SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2014
Rectal carcinoids: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 85 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of endoscopic mucosal resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors ≤10mm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of Saudi medicinePooled it
- Risk Factors for Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors: A Population-Based Cohort Study of Sex-Specific Associations.Digestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Endoscopic submucosal dissection and hybrid endoscopic submucosal dissection for stage 1 rectal neuroendocrine tumors.World journal of clinical oncology · 2025Article
- Endoscopic treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a consecutive analysis of multi-institutional data.Annals of coloproctology · 2025Article
- Current status of endoscopic resection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery for stage 1 rectal neuroendocrine tumors.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Whole-exome sequencing reveals novel genomic signatures and potential therapeutic targets during the progression of rectal neuroendocrine neoplasm.Cell death & disease · 2024Article
- When is neoadjuvant chemotherapy indicated in rectal neuroendocrine tumors? An analysis of the National Cancer Database.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Article
- Impact of grade on workup of rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a retrospective cohort study : Grade impact on workup of rectal NETs.World journal of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Review
- A Comprehensive Review on Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Presentation, Pathophysiology and Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Article
- Review
- Endoscopic treatment and management of rectal neuroendocrine tumors less than 10 mm in diameter.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023Review
- Rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms: what the radiologists should know.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2022Review
- Diagnosis, treatment, and current concepts in the endoscopic management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Review
- Prognostic Evaluation of Patients with Rectal Neuroendocrine Neoplasms and Hepatic Metastases: A SEER Database Analysis.Journal of oncology · 2022Article
- Transanal minimally invasive surgery for rectal neuroendocrine tumors.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Comparison of conventional and modified endoscopic mucosal resection methods for the treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRectal carcinoids are increasing in incidence worldwide. Frequently thought of as a relatively benign condition, there are limited data regarding optimal treatment strategies for both localized and more advanced disease. The aim of this study was to summarize published experiences with rectal carcinoids and to present the most current data.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, an electronic literature search performed of PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library using the terms "rectum" or "rectal" AND "carcinoid" over a 20-year study period from January 1993 to May 2013. Non-English-language studies, animal studies, and studies of fewer than 100 patients were excluded. Study end points included demographic information, tumor features, intervention and outcomes. All included articles were quality assessed.
resultsUsing the search parameters and exclusions as outlined above, a total of 14 articles were identified for detailed analysis. The quality of articles was low/moderate for all included scoring 9 to 17 of 27. The articles included 4,575 patients diagnosed with a rectal carcinoid. Approximately 80% of tumors were <10 mm, 15% 11-20 mm, and 5% >20 mm. Eight percent of patients presented with regional lymph node metastases, and 4% presented with distant metastases. Tumor size >10 mm, and muscular and lymphovascular invasion are independently associated with an increased risk of metastases. The 5-year survival was 93% in patients presenting with localized disease and 86% overall.
conclusionsSmall tumors up to 10 mm without any adverse features can be treated with endoscopic or local excision. The treatment of carcinoids between 10 and 20 mm is still contentious, but those up to 16 mm without adverse feature are suitable for local/endoscopic excision followed by careful histopathological assessment. Those >20 mm or with adverse features require radical surgery with mesorectal clearance in suitable patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.