Copyright
©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Gastroenterol. Mar 21, 2017; 23(11): 2037-2043
Published online Mar 21, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i11.2037
Published online Mar 21, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i11.2037
Parameter | Total (n = 120) |
Tumor size in mm, mean ± SD | |
Endoscopy | 5.47 ± 1.78 |
EUS | 5.53 ± 1.76 |
Histology | 5.54 ± 2.15 |
Endoscopic morphology | |
Sessile or slightly elevated | 110 (91.7) |
Flat | 10 (8.3) |
Central depression | 8 (6.7) |
Resection method | |
Conventional EMR | 3 (2.5) |
EMR with suction methods | 70 (58.3) |
ESD | 47 (39.2) |
Histologic grade | |
1 | 120 (100) |
2 | 0 |
3 | 0 |
Histologic type | |
Enteroglucagon or L-cell | 120 (100) |
Enterochromaffin or enterochromaffin-like cell | 0 |
Microscopic invasion | |
Lymphatic and vascular | 1 (0.8) |
Lymphatic | 0 |
Vascular | 0 |
Follow-up duration | |
6-12 mo | 84 (70.00) |
12-24 mo | 13 (10.83) |
24-36 mo | 16 (13.33) |
≥ 36 mo | 7 (5.83) |
Follow-up in day, median (range) | 196 (154-2148) |
Follow-up in day, mean ± SD | 407.54 ± 374.16 |
- Citation: Park SB, Kim DJ, Kim HW, Choi CW, Kang DH, Kim SJ, Nam HS. Is endoscopic ultrasonography essential for endoscopic resection of small rectal neuroendocrine tumors? World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23(11): 2037-2043
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v23/i11/2037.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i11.2037