Cap-Assisted Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors: An Effective Option.

IF 1 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Mafalda João, Susana Alves, Miguel Areia, Luís Elvas, Daniel Brito, Sandra Saraiva, Raquel Martins, Ana Teresa Cadime
{"title":"Cap-Assisted Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors: An Effective Option.","authors":"Mafalda João,&nbsp;Susana Alves,&nbsp;Miguel Areia,&nbsp;Luís Elvas,&nbsp;Daniel Brito,&nbsp;Sandra Saraiva,&nbsp;Raquel Martins,&nbsp;Ana Teresa Cadime","doi":"10.1159/000525964","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The incidence of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (r-NETs) is increasing, and most small r-NETs can be treated endoscopically. The optimal endoscopic approach is still debatable. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) leads to frequent incomplete resection. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows higher complete resection rates but is also associated with higher complication rates. According to some studies, cap-assisted EMR (EMR-C) is an effective and safe alternative for endoscopic resection of r-NETs.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EMR-C for r-NETs ≤10 mm without muscularis propria invasion or lymphovascular infiltration.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Single-center prospective study including consecutive patients with r-NETs ≤10 mm without muscularis propria invasion or lymphovascular invasion confirmed by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), submitted to EMR-C between January 2017 and September 2021. Demographic, endoscopic, histopathologic, and follow-up data were retrieved from medical records.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 13 patients (male: 54%; <i>n</i> = 7) with a median age of 64 (interquartile range: 54-76) years were included. Most lesions were located at the lower rectum (69.2%, <i>n</i> = 9), and median lesion size was 6 (interquartile range: 4.5-7.5) mm. On EUS evaluation, 69.2% (<i>n</i> = 9) of tumors were limited to muscularis mucosa. EUS accuracy for the depth of invasion was 84.6%. We found a strong correlation between size measurements by histology and EUS (<i>r</i> = 0.83, <i>p</i> < 0.01). Overall, 15.4% (<i>n</i> = 2) were recurrent r-NETs and had been pretreated by conventional EMR. Resection was histologically complete in 92% (n = 12) of cases. Histologic analysis revealed grade 1 tumor in 76.9% (<i>n</i> = 10) of cases. Ki-67 index was inferior to 3% in 84.6% (<i>n</i> = 11) of cases. The median procedure time was 5 (interquartile range: 4-8) min. Only 1 case of intraprocedural bleeding was reported and was successfully controlled endoscopically. Follow-up was available in 92% (<i>n</i> = 12) of cases with a median follow-up of 6 (interquartile range: 12-24) months with no evidence of residual or recurrent lesion on endoscopic or EUS evaluation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>EMR-C is fast, safe, and effective for resection of small r-NETs without high-risk features. EUS accurately assesses risk factors. Prospective comparative trials are needed to define the best endoscopic approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":51838,"journal":{"name":"GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/5e/89/pjg-0030-0107.PMC10050888.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000525964","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: The incidence of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (r-NETs) is increasing, and most small r-NETs can be treated endoscopically. The optimal endoscopic approach is still debatable. Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) leads to frequent incomplete resection. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows higher complete resection rates but is also associated with higher complication rates. According to some studies, cap-assisted EMR (EMR-C) is an effective and safe alternative for endoscopic resection of r-NETs.

Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EMR-C for r-NETs ≤10 mm without muscularis propria invasion or lymphovascular infiltration.

Methods: Single-center prospective study including consecutive patients with r-NETs ≤10 mm without muscularis propria invasion or lymphovascular invasion confirmed by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), submitted to EMR-C between January 2017 and September 2021. Demographic, endoscopic, histopathologic, and follow-up data were retrieved from medical records.

Results: A total of 13 patients (male: 54%; n = 7) with a median age of 64 (interquartile range: 54-76) years were included. Most lesions were located at the lower rectum (69.2%, n = 9), and median lesion size was 6 (interquartile range: 4.5-7.5) mm. On EUS evaluation, 69.2% (n = 9) of tumors were limited to muscularis mucosa. EUS accuracy for the depth of invasion was 84.6%. We found a strong correlation between size measurements by histology and EUS (r = 0.83, p < 0.01). Overall, 15.4% (n = 2) were recurrent r-NETs and had been pretreated by conventional EMR. Resection was histologically complete in 92% (n = 12) of cases. Histologic analysis revealed grade 1 tumor in 76.9% (n = 10) of cases. Ki-67 index was inferior to 3% in 84.6% (n = 11) of cases. The median procedure time was 5 (interquartile range: 4-8) min. Only 1 case of intraprocedural bleeding was reported and was successfully controlled endoscopically. Follow-up was available in 92% (n = 12) of cases with a median follow-up of 6 (interquartile range: 12-24) months with no evidence of residual or recurrent lesion on endoscopic or EUS evaluation.

Conclusion: EMR-C is fast, safe, and effective for resection of small r-NETs without high-risk features. EUS accurately assesses risk factors. Prospective comparative trials are needed to define the best endoscopic approach.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

帽辅助内镜粘膜切除术治疗直肠神经内分泌肿瘤:一种有效的选择。
直肠神经内分泌肿瘤(r-NETs)的发病率越来越高,大多数小r-NETs可通过内镜治疗。最佳的内窥镜方法仍有争议。传统的内镜粘膜切除术(EMR)经常导致不完全切除。内镜下粘膜剥离术(ESD)可以实现更高的完全切除率,但也与更高的并发症发生率相关。根据一些研究,帽辅助EMR (EMR- c)是内镜下r-NETs切除术的一种有效且安全的替代方法。目的:本研究旨在评价EMR-C治疗r-NETs≤10 mm且无固有肌层侵犯或淋巴血管浸润的疗效和安全性。方法:单中心前瞻性研究,纳入2017年1月至2021年9月期间提交EMR-C的经内镜超声(EUS)证实的r-NETs≤10 mm且无固有肌层侵犯或淋巴血管侵犯的连续患者。从医疗记录中检索人口统计学、内窥镜、组织病理学和随访数据。结果:共13例患者(男性占54%;N = 7),年龄中位数为64岁(四分位数间距为54-76)。大多数病变位于直肠下部(69.2%,n = 9),中位病变大小为6(四分位数范围:4.5-7.5)mm。EUS评估中,69.2% (n = 9)的肿瘤局限于肌层粘膜。EUS对侵犯深度的准确率为84.6%。我们发现组织学测量的大小与EUS有很强的相关性(r = 0.83, p < 0.01)。总体而言,15.4% (n = 2)为复发性r-NETs,并已接受常规EMR预处理。92% (n = 12)的病例在组织学上完全切除。组织学分析显示76.9% (n = 10)的病例为1级肿瘤。84.6% (n = 11)的病例Ki-67指数低于3%。中位手术时间为5分钟(四分位数范围:4-8分钟)。仅报告1例术中出血,并在内镜下成功控制。92% (n = 12)的病例进行了随访,中位随访时间为6个月(四分位数间距:12-24),在内镜或EUS评估中没有发现残留或复发病变的证据。结论:EMR-C切除无高危特征的小r-NETs快速、安全、有效。EUS能准确评估危险因素。需要前瞻性的比较试验来确定最佳的内镜入路。
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
GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology
GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
62
审稿时长
21 weeks
期刊介绍: The ''GE Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology'' (formerly Jornal Português de Gastrenterologia), founded in 1994, is the official publication of Sociedade Portuguesa de Gastrenterologia (Portuguese Society of Gastroenterology), Sociedade Portuguesa de Endoscopia Digestiva (Portuguese Society of Digestive Endoscopy) and Associação Portuguesa para o Estudo do Fígado (Portuguese Association for the Study of the Liver). The journal publishes clinical and basic research articles on Gastroenterology, Digestive Endoscopy, Hepatology and related topics. Review articles, clinical case studies, images, letters to the editor and other articles such as recommendations or papers on gastroenterology clinical practice are also considered. Only articles written in English are accepted.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信