor diameters (ESD-ME 6.1 ± 1.8 mm, ESD 6.7 ± 2.6 mm; P = 0.219). The procedure time was not different significantly between groups (ESD-ME 21.1 ± 6.3, ESD 19.3 ± 3.1; P = 0.115). The endoscopic complete resection rate did not differ significantly between the ESD-ME and ESD groups (100% for each). The histological complete resection rate was 100% (27 of 27) in the ESD-ME group and 81.0% (34 of 42) in the ESD group (P = 0.043). Delayed bleeding occurred in 1 ESD-ME patient (3.7%) and in 2 ESD patients (4.8%) (P = 1.000). Perforation occurred in 1 ESD-ME patient (3.7%) and the patient was successfully managed by conservative measure, and there was no perforation after ESD (P = 0.391).

Conclusions

When compared with ESD, ESD-ME resulted in a higher histological complete resection rate, had a similar complication rate, and took similar time to perform. ESD-ME can be considered an effective and safe resection method for rectal NETs < 16 mm in diameter without metastasis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hrabe J (2020) Neuroendocrine tumors of the appendix, colon, and rectum. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 29:267–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jernman J, Välimäki M, Louhimo J, Haglund C, Arola J (2012) The novel WHO 2010 classification for gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumours correlates well with the metastatic potential of rectal neuroendocrine tumours. Neuroendocrinology 95:317–324

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Konishi T, Watanabe T, Kishimoto J, Kotake K, Muto T, Nagawa H (2007) Prognosis and risk factors of metastasis in colorectal carcinoids: results of a nationwide registry over 15 years. Gut 56:863–868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wang X, Xiang L, Li A, Han Z, Li Y, Wang Y, Guo Y, Zuang K, Yan Q, Zhong J, Xiong J, Yang H, Liu S (2015) Endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors 7–16 mm in diameter. Int J Colorectal Dis 30:375–380

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen T, Yao L, Xu M, Zhang Y, Chen W, Shi Q, Cai S, Chen Y, Xie Y, Ji Y, Chen S, Zhou P, Zhong Y (2016) Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal carcinoids. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 14:575–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Yang D, Park Y, Park S, Kim K, Ye B, Byeon J, Myung S, Yang S (2016) Cap-assisted EMR for rectal neuroendocrine tumors: comparisons with conventional EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 83:1015–1022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Zheng J, Zheng K, Zhao S, Wang Z, Xu H, Jiang C (2020) Efficacy and safety of modified endoscopic mucosal resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a meta-analysis. Z Gastroenterol 58:137–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lim H, Lee S, Baek D, Park D, Lee B, Park E, Park J, Kim G, Song G (2019) Resectability of rectal neuroendocrine tumors using endoscopic mucosal resection with a ligation band device and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2019:8425157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lee D, Jeon S, Park S, Jung M, Cho C, Tak W, Kweon Y, Kim S (2010) The feasibility of endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal carcinoid tumors: comparison with endoscopic mucosal resection. Endoscopy 42:647–651

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. He L, Deng T, Luo H (2015) Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection therapies for rectal carcinoid tumors: a meta-analysis. Yonsei Med J 56:72–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhang H, Wu W, Yang S, Lin J (2016) Endoscopic treatments for rectal neuroendocrine tumors smaller than 16 mm: a meta-analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol 51:1345–1353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Honjo K, Kure K, Ichikawa R, Ro H, Takahashi R, Niwa K, Ishiyama S, Sugimoto K, Kamiyama H, Takahashi M, Kojima Y, Goto M, Tomiki Y, Sakamoto K, Fukumura Y, Yao T (2016) Two cases of rectal neuroendocrine tumor resection combined with dissection of the circular muscle layer using the endoscopic submucosal dissection technique. Case Rep Gastroenterol 10:693–700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Basuroy R, Haji A, Ramage J, Quaglia A, Srirajaskanthan R (2016) Review article: the investigation and management of rectal neuroendocrine tumours. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 44:332–345

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee H, Moon H, Kwon I, Park J, Kim J, Kang S, Lee E, Kim S, Sung J, Lee B, Jeong H (2020) Comparison of conventional and modified endoscopic mucosal resection methods for the treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors. Surg Endosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-020-08097-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang X, Chai N, Linghu E, Qiu S, Li L, Zou J, Xiang J, Li X (2020) The outcomes of modified endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors and the value of endoscopic morphology classification in endoscopic resection. BMC Gastroenterol 20:200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Park S, Kim H, Kang D, Choi C, Kim S, Nam H (2015) Advantage of endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap for rectal neuroendocrine tumors. World J Gastroenterol 21:9387–9393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cheung D, Choi S, Kim H, Kim S, Chae H, Seo K, Cho Y (2015) Circumferential submucosal incision prior to endoscopic mucosal resection provides comparable clinical outcomes to submucosal dissection for well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors of the rectum. Surg Endosc 29:1500–1505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Nakamura K, Osada M, Goto A, Iwasa T, Takahashi S, Takizawa N, Akahoshi K, Ochiai T, Nakamura N, Akiho H, Itaba S, Harada N, Iju M, Tanaka M, Kubo H, Somada S, Ihara E, Oda Y, Ito T, Takayanagi R (2016) Short- and long-term outcomes of endoscopic resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumours: analyses according to the WHO 2010 classification. Scand J Gastroenterol 51:448–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Park H, Byeon J, Park Y, Yang D, Yoon S, Kim K, Ye B, Myung S, Yang S, Kim J (2010) Endoscopic submucosal dissection for treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 72:143–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Han K, Sohn D, Choi D, Hong C, Chang H, Lim S, Choi H, Jeong S, Park J (2008) Prolongation of the period between biopsy and EMR can influence the nonlifting sign in endoscopically resectable colorectal cancers. Gastrointest Endosc 67:97–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, 315000, Zhejiang, China

    Pinghu Sun, Tuo Zheng, Chunjiu Hu, Tengjiao Gao & Xiaoyun Ding

Authors
  1. Pinghu Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tuo Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chunjiu Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tengjiao Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Xiaoyun Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaoyun Ding.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Doctors Pinghu Sun, Tuo Zheng, Chunjiu Hu, Tengjiao Gao, Xiaoyun Ding have no conflict of interests or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (MP4 347052 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sun, P., Zheng, T., Hu, C. et al. Comparison of endoscopic therapies for rectal neuroendocrine tumors: endoscopic submucosal dissection with myectomy versus endoscopic submucosal dissection. Surg Endosc 35, 6374–6378 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08622-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-021-08622-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation