ArticleAnnals of coloproctology2025
Endoscopic treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a consecutive analysis of multi-institutional data.
Article in Annals of coloproctology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk factors for residual cancer and lymph node metastasis after non-curative endoscopic resection of colorectal cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Defining endoscopic candidacy for intermediate size rectal neuroendocrine tumors.World journal of gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Endoscopic submucosal dissection for colitis cystica profunda in a 49-year-old woman: a case report with 52-month follow-up and sustained remission.AME case reports · 2026Article
- Efficacy, Safety and Oncological Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Approaches (EMR, ESD and TAMIS) for Early Rectal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Long-term outcomes of endoscopic resection of 1-1.5 cm sized grade 1 rectal neuroendocrine tumor: A retrospective study.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe incidence of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) is increasing owing to a rise in colonoscopy screening. For the endoscopic removal of NETs, complete resection including the submucosal layer is essential. Therefore, appropriate endoscopic resection techniques are of critical importance. This study aimed to analyze data on rectal NETs and help provide guidance for their endoscopic treatment.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on data from patients who underwent resection for rectal NETs at 6 institutions between 2010 and 2021.
resultsA total of 1,406 tumors were resected from 1,401 patients. During a mean follow-up period of 55.4 months, there were 8 cases (0.5%) of recurrence. Overall, a complete resection was achieved in 77.6% of the patients, with modified endoscopic mucosal resection (mEMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) showing the highest rate at 86.0% and 84.9%, respectively, followed by conventional EMR (cEMR; 68.7%) and snare polypectomy (59.0%). In the subgroup analysis, statistically significant differences were observed in complete resection rates based on tumor size. ESD and mEMR demonstrated significantly higher complete resection rates compared with cEMR. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that tumor location of the lower rectum and advanced techniques (mEMR and ESD) were significant prognostic factors for complete resection rates.
conclusionWhen encountering rectal subepithelial lesions on endoscopic examination, endoscopists should consider the possibility of NETs and carefully decide on the endoscopic treatment method. Therefore, it is advisable to perform mEMR or ESD to achieve complete resection, especially for rectal NETs measuring ≤10 mm.
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.