Cargando…
Comparison of endoscopic submucosal resection with ligation and endoscopic submucosal dissection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: A multicenter retrospective study
OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic submucosal resection with band ligation (ESMR‐L) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are both standard endoscopic resection methods for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) <10 mm in size. However, there is no definitive consensus on which is better. Here, we compared...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9478042/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36176350 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/deo2.163 |
_version_ | 1784790488428052480 |
---|---|
author | Matsuno, Kenshi Miyamoto, Hideaki Kitada, Hideki Yoshimatsu, Shinichi Tamura, Fumio Sakurai, Kouichi Fukubayashi, Kotaro Shono, Takashi Setoyama, Hiroko Matsuyama, Taichi Suko, Shinichiro Narita, Rei Honda, Munenori Tateyama, Masakuni Naoe, Hideaki Morinaga, Jun Tanaka, Yasuhito Gushima, Ryosuke |
author_facet | Matsuno, Kenshi Miyamoto, Hideaki Kitada, Hideki Yoshimatsu, Shinichi Tamura, Fumio Sakurai, Kouichi Fukubayashi, Kotaro Shono, Takashi Setoyama, Hiroko Matsuyama, Taichi Suko, Shinichiro Narita, Rei Honda, Munenori Tateyama, Masakuni Naoe, Hideaki Morinaga, Jun Tanaka, Yasuhito Gushima, Ryosuke |
author_sort | Matsuno, Kenshi |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic submucosal resection with band ligation (ESMR‐L) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are both standard endoscopic resection methods for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) <10 mm in size. However, there is no definitive consensus on which is better. Here, we compared the efficacy of ESMR‐L and ESD for small rectal NETs. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study including 205 patients with rectal NETs who underwent ESMR‐L or ESD. Treatment outcomes were compared by univariate analysis, multivariate analysis, and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) using propensity scores. Subgroup analysis evaluated the impact of the endoscopist's experience on the technical outcome. RESULTS: Eighty‐nine patients were treated by ESMR‐L and 116 by ESD. The R0 resection rate was not significantly different between the two (90% vs. 92%, p = 0.73). The procedure time of ESMR‐L was significantly shorter than for ESD (17 min vs. 52 min, p < 0.01) and the hospitalization period was also significantly shorter (3 days vs. 5 days, p < 0.01). These results were confirmed by multivariate analysis and also after IPTW adjustment. The procedure time of ESD was significantly prolonged by a less‐experienced endoscopist (49 min vs. 70 min, p = 0.02), but that of ESMR‐L was not affected (17 min vs. 17 min, p = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: For small rectal NETs, both ESMR‐L and ESD showed similar high complete resection rates. However, considering the shorter procedure time and shorter hospitalization period, ESMR‐L is the more efficient treatment method, especially for less‐experienced endoscopists. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9478042 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-94780422022-09-28 Comparison of endoscopic submucosal resection with ligation and endoscopic submucosal dissection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: A multicenter retrospective study Matsuno, Kenshi Miyamoto, Hideaki Kitada, Hideki Yoshimatsu, Shinichi Tamura, Fumio Sakurai, Kouichi Fukubayashi, Kotaro Shono, Takashi Setoyama, Hiroko Matsuyama, Taichi Suko, Shinichiro Narita, Rei Honda, Munenori Tateyama, Masakuni Naoe, Hideaki Morinaga, Jun Tanaka, Yasuhito Gushima, Ryosuke DEN Open Original Articles OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic submucosal resection with band ligation (ESMR‐L) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are both standard endoscopic resection methods for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) <10 mm in size. However, there is no definitive consensus on which is better. Here, we compared the efficacy of ESMR‐L and ESD for small rectal NETs. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study including 205 patients with rectal NETs who underwent ESMR‐L or ESD. Treatment outcomes were compared by univariate analysis, multivariate analysis, and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) using propensity scores. Subgroup analysis evaluated the impact of the endoscopist's experience on the technical outcome. RESULTS: Eighty‐nine patients were treated by ESMR‐L and 116 by ESD. The R0 resection rate was not significantly different between the two (90% vs. 92%, p = 0.73). The procedure time of ESMR‐L was significantly shorter than for ESD (17 min vs. 52 min, p < 0.01) and the hospitalization period was also significantly shorter (3 days vs. 5 days, p < 0.01). These results were confirmed by multivariate analysis and also after IPTW adjustment. The procedure time of ESD was significantly prolonged by a less‐experienced endoscopist (49 min vs. 70 min, p = 0.02), but that of ESMR‐L was not affected (17 min vs. 17 min, p = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: For small rectal NETs, both ESMR‐L and ESD showed similar high complete resection rates. However, considering the shorter procedure time and shorter hospitalization period, ESMR‐L is the more efficient treatment method, especially for less‐experienced endoscopists. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-09-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9478042/ /pubmed/36176350 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/deo2.163 Text en © 2022 The Authors. DEN Open published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Matsuno, Kenshi Miyamoto, Hideaki Kitada, Hideki Yoshimatsu, Shinichi Tamura, Fumio Sakurai, Kouichi Fukubayashi, Kotaro Shono, Takashi Setoyama, Hiroko Matsuyama, Taichi Suko, Shinichiro Narita, Rei Honda, Munenori Tateyama, Masakuni Naoe, Hideaki Morinaga, Jun Tanaka, Yasuhito Gushima, Ryosuke Comparison of endoscopic submucosal resection with ligation and endoscopic submucosal dissection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: A multicenter retrospective study |
