Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Endoscopic resection is more effective than biopsy or EUS to detect residual rectal neuroendocrine tumor.
Stier, Matthew W; Chapman, Christopher G; Shamah, Steven; Donboli, Kianoush; Yassan, Lindsay; Waxman, Irving; Siddiqui, Uzma D.
Afiliação
  • Stier MW; University of Chicago Center for Endoscopic Research and Therapeutics (CERT), Chicago, Illinois, United States.
  • Chapman CG; University of Chicago Center for Endoscopic Research and Therapeutics (CERT), Chicago, Illinois, United States.
  • Shamah S; University of Chicago Center for Endoscopic Research and Therapeutics (CERT), Chicago, Illinois, United States.
  • Donboli K; University of Chicago Center for Endoscopic Research and Therapeutics (CERT), Chicago, Illinois, United States.
  • Yassan L; Department of Pathology, the University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States.
  • Waxman I; University of Chicago Center for Endoscopic Research and Therapeutics (CERT), Chicago, Illinois, United States.
  • Siddiqui UD; University of Chicago Center for Endoscopic Research and Therapeutics (CERT), Chicago, Illinois, United States.
Endosc Int Open ; 9(1): E4-E8, 2021 Jan.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33403229
Background and study aims Rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are often discovered incidentally and may be misidentified as adenomatous polyps. This can result in a partial resection at the index procedure, and lesions are often referred for staging or evaluation for residual disease at the resection site. The aim of this study was to identify the ideal method to confirm complete excision of small rectal NETs. Patients and methods Data from patients with a previously resected rectal NET referred for follow-up endoscopy or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) were retrospectively reviewed. Univariate analysis was performed on categorical data using the Chi-squared test. Results Forty-nine patients with rectal NETs were identified by pathology specimens. Of those, 39 underwent follow-up endoscopy or EUS and were included. Baseline characteristics included gender (71 % F, 29 % M), age (57.2 ±â€Š13.4 yrs) lesion size (7.3 ±â€Š4.2 mm) and location. The prior resection site was identified in 37/39 patients who underwent tissue sampling. Residual NET was found histologically in 14/37 lesions. All residual disease was found during salvage endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and 43 % had a normal-appearing scar. Every patient undergoing EUS had an unremarkable exam. Initial cold biopsy polypectomy ( P  = 0.006), visible lesions ( P  = 0.001) and EMR/ESD of the prior resection site ( P  = 0.01) correlated with residual NET. Conclusions Localized rectal NETs may be incompletely removed with standard polypectomy. If an advanced resection is not performed initially, repeat endoscopy with salvage EMR or ESD of the scar should be considered. For small rectal NETs, biopsy may miss residual disease when there is no visible lesion and EUS appears to have no benefit.

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Endosc Int Open Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Endosc Int Open Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article