ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
The role of endoscopic ultrasonography for diagnosis of residual rectal neuroendocrine tumor.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Is salvage treatment necessary after incomplete resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2026Pooled it
- Rectal neuroendocrine tumors: Update.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Review
- Current status of endoscopic resection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is useful for assessing the depth and regional lymph node involvement in rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). However, evidence regarding the effectiveness of EUS in identifying residual lesions in patients with incompletely resected NET is limited. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of EUS in identifying residual rectal NETs and the clinical outcomes of salvage endoscopic treatment.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who were transferred to Chosun University Hospital and received salvage treatment for incompletely resected rectal NETs between January 2012 and October 2021.
resultsThis study included 68 incompletely resected rectal NET, of which 59 were margin-positive and 9 were margin-indeterminate. EUS detection (odds ratio (OR), 8.44; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.18-41.35) and visual detection (OR, 7.00; 95% CI, 1.50-47.48) were associated with residual lesion in patients with incompletely resected NET. EUS detection of residual lesions showed a sensitivity of 94%, specificity of 71%, positive predictive value of 88%, negative predictive value of 83%, and accuracy of 87%. All patients underwent salvage treatment with band-ligation endoscopic mucosal resection (58.8%) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (41.2%). Residual NETs were diagnosed in 47 of 68 patients (69.1%), and no recurrence was noted during the follow-up period of 51.8 ± 22.9 months.
conclusionsEUS is a more sensitive method than visual detection for evaluating residual rectal NETs. Salvage endoscopic treatment for incompletely resected NETs is safe and effective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38866946What 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.