Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection and modified endoscopic mucosal resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors
Abstract Although some studies have compared the treatment outcomes between modified endoscopic mucosal resection (m-EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), the results are based on the experience of experts from a single high-volume center. This mult...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nature Portfolio
2025-02-01
|
| Series: | Scientific Reports |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82082-7 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Abstract Although some studies have compared the treatment outcomes between modified endoscopic mucosal resection (m-EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), the results are based on the experience of experts from a single high-volume center. This multicenter study aimed to compare the outcomes between m-EMR and ESD for rectal NETs, with emphasis on the operator’s level. Data of patients with rectal NETs treated using m-EMR or ESD at seven institutions that included general hospitals in Japan were retrospectively reviewed. Patients treated using m-EMR and those treated using ESD were matched for age, sex, lesion size, lesion location, and operator level through propensity score matching. The treatment outcomes were compared between the two groups. In total 304 patients (m-EMR = 178, ESD = 126) were included, with 218 in the matched groups (m-EMR = 109, ESD = 109). The R0 resection rate was not significantly different between the two groups (90.0% vs. 82.3%, P = .221). However, the procedural time was significantly shorter for the m-EMR group than that for the ESD group (6 vs. 26 min, P < .001). No significant difference in adverse events was observed between the two groups (postprocedure bleeding rate: 5.5% vs. 2.8%, P = .335; perforation rate: 0.9% vs. 0.9%, P = 1.00). Subgroup analysis revealed that the R0 resection rate for the trainees was significantly higher in the m-EMR group than in the ESD group (87.9% vs. 64.5%, P = .017). m-EMR is the preferred technique for the treatment of rectal NETs and should be considered, particularly for the trainees. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2045-2322 |