Short- and long-term outcomes of endoscopic resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumours: analyses according to the WHO 2010 classification

Abstract

Objective Although the World Health Organisation (WHO) defined a novel classification of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) in 2010, indications for endoscopic resection of rectal NETs in the guidelines were based on evidence accumulated for carcinoid tumours defined by a previous classification. This study was designed to clarify indications for endoscopic resection of rectal NETs corresponding to the new WHO classifications. Material and methods One hundred-seventy rectal NETs resected endoscopically from April 2001 to March 2012 were histologically re-classified according to the WHO 2010 criteria. The clinicopathological features of these lesions were analysed, and the short- and long-term outcomes of endoscopic resection were evaluated. Results Of the 170 rectal NETs, 166 were histopathologically diagnosed as NET G1 and four as NET G2. Thirty-eight tumours (22.4%) were positive for lymphovascular invasion, a percentage higher than expected. Although the curative resection rate was low (65.3%), en bloc (98.8%) and complete (85.9%) resection rates were high. Modified endoscopic mucosal resection (88.0%) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (92.2%) resulted in significantly higher complete resection rates than conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (36.4%). No patient experienced tumour recurrence, despite the low curative resection rate. Conclusion Despite the low curative resection rate, prognosis after endoscopic resection of rectal NETs was excellent. Prospective large-scale, long-term studies are required to determine whether NET G2 and tumours >1 cm should be included in the indication for endoscopic resection and whether tumours with lymphovascular invasion can be followed up without additional surgery.

KEYWORDS:

• Endoscopic resection
• indication
• outcome
• rectal neuroendocrine tumour

Declaration of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.