Seung Wook Hong, Dong-Hoon Yang, Yoo Jin Lee, Dong Hoon Baek, Jaeyoung Chun, Hyun Gun Kim, Sung Joo Kim, Seung-Mo Hong, Dae-Seong Myung
{"title":"Endoscopic mucosal resection using anchored snare Tip-in versus precut technique for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors.","authors":"Seung Wook Hong, Dong-Hoon Yang, Yoo Jin Lee, Dong Hoon Baek, Jaeyoung Chun, Hyun Gun Kim, Sung Joo Kim, Seung-Mo Hong, Dae-Seong Myung","doi":"10.3904/kjim.2023.263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>Small rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) can be treated with modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). However, an optimal EMR method remains to be established. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of Tip-in EMR versus precut EMR (EMR-P) for treating rectal NETs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial enrolled patients with rectal NETs of < 10 mm in diameter. The patients were randomly assigned to EMR-P and Tip-in EMR groups in a 1:1 ratio. Primary outcome was margin-negative (R0) resection rate between the two methods, with a noninferiority margin of 10%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-five NETs in 73 patients, including 64 eligible lesions (32 lesions in each, EMR-P and Tip-in EMR groups), were evaluated. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, R0 resection rates of the EMR-P and Tip-in EMR groups were 96.9% and 90.6%, respectively, which did not demonstrate non-inferiority (risk difference, -6.3 [95% confidence interval: -18.0 to 5.5]). Resection time in the EMR-P group was longer than that in the Tip-in EMR group (p < 0.001). One case of intraprocedural bleeding was reported in each group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We did not demonstrate the non-inferiority of Tip-in EMR compared to EMR-P for treating small rectal NETs. However, the R0 resection rates for both techniques were high enough for clinical application.</p>","PeriodicalId":48785,"journal":{"name":"Korean Journal of Internal Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"238-247"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10918371/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Journal of Internal Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2023.263","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background/aims: Small rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) can be treated with modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). However, an optimal EMR method remains to be established. We aimed to assess the non-inferiority of Tip-in EMR versus precut EMR (EMR-P) for treating rectal NETs.
Methods: This prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial enrolled patients with rectal NETs of < 10 mm in diameter. The patients were randomly assigned to EMR-P and Tip-in EMR groups in a 1:1 ratio. Primary outcome was margin-negative (R0) resection rate between the two methods, with a noninferiority margin of 10%.
Results: Seventy-five NETs in 73 patients, including 64 eligible lesions (32 lesions in each, EMR-P and Tip-in EMR groups), were evaluated. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, R0 resection rates of the EMR-P and Tip-in EMR groups were 96.9% and 90.6%, respectively, which did not demonstrate non-inferiority (risk difference, -6.3 [95% confidence interval: -18.0 to 5.5]). Resection time in the EMR-P group was longer than that in the Tip-in EMR group (p < 0.001). One case of intraprocedural bleeding was reported in each group.
Conclusion: We did not demonstrate the non-inferiority of Tip-in EMR compared to EMR-P for treating small rectal NETs. However, the R0 resection rates for both techniques were high enough for clinical application.
期刊介绍:
The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine is an international medical journal published in English by the Korean Association of Internal Medicine. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed original articles, reviews, and editorials on all aspects of medicine, including clinical investigations and basic research. Both human and experimental animal studies are welcome, as are new findings on the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of diseases. Case reports will be published only in exceptional circumstances, when they illustrate a rare occurrence of clinical importance. Letters to the editor are encouraged for specific comments on published articles and general viewpoints.