ArticleCase reports in gastroenterology
A Case of Fifteen Simultaneous Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors and Endocrine Cell Micronests Resected by Both Endoscopic Treatments and Surgery.
Article in Case reports in gastroenterology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tumor count and risk of lymph node metastasis in multiple rectal neuroendocrine tumors: an individual-level pooled analysis.World journal of surgical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Case Report: A 65-year-old man without any symptoms received colonoscopy for cancer screening and underwent cold snare polypectomy (CSP) for a 3-mm rectal lesion at a local clinic. A histopathological examination revealed neuroendocrine tumor (NET) G1 with a positive margin. The patient was referred to our hospital for further treatment. Then, the post-CSP scar was removed by endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), with a sufficient endoscopically normal margin. Histopathology showed 4 NETs and endocrine cell micronests (ECMs) distant from the post-CSP scar, with a positive lateral margin. We considered that the possibility of other NETs was high. Additional surgery was performed. After a histopathological examination, 11 NETs and ECMs were found in the whole rectum, without lymph node metastasis. The patient had no recurrence at 24 months after surgery. In the past 10 years, we have experienced 4 cases (including the present case) of multiple rectal NETs among 56 cases of rectal NETs of ≤10 mm (7.1%). None of our 4 cases showed any recurrence (follow-up period: 12-32 months). Conclusions: We herein report a case involving a patient with 15 rectal NETs and ECMs. We reviewed our experience with multiple rectal NETs, and the rate of multiple rectal NETs was 7.1%. Endoscopists should consider that multiple lesions may be present in cases of rectal NET and be aware that some cannot be detected endoscopically.
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.