Cargando…

Is endoscopic ultrasonography essential for endoscopic resection of small rectal neuroendocrine tumors?

AIM: To evaluate the importance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for small (≤ 10 mm) rectal neuroendocrine tumor (NET) treatment. METHODS: Patients in whom rectal NETs were diagnosed by endoscopic resection (ER) at the Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital between 2008 and 2014 were included...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Park, Su Bum, Kim, Dong Jun, Kim, Hyung Wook, Choi, Cheol Woong, Kang, Dae Hwan, Kim, Su Jin, Nam, Hyeong Seok
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5360645/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28373770
http://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i11.2037
Descripción
Sumario:AIM: To evaluate the importance of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for small (≤ 10 mm) rectal neuroendocrine tumor (NET) treatment. METHODS: Patients in whom rectal NETs were diagnosed by endoscopic resection (ER) at the Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital between 2008 and 2014 were included in this study. A total of 120 small rectal NETs in 118 patients were included in this study. Histologic features and clinical outcomes were analyzed, and the findings of endoscopy, EUS and histology were compared. RESULTS: The size measured by endoscopy was not significantly different from that measured by EUS and histology (r = 0.914 and r = 0.727 respectively). Accuracy for the depth of invasion was 92.5% with EUS. No patients showed invasion of the muscularis propria or metastasis to the regional lymph nodes. All rectal NETs were classified as grade 1 and demonstrated an L-cell phenotype. Mean follow-up duration was 407.54 ± 374.16 d. No patients had local or distant metastasis during the follow-up periods. CONCLUSION: EUS is not essential for ER in the patient with small rectal NETs because of the prominent morphology and benign behavior.