Resectability of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors Using Endoscopic Mucosal Resection with a Ligation Band Device and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Hong Kyu Lim; Seong Jun Lee; Dong Hoon Baek; Do Youn Park; Bong Eun Lee; Eun Young Park; Joon Woo Park; Gwang Ha Kim; Geun Am Song

doi:10.1155/2019/8425157

Resectability of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors Using Endoscopic Mucosal Resection with a Ligation Band Device and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection

Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2019 Sep 16:2019:8425157. doi: 10.1155/2019/8425157. eCollection 2019.

Authors

Hong Kyu Lim¹, Seong Jun Lee¹, Dong Hoon Baek¹, Do Youn Park², Bong Eun Lee¹, Eun Young Park¹, Joon Woo Park¹, Gwang Ha Kim¹, Geun Am Song¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Internal Medicine, Pusan National University School of Medicine and Biomedical Research Institute, Busan, Republic of Korea.
² Department of Pathology, Pusan National University School of Medicine and Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

Background: Rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) < 10 mm in diameter, limited to the submucosa without local or distant metastasis, can be treated endoscopically. Endoscopic mucosal resection with a ligation band device (EMR-L) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) have been employed to resect rectal NETs. We evaluated and compared the clinical outcomes of EMR-L and ESD for endoscopic resection of rectal NETs G1 < 10 mm in diameter.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of 82 rectal NETs in 82 patients who underwent either EMR-L or ESD. Therapeutic outcomes (en bloc resection and complete resection rates), procedure time, and procedure-related adverse events were evaluated. Additionally, we measured the distance of the lateral and vertical margins from the border of the tumor in pathologic specimens and compared the resectability between EMR-L and ESD.

Results: Sixty-six lesions were treated using EMR-L and 16 using ESD. En bloc resection was achieved in all patients. The complete resection rate with EMR-L was significantly higher than that with ESD (95.5% vs.75.0%, p = 0.025). The prevalence of vertical margin involvement was significantly higher in the ESD group than in the EMR-L group (12.5% vs. 0%, p = 0.036), and ESD was more time consuming than EMR-L (24.21 ± 12.18 vs. 7.05 ± 4.53 min, p < 0.001). The lateral and vertical margins were more distant in the EMR-L group than in the ESD group (lateral margin distance, 1661 ± 849 vs. 1514 ± 948 μm; vertical margin distance, 277 ± 308 vs. 202 ± 171 μm).

Conclusions: EMR-L is more favorable for small rectal NETs with respect to therapeutic outcomes, procedure time, and technical difficulties. Additionally, EMR-L enables achievement of sufficient vertical margin distances.