Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33215239›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of colorectal disease2021

Endoscopic full thickness resection vs. transanal endoscopic microsurgery for local treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors - a retrospective analysis.

Markus Brand, Stanislaus Reimer, Joachim Reibetanz, Sven Flemming, Marko Kornmann, Alexander Meining

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of colorectal disease, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection Device (FTRDDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Trans-anal endoscopic microsurgery for non- adenomatous rectal lesions.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023
    Article
  13. Review
  14. [Interventional endoscopy in gastroenterology].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery: exploring its indications and novel applications. A narrative review.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2022
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Markus BrandMedical Department II, Gastroenterology, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Oberduerrbacher Str. 6, Wuerzburg, 97080, Germany. brand_m@ukw.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3495-5206
Stanislaus ReimerMedical Department II, Gastroenterology, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Oberduerrbacher Str. 6, Wuerzburg, 97080, Germany.
Joachim ReibetanzDepartment of General, Visceral, Transplantation, Vascular and Pediatric Surgery, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.
Sven FlemmingDepartment of General, Visceral, Transplantation, Vascular and Pediatric Surgery, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Wuerzburg, Germany.
Marko KornmannDepartment of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
Alexander MeiningMedical Department II, Gastroenterology, University Hospital Wuerzburg, Oberduerrbacher Str. 6, Wuerzburg, 97080, Germany.
Universitätsklinikum Würzburg · DEUniversity Hospital Ulm · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeLocal treatment of small well-differentiated rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) is recommended by current guidelines. However, although several endoscopic methods have been established, the highest R0 rate is achieved by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). Since a recently published study about endoscopic full thickness resection (eFTR) showed a R0 resection rate of 100%, the aim of this study was to evaluate both methods (eFTR vs. TEM).

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed all patients with rectal NET treated either by TEM (1999-2018) or eFTR (2016-2019) in two tertiary centers (University Hospital Wuerzburg and Ulm). We analyzed clinical, procedural, and histopathological outcomes in both groups.

resultsTwenty-eight patients with rectal NET received local treatment (TEM: 13; eFTR: 15). Most tumors were at stage T1a and grade G1 or G2 (in the TEM group two G3 NETs were staged T2 after neoadjuvant chemotherapy). In both groups, similar outcomes for en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, tumor size, or specimen size were found. No procedural adverse events were noted. Mean procedure time in the TEM group was 48.9 min and 19.2 min in the eFTR group.

conclusioneFTR is a convincing method for local treatment of small rectal NETs combining high safety and efficacy with short interventional time.

Indexed as

Neuroendocrine TumorsRectal NeoplasmsTransanal Endoscopic MicrosurgeryHumansMicrosurgeryRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeEndoscopic full thickness resection (eFTR)Full-thickness resection device (FTRD)Neuroendocrine tumor (NET)RectumTransanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM)

Identifiers

PMID33215239
PMCPMC8026435
OpenAlexW3103659864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.