ReviewIntestinal research2026
Recent updates on the endoscopic treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumor.
Review in Intestinal research, 2026. 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.
- Beyond technique: toward strategy-based endoscopic resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The incidence of rectal neuroendocrine tumors has been gradually increasing, primarily due to the widespread use of screening colonoscopy and growing awareness of the disease. Most rectal neuroendocrine tumors are small ( < 10 mm), well-differentiated, and low-grade lesions at the time of diagnosis, and they are usually asymptomatic. Given these characteristics, endoscopic resection is considered a feasible treatment option for early-stage lesions. However, due to their inherent malignant potential, a comprehensive initial diagnostic evaluation is essential. Lymph node or distal metastasis can be present at diagnosis or may develop long after apparently successful primary treatment. Therefore, achieving complete resection using the most optimal resection method is crucial. Modified endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection are recommended over conventional forceps or snare polypectomy, which are associated with high incomplete resection rates. In case of incomplete resection, additional endoscopic resection can be a feasible option in selected cases. Furthermore, regular post-resection surveillance is needed, especially in patients with high-risk of recurrence such as poor pathologic result or incomplete resection.
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.