Table 4.

Summary of the Results of Previous Studies of Endoscopic Treatment of Rectal NETs

Method	Study	No. of patients	Size (cm)a), mean (SD)	En bloc resection, (%)	Complete resection (%)	Procedure time (min), mean (SD)	Complicationsb)
EMR	Park et al. [6]	62	7.1 (2.3)	95.2	71.0	4.2 (3.2)	Delayed bleeding: 0 (0%)
							Perforation: 1 (1.6%)
	Lee et al. [7]	28	5.7 (4.0)	89.3	64.3	12.0 (12.9)	None
	Kim et al. [10]	55	6.5 (3.2)	91	65.5	5.0 (0.8)	None
	Zhao et al. [11]	10	N/A	80	80	13.4 (17.13)	None
	Huang et al. [13]	28	9 (2.5)	96.55	82.14	4.2 (range, 2–10)	None
ESD	Park et al. [6]	31	6.5 (2.6)	100	90.3	11.4 (3.7)	Delayed bleeding: 0 (0%)
							Perforation: 1 (3.2%)
	Lee et al. [7]	46	6.2 (3.1)	100	82.6	18.9 (7.3)	Delayed bleeding: 0 (0%)
							Perforation: 1 (2.2%)
	Zhao et al. [11]	10	N/A	100	100	24.9 (5.78)	None
	Wang et al. [12]	25	12.27 (3.73)	100	100	24.79 (4.89)	Delayed bleeding: 1 (4.0%)
							Perforation: 2 (8.0%)
	Cheung et al. [14]	17	7.53 (1.94)	100	88.2	20.2 (12.6)	Delayed bleeding: 0 (0%)
							Perforation: 1 (5.9%)
EMR-C	Zhao et al. [11]	10	N/A	100	100	5.2 (0.78)	None
	Wang et al. [12]	30	10.35 (2.95)	83.3	70	9.52 (2.14)	None
EMR-L	Mashimo et al. [9]	61	6.4 (2.4)	N/A	95.2	N/A	Delayed bleeding: 1 (1.6%)
							Perforation: 0 (0%)
	Kim et al. [10]	45	5.8 (2.4)	100	93.3	4.8 (0.9)	Delayed bleeding: 1 (2.2%)
							Perforation: 0 (0%)
EMR-P	Huang et al. [13]	31	9 (2.5)	100	96.7	7.6 (range, 5–13)	None
	Cheung et al. [14]	16	6.63 (1.99)	87.5	81.2	9.69 (3.61)	Delayed bleeding: 0 (0%)
							Perforation: 1 (6.3%)
	This study	72	6.2 (2.8)	98.6	93.1	9.0 (5.6)	Delayed bleeding: 4 (5.6%)
							Perforation: 0 (0%)

Data reported as (%), mean (SD) or median (range).

NET, neuroendocrine tumor; SD, standard deviation; EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; EMR-C, cap-assisted EMR; EMR-L, EMR using band ligation; EMR-P, precut endoscopic mucosal resection; N/A, not available.

^a)Histologically measured size.

^b)Delayed bleeding and perforation.