ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Multicenter outcomes of endoscopic resection for small non-ampullary duodenal neuroendocrine tumors.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic resection is an accepted treatment option for appropriately selected non-ampullary duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (DNETs) measuring 10 mm or less. However, multicenter data from routine practice settings remain limited, particularly regarding histologic outcomes, adverse events, and recurrence after endoscopic resection.
methodsThis retrospective multicenter cohort study included consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic resection for non-ampullary DNETs at six affiliated centers, including a cancer center, university hospitals, and community hospitals, between January 2012 and July 2024. Primary outcomes were histologically complete (R0) resection and procedure-related adverse events (bleeding and perforation). Secondary outcomes included en bloc resection and recurrence during follow-up. Technique-specific outcomes were summarized descriptively.
resultsA total of 36 patients with 36 lesions were analyzed. Resection techniques were conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (CEMR, n = 4), EMR with a cap (EMR-C, n = 10), endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device (ESMR-L, n = 19), endoscopic muscularis resection with an over-the-scope clip (EMRO, n = 1), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD, n = 2). En bloc resection was achieved in 35/36 lesions (97.2%) and R0 resection in 26/36 (72.2%). Adverse events occurred in 2/36 (5.6%; one bleeding and one perforation). During a median follow-up of 48 months (range < 1-156), no recurrence was documented. ESMR-L was the most frequently selected technique (19/36, 52.8%) and was performed at all six institutions. Among lesions treated with ESMR-L, en bloc resection was achieved in 19/19 lesions (100%), R0 resection in 15/19 lesions (78.9%), and no procedure-related adverse events were documented.
conclusionsIn this multicenter real-world cohort, endoscopic resection for small non-ampullary DNETs achieved a high en bloc resection rate, an acceptable R0 resection rate, and a low frequency of adverse events, with no documented recurrence during the available follow-up. These findings support endoscopic resection as a reasonable treatment option for appropriately selected patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42736459What 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.