Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Modified endoscopic mucosal resection offers comparable histologic efficacy to ESD for rectal neuroendocrine tumorsModified Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Shows Equal Results to ESD

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that m-EMR provides comparable histologic efficacy to ESD for r-NETs while offering shorter procedure times.

This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of modified endoscopic mucosal resection (m-EMR) compared to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in 440 patients with rectal neuroendocrine tumors (r-NETs) $\leq$10 mm. The primary outcome of histologic complete resection showed no significant difference between m-EMR and ESD (RR = 1.00; 95% CI 0.97-1.03).

Secondary outcomes included en bloc resection, procedure-related adverse events, procedure time, and hospitalization cost. No significant difference was found for en bloc resection (P = 0.75) or procedure-related adverse events (P = 0.94). However, m-EMR was associated with significantly shorter procedure times and lower hospitalization costs compared to ESD.

Evidence certainty for these findings was moderate, with TSA confirming reliability and sensitivity analyses supporting robustness. While m-EMR provides comparable short-term histologic efficacy to ESD, it may offer logistical advantages regarding procedure duration and cost. Clinical application should consider these factors when selecting a technique for r-NETs $\leq$10 mm.

Researchers analyzed data from 440 patients with small rectal neuroendocrine tumors to compare two different removal techniques: modified endoscopic mucosal resection (m-EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The goal was to see if one method was more effective at removing the tumor completely.

The study found that both m-EMR and ESD were equally effective at achieving a complete resection and removing the tumor in one piece. There was also no significant difference between the two methods regarding the number of complications or safety issues reported during the procedures.

However, the m-EMR technique was associated with shorter procedure times and lower costs for hospital stays. While the evidence for these findings is of moderate certainty, the results suggest that m-EMR is a comparable option to ESD for these specific tumors. Patients and doctors can consider these findings when discussing treatment options for rectal neuroendocrine tumors.

What this means for you:
m-EMR is as effective as ESD for removing certain rectal tumors while being faster and less costly.

Common questions

Is m-EMR as safe as ESD for removing tumors?

The study found no significant difference in procedure-related adverse events between m-EMR and ESD (P = 0.94). This means both methods were found to have similar safety profiles for patients with rectal neuroendocrine tumors under 10 mm.

Which procedure is faster for treating these tumors?

The analysis showed that m-EMR was associated with significantly shorter procedure times compared to ESD. This suggests that m-EMR may be a more efficient option for the medical team during the procedure.

Are there cost differences between m-EMR and ESD?

The study found that m-EMR was associated with lower hospitalization costs than ESD. While both methods are effective at removing the tumor, m-EMR may be more cost-effective for the healthcare system.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 440
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedOct 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic resection is the standard treatment for rectal neuroendocrine tumors (r-NETs) ≤10 mm, yet the optimal technique remains debated. Modified endoscopic mucosal resection (m-EMR) has been proposed as an alternative to endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), but prior evidence is mainly retrospective and recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are inconclusive. METHODS: We systematically searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, and WanFang from January 1, 1970 to December 23, 2025, for RCTs comparing m-EMR and ESD in r-NETs ≤10 mm. Evidence certainty was evaluated using GRADE, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to support the statistical stability of the pooled estimate. RESULTS: Six RCTs involving 440 patients were included. No significant differences were found between m-EMR and ESD in histologic complete resection (RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.97-1.03; I² = 0%), en bloc resection (P = 0.75), or procedure-related adverse events (P = 0.94). m-EMR was associated with significantly shorter procedure time and lower hospitalization cost. Evidence certainty was moderate; TSA confirmed the reliability of the findings, and both cumulative and sensitivity analyses supported the robustness. CONCLUSION: m-EMR provides comparable short-term histologic efficacy to ESD, while being associated with shorter procedure time and lower hospitalization costs, supporting its consideration as a reasonable first-line option for r-NETs ≤10 mm.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.