ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2014
Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography for rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prognostic significance of clinical and pathological stages on locally advanced rectal carcinoma after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2015Trial
- Case Report: Transrectal contrast-enhanced ultrasonography on preoperative evaluation of rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a 17-case preliminary study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Multimodal artificial intelligence for subepithelial lesion classification and characterization: a multicenter comparative study (with video).BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Diagnostic accuracy and influencing factors of microprobe endoscopic ultrasound for gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: a multicenter retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) of the Luminal Gastrointestinal Tract.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Endoscopic ultrasonography-related diagnostic accuracy and clinical significance on small rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Comparing endoscopic ultrasonography and double contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the preoperative diagnosis of gastric stromal tumor.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023Article
- Efficacy of Endoscopic Resection for Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors Smaller than 15 mm.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2023Article
- Correlation of four-phase CT findings of rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms with different World Health Organization grades.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Article
- [Approach to Small Gastric Subepithelial Lesions].The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2023Review
- Management of gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions: an answer to the conflicting opinions.Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 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
- Rectal neuroendocrine tumors: Current advances in management, treatment, and surveillance.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- An update on the diagnosis of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Clinical utility of endoscopic submucosal dissection using the pocket-creation method with a HookKnife and preoperative evaluation by endoscopic ultrasonography for the treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Article
- Diagnosis and Management of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors (NETs).Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Rectal Endoscopic Ultrasound in Clinical Practice.Current gastroenterology reports · 2019Review
- Is endoscopic ultrasonography essential for endoscopic resection of small rectal neuroendocrine tumors?World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Article
- Analysis of the factors affecting lymph node metastasis and the prognosis of rectal neuroendocrine tumors.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) and the differential diagnosis of rectal NENs from other subepithelial lesions (SELs).
methodsThe study group consisted of 36 consecutive patients with rectal NENs histopathologically diagnosed using biopsy and/or resected specimens. The control group consisted of 31 patients with homochronous rectal non-NEN SELs confirmed by pathology. Epithelial lesions such as cancer and adenoma were excluded from this study. One EUS expert blinded to the histological results reviewed the ultrasonic images. The size, original layer, echoic intensity and homogeneity of the lesions and the perifocal structures were investigated. The single EUS diagnosis recorded by the EUS expert was compared with the histological results.
resultsAll NENs were located at the rectum 2-10 cm from the anus and appeared as nodular (n = 12), round (n = 19) or egg-shaped (n = 5) lesions with a hypoechoic (n = 7) or intermediate (n = 29) echo pattern and a distinct border. Tumors ranged in size from 2.3 to 13.7 mm, with an average size of 6.8 mm. Homogeneous echogenicity was seen in all tumors except three. Apart from three patients (stage T2 in two and stage T3 in one), the tumors were located in the second and/or third wall layer without involvement of the fourth and fifth layers. In the patients with stage T1 disease, the tumors were located in the second wall layer only in seven cases, the third wall layer only in two cases, and both the second and third wall layers in 27 cases. Approximately 94.4% (34/36) of rectal NENs were diagnosed correctly by EUS, and 74.2% (23/31) of other rectal SELs were classified correctly as non-NENs. Eight cases of other SELs were misdiagnosed as NENs, including two cases of inflammatory lesions and one case each of gastrointestinal tumor, endometriosis, metastatic tumor, lymphoma, neurilemmoma, and hemangioma. The positive predictive value of EUS for rectal NENs was 80.9% (34/42), the negative predictive value was 92.0% (23/25), and the diagnostic accuracy was 85.1%.
conclusionEUS has satisfactory diagnostic accuracy for rectal NENs with good sensitivity, but unfavorable specificity, making the differential diagnosis of NENs from other SELs challenging.
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.