# Outcome of Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors ≤ 10 mm

## TL;DR

This study examines the outcomes of endoscopic resection for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors and highlights the importance of proper resection techniques and follow-up.

## Contribution

The study provides real-world insights into the management of small rectal neuroendocrine tumors using various endoscopic techniques.

## Key findings

- Most small rNETs were removed using simple endoscopic techniques without prior staging.
- Follow-up endoscopic ultrasound detected local recurrence in one case, which was successfully treated.
- Early EUS evaluation appears to safely manage cases with potentially inappropriate resection.

## Abstract

Background and aim: Guidelines suggest endoscopic resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (rNETs) < 10 mm, but the most appropriate resection technique is unclear. In real-life clinical practice, the endoscopic removal of unrecognized rNETs can take place with “simple” techniques and without preliminary staging. The aim of the current study is to report our own experience at a referral center for both neuroendocrine neoplasms and endoscopy. Methods: Retrospective analyses of polypectomies were performed at the Humanitas Research Hospital for rNETs (already diagnosed or previously unrecognized). Results: A total of 19 patients were included, with a median lesion size of 5 mm (range 3–10 mm). Only five lesions were suspected as NETs before removal and underwent endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) before resection, being removed with advanced endoscopic techniques. Unsuspected rNETs were removed by cold polypectomy in eleven cases, EMR in two, and biopsy forceps in one. When described, the margins were negative in four cases, positive in four (R1), and indeterminate in one. The median follow-up was 40 months. A 10 mm polypoid lesion removed with cold snare polypectomy (G2 R1) needed subsequent surgery. Eighteen patients underwent EUS after a median time of 6.5 months from resection. The EUS identified local recurrence after 14 months in a 7 mm polypoid lesion removed with cold snare polypectomy (G1 R1); the lesion was treated with cap-assisted EMR. For all the other lesions, the follow-up was negative. Conclusions: When rNETs are improperly removed without prior staging, caution must be exercised. The data from our cohort suggest that even if inappropriate resection had happened, patients may be safely managed with early EUS evaluation.