Endoscopy 2025; 57(S 02): S351-S352
DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1805875
Abstracts | ESGE Days 2025
ePosters

Comparison between ligation-assisted and precutting endoscopic mucosal resection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: A CHASID (Chungcheong Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases) multicenter study

Authors

  • K C Huh

    1   Konyang University hospital, Daejeon, Republic of Korea

  • H Koo

    1   Konyang University hospital, Daejeon, Republic of Korea

  • D S Kim

    1   Konyang University hospital, Daejeon, Republic of Korea

  • Y Chung

    2   Soonchunhyang University Hospital, Cheon An, Republic of Korea

  • S Ryou

    3   Dankook University Hospital,, Cheon An, Republic of Korea
Further Information
Also available at
 

Aims Modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) techniques have been reported as effective methods for treating small rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NET) compared to conventional EMR. However, there are not many comparative studies among modified EMR techniques. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of ligation-assisted EMR (EMR-L) and precutting EMR (EMR-P) as treatments for small rectal NETs.

Methods This study retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent EMR-L or EMR-P for rectal NETs less than 10 mm in size at 4 university hospitals in the Daejeon-Chungcheong region from January 2018 to December 2022. We evaluated the rates of en bloc resection, histologic complete resection, and complications according to the treatment method.

Results Among a total of 195 rectal NETs, 143 were resected with EMR-L, and 52 were resected with EMR-P. Although the endoscopic (4.6mm vs. 7.0mm, p<0.001) and histopathologic lesion size (4.0±1.7mm vs. 5.2±2.4mm, p=0.002) were significantly larger in the EMR-P group than EMR-L group, the presence of ulcer or flattening or depression and lesion location were not significantly different between the two groups. En bloc resection rate (100% vs. 96.2%, p=0.070), and histologic complete resection rate (95.8% vs 90.4%, p=0.14) were not significantly different between the two groups. However, the total procedure time (3.9±2.3 min vs 9.8±5.6 min, p<0.001) was significantly shorter in the EMR-L group than in the EMR-P group. The procedure-related bleeding, perforation, recurrence, and hospital days were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions : Although EMR-L was significantly faster than EMR-P in treating small rectal NETs, both methods were safe and effective with high en bloc and histological complete resection.



Publication History

Article published online:
27 March 2025

© 2025. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany