Efficacy of endoscopic intermuscular dissection vs. endoscopic submucosal dissection in treating rectal neuroendocrine tumors < 10 mm.

IF 2.3 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Endoscopy International Open Pub Date : 2025-08-06 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1055/a-2641-5725
Guang Yang, Jingsong Wang, Bo Li, Xiaolong Xian, Jianzhen Ren, Qiuping Qiu, Xiaoping Hong, Longbin Huang, Suhuan Liao, Silin Huang
{"title":"Efficacy of endoscopic intermuscular dissection vs. endoscopic submucosal dissection in treating rectal neuroendocrine tumors < 10 mm.","authors":"Guang Yang, Jingsong Wang, Bo Li, Xiaolong Xian, Jianzhen Ren, Qiuping Qiu, Xiaoping Hong, Longbin Huang, Suhuan Liao, Silin Huang","doi":"10.1055/a-2641-5725","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and study aims: </strong>Rectal neuroendocrine tumors (r-NETs) exhibit significant heterogeneity and malignant potential. Currently, endoscopic resection is the preferred treatment for r-NETs < 10 mm. However, traditional endoscopic resection carries a risk of positive vertical margins. This study aimed to compare clinical efficacy of endoscopic intermuscular dissection (EID) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in treating small r-NETs (< 10 mm).</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This retrospective study included 56 patients with r-NETs < 10 mm who underwent endoscopic treatment between April 2017 and September 2024 at Shenzhen University Affiliated South China Hospital and Shenzhen Hospital of Southern Medical University. All procedures were performed by the same surgeon. Patients were divided into two groups based on type of endoscopic treatment: the EID group (n = 16) and the ESD group (n = 40). We compared operative time, technical success rates, resection outcomes, adverse event (AE) rates, and histopathological findings between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Median lesion size in the EID group (7.5 mm) was significantly larger than in the ESD group (6.0 mm) ( <i>P</i> = 0.001). Although operative time in the EID group was longer (39 vs 28.5 minutes), the difference was not statistically significant ( <i>P</i> = 0.137). The complete resection rate was 100% in the EID group and 97.5% in the ESD group, with no statistically significant difference. There were no significant differences in general characteristics, technical success rates (100% vs 100%), or incidence of AEs (bleeding, perforation, infection) (0% vs 0%) between groups ( <i>P</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Endoscopic intermuscular dissection offers a better option for preventing positive basal margins and demonstrates good safety and feasibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":11671,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy International Open","volume":"13 ","pages":"a26415725"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12371660/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2641-5725","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and study aims: Rectal neuroendocrine tumors (r-NETs) exhibit significant heterogeneity and malignant potential. Currently, endoscopic resection is the preferred treatment for r-NETs < 10 mm. However, traditional endoscopic resection carries a risk of positive vertical margins. This study aimed to compare clinical efficacy of endoscopic intermuscular dissection (EID) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in treating small r-NETs (< 10 mm).

Patients and methods: This retrospective study included 56 patients with r-NETs < 10 mm who underwent endoscopic treatment between April 2017 and September 2024 at Shenzhen University Affiliated South China Hospital and Shenzhen Hospital of Southern Medical University. All procedures were performed by the same surgeon. Patients were divided into two groups based on type of endoscopic treatment: the EID group (n = 16) and the ESD group (n = 40). We compared operative time, technical success rates, resection outcomes, adverse event (AE) rates, and histopathological findings between the two groups.

Results: Median lesion size in the EID group (7.5 mm) was significantly larger than in the ESD group (6.0 mm) ( P = 0.001). Although operative time in the EID group was longer (39 vs 28.5 minutes), the difference was not statistically significant ( P = 0.137). The complete resection rate was 100% in the EID group and 97.5% in the ESD group, with no statistically significant difference. There were no significant differences in general characteristics, technical success rates (100% vs 100%), or incidence of AEs (bleeding, perforation, infection) (0% vs 0%) between groups ( P > 0.05).

Conclusions: Endoscopic intermuscular dissection offers a better option for preventing positive basal margins and demonstrates good safety and feasibility.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

内窥镜下肌间夹层与黏膜下夹层治疗直肠神经内分泌肿瘤< 10 mm的疗效比较。
背景与研究目的:直肠神经内分泌肿瘤(r-NETs)具有显著的异质性和恶性潜能。目前,内镜切除是r-NETs < 10 mm的首选治疗方法。然而,传统的内镜切除有垂直切缘阳性的风险。本研究旨在比较内镜下肌间剥离术(EID)与内镜下粘膜剥离术(ESD)治疗小r-NETs (< 10 mm)的临床疗效。患者和方法:本回顾性研究纳入了2017年4月至2024年9月在深圳大学附属华南医院和南方医科大学深圳医院接受内镜治疗的56例r-NETs < 10 mm的患者。所有手术均由同一位外科医生进行。根据内镜治疗方式将患者分为两组:EID组(n = 16)和ESD组(n = 40)。我们比较了两组之间的手术时间、技术成功率、切除结果、不良事件(AE)发生率和组织病理学结果。结果:EID组的中位病灶大小(7.5 mm)明显大于ESD组(6.0 mm) (P = 0.001)。虽然EID组的手术时间更长(39 vs 28.5 min),但差异无统计学意义(P = 0.137)。EID组和ESD组的全切率分别为100%和97.5%,差异无统计学意义。两组间一般特征、技术成功率(100% vs 100%)或不良事件(出血、穿孔、感染)发生率(0% vs 0%)无显著差异(P < 0.05)。结论:内窥镜下肌间分离术是预防基底缘阳性的较好选择,具有良好的安全性和可行性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Endoscopy International Open
Endoscopy International Open GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
3.80%
发文量
270
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信