ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2026
Outcomes of subsequent endoscopic resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors with positive/indeterminate vertical margins.
Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background and Aims: Management of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) with positive/indeterminate vertical margins (VM1/VMX) after endoscopic resection (ER) remains unestablished. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of subsequent ER for rectal NETs after initial ER with VM1/VMX. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of rectal NET cases undergoing subsequent ER at a high-volume center, where such cases were frequently referred and subsequent ER was the principal management strategy, except when the risk of metastasis was considered especially high. We assessed the presence of a residual tumor based on lesion characteristics as well as initial ER techniques and outcomes. Additionally, we assessed subsequent ER outcomes, including en bloc and R0 (en bloc with negative cut margins) resection and adverse events. For patients with follow-up longer than 1 year, we examined recurrence. Results: Among 54 lesions in 51 patients undergoing subsequent ER, a residual tumor was found histologically in 20.4%, despite no endoscopic evidence of residual on the initial resection site. Subsequent ER, mainly endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device and endoscopic submucosal dissection, achieved en bloc resection in all and R0 resection in 10 of 11 residual cases without any adverse events. No recurrences were observed during a median follow-up period of 40 months. Conclusions: A residual tumor was present in a nonnegligible proportion of rectal NETs undergoing subsequent ER after initial ER with VM1/VMX. ER of residual rectal NET in patients with VM1/VMX was successful with no recurrence. Our findings suggest the potential usefulness of subsequent ER for these rectal NET cases.
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.