Optimal endoscopic resection method based on vertical margin distance for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: Propensity score-matched study

Abstract

Background and study aims

Advanced endoscopic resection methods are recommended for removing rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) < 10 mm, but there is no consensus on optimal endoscopic technique. This study aimed to determine whether endoscopic mucosal resection with ligation (EMR-L) is superior to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in terms of efficacy and safety, focusing on achieving adequate vertical margin distance.

Patients and methods

This dual-center cohort study included consecutive patients with rectal NETs ≤ 10 mm. Adequate vertical margins were exploratively defined as a margin distance exceeding 115 μm, the 25th percentile threshold. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to compare outcomes between EMR-L and ESD.

Results

The study included 204 rectal NETs from 186 patients, with 61 lesions in each group after PSM. Compared with ESD, the EMR-L group demonstrated a higher R0 resection rate (98.4% vs. 83.6%, P = 0.021), a greater proportion of adequate vertical margins (80.3% vs. 62.3%, P = 0.030), and a lower rate of positive vertical margins (1.6% vs. 13.1%, P = 0.041). Subgroup analysis indicated that lesions ≤ 5 mm without prior biopsy or central depression derived greater benefit from EMR-L. Furthermore, EMR-L was associated with significantly shorter procedure times (median 5.0 vs. 19 minutes) and a markedly lower overall complication rate (8.2% vs. 29.5%, P = 0.005), particularly perforation (3.3% vs. 16.4%, P = 0.028).

Conclusions

EMR-L outperforms ESD for small rectal NETs by achieving higher R0 and better vertical margins in shorter times, while minimizing risk of perforation.

Keywords

Endoscopy Lower GI Tract - Polyps / adenomas / ... - Endoscopic resection (polypectomy, ESD, EMRc, ...) - CRC screening

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 19. März 2025

Angenommen nach Revision: 08. Juli 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
14. Juli 2025

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
15. August 2025

• References

• 1 Sekiguchi M, Hotta K, Takeuchi Y. et al. Characteristics of colorectal neuroendocrine tumors in patients prospectively enrolled in a Japanese multicenter study: a first report from the C-NET STUDY. J Gastroenterol 2022; 57: 547-558
• 2 Dasari A, Shen C, Halperin D. et al. Trends in the incidence, prevalence, and survival outcomes in patients with neuroendocrine tumors in the United States. JAMA Oncol 2017; 3: 1335-1342
• 3 Ngamruengphong S, Kamal A, Akshintala V. et al. Prevalence of metastasis and survival of 788 patients with T1 rectal carcinoid tumors. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 602-606
• 4 Ramage JK, De Herder WW, Delle Fave G. et al. ENETS Consensus Guidelines Update for Colorectal Neuroendocrine Neoplasms. Neuroendocrinology 2016; 103: 139-143
• 5 Tanaka S, Saitoh Y, Matsuda T. et al. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for management of colorectal polyps. J Gastroenterol 2021; 56: 323-335
• 6 Deprez PH, Moons LMG, O'Toole D. et al. Endoscopic management of subepithelial lesions including neuroendocrine neoplasms: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 412-429
• 7 Ito S, Hotta K, Sekiguchi M. et al. Short-term outcomes of endoscopic resection for colorectal neuroendocrine tumors: Japanese multicenter prospective C-NET STUDY. Dig Endosc 2024; 36: 942-951
• 8 Chen J, Ye J, Zheng X. et al. Endoscopic treatments for rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Surg 2024; 28: 301-308
• 9 Pan J, Zhang X, Shi Y. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection with suction vs. endoscopic submucosal dissection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a meta-analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol 2018; 53: 1139-1145
• 10 Niimi K, Goto O, Fujishiro M. et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection with a ligation device or endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal carcinoid tumors: an analysis of 24 consecutive cases. Dig Endosc 2012; 24: 443-447
• 11 Choi CW, Kang DH, Kim HW. et al. Comparison of endoscopic resection therapies for rectal carcinoid tumor: endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection using band ligation. J Clin Gastroenterol 2013; 47: 432-436
• 12 Kim KM, Eo SJ, Shim SG. et al. Treatment outcomes according to endoscopic treatment modalities for rectal carcinoid tumors. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 2013; 37: 275-282
• 13 Bang BW, Park JS, Kim HK. et al. Endoscopic resection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: comparison of endoscopic submucosal resection with band ligation and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2016; 2016: 6198927
• 14 Kaneko H, Hirasawa K, Koh R. et al. Treatment outcomes of endoscopic resection for rectal carcinoid tumors: an analysis of the resectability and long-term results from 46 consecutive cases. Scand J Gastroenterol 2016; 51: 1489-1494
• 15 Ebi M, Nakagawa S, Yamaguchi Y. et al. Endoscopic submucosal resection with an endoscopic variceal ligation device for the treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors. Int J Colorectal Dis 2018; 33: 1703-1708
• 16 Lim HK, Lee SJ, Baek DH. et al. Resectability of rectal neuroendocrine tumors using endoscopic mucosal resection with a ligation band device and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2019; 2019: 8425157
• 17 Kamigaichi Y, Yamashita K, Oka S. et al. Clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors: Advantages of endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device compared to conventional EMR and ESD. DEN Open 2022; 2: e35
• 18 Libanio D, Pimentel-Nunes P, Bastiaansen B. et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection techniques and technology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review. Endoscopy 2023; 55: 361-389
• 19 Takada K, Imai K, Yamada T. et al. Efficacy of endoscopic submucosal resection with a ligation device for small rectal neuroendocrine tumor: study protocol of a multicenter open-label randomized control trial (BANDIT trial). BMC Gastroenterol 2024; 24: 69
• 20 Wallenhorst T, Masgnaux LJ, Grimaldi J. et al. Obtaining a free vertical margin is challenging in endoscopic submucosal dissection of a rectal neuroendocrine tumor: use of adaptive traction to improve exposure in a child. Endoscopy 2023; 55: E763-E764
• 21 Tanaka S, Kashida H, Saito Y. et al. Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society guidelines for colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection/endoscopic mucosal resection. Dig Endosc 2020; 32: 219-239
• 22 Tahara T, Shijimaya T, Nishimon S. et al. Injury to the muscle layer and risk of non-cardiac chest pain after endoscopic submucosal dissection for esophageal cancer. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2024; 33: 25-29
• 23 Nishimura T, Oka S, Kamigaichi Y. et al. Vertical tumor margin of endoscopic resection for T1 colorectal carcinoma affects the prognosis of patients undergoing additional surgery. Surg Endosc 2022; 36: 5970-5978
• 24 Park SJ. Tips and tricks for better endoscopic treatment of colorectal tumors: usefulness of cap and band in colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection. Clin Endosc 2013; 46: 492-494
• 25 Cheminel L, Lupu A, Wallenhorst T. et al. Systematic resection of the visible scar after incomplete endoscopic resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumors. Am J Gastroenterol 2024; 119: 378-381
• 26 Liu J, Fang N. Traction by dental floss loop for adequate submucosal dissection depth in a rectal neuroendocrine tumor. Endoscopy 2023; 55: E326-E327