SynthesisWorld journal of gastroenterology2026
Is salvage treatment necessary after incomplete resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of gastroenterology, 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.
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncomplete resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), defined by positive or indeterminate margins or lymphovascular invasion, raises concerns regarding residual disease and recurrence. However, the benefits of salvage treatment in these cases remain unclear.
aimTo evaluate the oncologic impact of salvage treatment compared with observation after incomplete endoscopic resection of rectal NETs through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis in accordance with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from their inception until May 2025. Eligible studies included patients with incompletely resected rectal NETs managed with salvage treatment or observation, reporting outcomes of residual tumors or recurrence. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models with Hartung-Knapp adjustments.
resultsThirty-four studies with 2279 cases of incomplete endoscopic resection met the inclusion criteria. The incomplete resection rates differed markedly according to the initial resection method (17 studies): 73.1% for cold snare polypectomy, 29.8% for conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), 28.4% for modified EMR, and 14.7% for endoscopic submucosal dissection. Among the 19 studies that evaluated salvage treatment, the pooled residual tumor rate was 25.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 12.0%-40.0%]. The crude recurrence rates from 31 studies favored salvage treatment over observation (0.96%
conclusionGiven the relatively high residual tumor rate and low incidence of recurrence, salvage treatment may be justified as both a diagnostic and therapeutic approach after incomplete resection of rectal NETs. Although its benefits in preventing recurrence remain unclear, clinical decisions should be individualized, as these findings are based on low-certainty evidence.
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.