Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40494667›Full record

ArticleDigestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society2025

Size matters: Establishing a cut-off for rectal neuroendocrine neoplasm to predict recurrence and standardize surveillance guidelines.

Seijong Kim, Eun Ran Kim, Sung Noh Hong, Dong Kyung Chang, Young-Ho Kim, Jung Kyong Shin, Yoonah Park, Jung Wook Huh, Hee Cheol Kim, Seong Hyeon Yun and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, 2025. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

12 authors.

Seijong KimDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Eun Ran KimDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Sung Noh HongDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Dong Kyung ChangDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Young-Ho KimDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jung Kyong ShinDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Yoonah ParkDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jung Wook HuhDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Hee Cheol KimDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Seong Hyeon YunDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Woo Yong LeeDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Yong Beom ChoDepartment of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to identify risk factors for recurrence of rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms, establish a cut-off size for recurrence prediction, and standardize surveillance guidelines.

methodsThis retrospective study analyzed patients diagnosed with rectal neuroendocrine neoplasm at Samsung Medical Center from January 2007 to July 2021. Tumors were classified according to World Health Organization and European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society guidelines. The primary outcome was to determine the ideal cut-off size for predicting recurrence.

resultsA total of 1011 patients (median follow-up: 58 months) were included: 967 with grade (G) I neuroendocrine tumor (NET), 35 with GII NET, and 9 with neuroendocrine carcinoma. Disease-free and overall survival were significantly better in GI NET than in GII and neuroendocrine carcinoma. For NET G1 patients undergoing endoscopic resection, a 0.7 cm cut-off (area under the curve = 0.94) showed 100% sensitivity, 79% specificity, and no recurrence. In contrast, for lymphovascular invasion (LVI)-positive, lymph node-negative NET G1 patients undergoing transanal endoscopic microsurgery/transanal excision or radical resection, an optimal cut-off of 1.5 cm (area under the curve = 0.92) was identified. NET G2 had a 22.9% lymph node metastasis rate, with recurrence risk increasing with size.

conclusionsFor NET G1 tumors ≤0.7 cm without LVI following endoscopic resection, routine surveillance may not be necessary due to the minimal risk of recurrence. Similarly, for LVI-positive, lymph node-negative NET G1 tumors that underwent surgical resection, surveillance may not be required if the tumor is ≤1.5 cm. Additionally, NET G2 tumors require regular follow-up regardless of size to ensure favorable oncologic outcomes. These findings contribute to a risk-based approach for surveillance, optimizing follow-up strategies.

Indexed as

Neoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeuroendocrine TumorsRectal NeoplasmsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPractice Guidelines as TopicRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsTumor Burdenneuroendocrine neoplasmrectumsurveillancesurvival

Identifiers

PMID40494667
PMCPMC12427148

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.