ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Outcome of Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors ≤ 10 mm.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- NANETS Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of stage I-III rectal neuroendocrine tumors.Endocrine-related cancer · 2026Guideline
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimGuidelines suggest endoscopic resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (rNETs) < 10 mm, but the most appropriate resection technique is unclear. In real-life clinical practice, the endoscopic removal of unrecognized rNETs can take place with "simple" techniques and without preliminary staging. The aim of the current study is to report our own experience at a referral center for both neuroendocrine neoplasms and endoscopy.
methodsRetrospective analyses of polypectomies were performed at the Humanitas Research Hospital for rNETs (already diagnosed or previously unrecognized).
resultsA total of 19 patients were included, with a median lesion size of 5 mm (range 3-10 mm). Only five lesions were suspected as NETs before removal and underwent endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) before resection, being removed with advanced endoscopic techniques. Unsuspected rNETs were removed by cold polypectomy in eleven cases, EMR in two, and biopsy forceps in one. When described, the margins were negative in four cases, positive in four (R1), and indeterminate in one. The median follow-up was 40 months. A 10 mm polypoid lesion removed with cold snare polypectomy (G2 R1) needed subsequent surgery. Eighteen patients underwent EUS after a median time of 6.5 months from resection. The EUS identified local recurrence after 14 months in a 7 mm polypoid lesion removed with cold snare polypectomy (G1 R1); the lesion was treated with cap-assisted EMR. For all the other lesions, the follow-up was negative.
conclusionsWhen rNETs are improperly removed without prior staging, caution must be exercised. The data from our cohort suggest that even if inappropriate resection had happened, patients may be safely managed with early EUS evaluation.
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.