title | Comparison of endoscopic submucosal resection with ligation and endoscopic submucosal dissection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: A multicenter retrospective study |
title_full | Comparison of endoscopic submucosal resection with ligation and endoscopic submucosal dissection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: A multicenter retrospective study |
title_fullStr | Comparison of endoscopic submucosal resection with ligation and endoscopic submucosal dissection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: A multicenter retrospective study |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of endoscopic submucosal resection with ligation and endoscopic submucosal dissection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: A multicenter retrospective study |
title_short | Comparison of endoscopic submucosal resection with ligation and endoscopic submucosal dissection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: A multicenter retrospective study |
title_sort | comparison of endoscopic submucosal resection with ligation and endoscopic submucosal dissection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a multicenter retrospective study |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9478042/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36176350 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/deo2.163 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT matsunokenshi comparisonofendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithligationandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforsmallrectalneuroendocrinetumorsamulticenterretrospectivestudy AT miyamotohideaki comparisonofendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithligationandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforsmallrectalneuroendocrinetumorsamulticenterretrospectivestudy AT kitadahideki comparisonofendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithligationandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforsmallrectalneuroendocrinetumorsamulticenterretrospectivestudy AT yoshimatsushinichi comparisonofendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithligationandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforsmallrectalneuroendocrinetumorsamulticenterretrospectivestudy AT tamurafumio comparisonofendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithligationandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforsmallrectalneuroendocrinetumorsamulticenterretrospectivestudy AT sakuraikouichi comparisonofendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithligationandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforsmallrectalneuroendocrinetumorsamulticenterretrospectivestudy AT fukubayashikotaro comparisonofendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithligationandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforsmallrectalneuroendocrinetumorsamulticenterretrospectivestudy AT shonotakashi comparisonofendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithligationandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforsmallrectalneuroendocrinetumorsamulticenterretrospectivestudy AT setoyamahiroko comparisonofendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithligationandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforsmallrectalneuroendocrinetumorsamulticenterretrospectivestudy AT matsuyamataichi comparisonofendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithligationandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforsmallrectalneuroendocrinetumorsamulticenterretrospectivestudy AT sukoshinichiro comparisonofendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithligationandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforsmallrectalneuroendocrinetumorsamulticenterretrospectivestudy AT naritarei comparisonofendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithligationandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforsmallrectalneuroendocrinetumorsamulticenterretrospectivestudy AT hondamunenori comparisonofendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithligationandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforsmallrectalneuroendocrinetumorsamulticenterretrospectivestudy AT tateyamamasakuni comparisonofendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithligationandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforsmallrectalneuroendocrinetumorsamulticenterretrospectivestudy AT naoehideaki comparisonofendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithligationandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforsmallrectalneuroendocrinetumorsamulticenterretrospectivestudy AT morinagajun comparisonofendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithligationandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforsmallrectalneuroendocrinetumorsamulticenterretrospectivestudy AT tanakayasuhito comparisonofendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithligationandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforsmallrectalneuroendocrinetumorsamulticenterretrospectivestudy AT gushimaryosuke comparisonofendoscopicsubmucosalresectionwithligationandendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionforsmallrectalneuroendocrinetumorsamulticenterretrospectivestudy |