Recent updates on the endoscopic treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumor

Sunghyeok Ryou; Kwangwoo Nam

doi:10.5217/ir.2025.00141

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Intest Res > Ahead-of print articles > Article

Review Recent updates on the endoscopic treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumor: Sunghyeok Ryou, Kwangwoo Nam; DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2025.00141
Published online: November 27, 2025

Department of Gastroenterology, Dankook University Hospital, Dankook University College of Medicine, Cheonan, Korea

Correspondence to Kwangwoo Nam, Department of Gastroenterology, Dankook University Hospital, Dankook University College of Medicine, 201 Manghyang-ro, Dongnam-gu, Cheonan 31116, Korea. E-mail: nambag1108@gmail.com

• Received: July 18, 2025 • Revised: August 18, 2025 • Accepted: September 8, 2025

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

533 Views
83 Download
1 Crossref

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
EPIDEMIOLOGY OF R-NET
DIAGNOSIS AND INITIAL WORKUP OF R-NET
ENDOSCOPIC TREATMENT OF R-NET
POST-RESECTION SURVEILLANCE AND LONG-TERM FOLLOW-UP OF R-NET
PROGNOSTIC FACTORS
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

The incidence of rectal neuroendocrine tumors has been gradually increasing, primarily due to the widespread use of screening colonoscopy and growing awareness of the disease. Most rectal neuroendocrine tumors are small ( < 10 mm), well-differentiated, and low-grade lesions at the time of diagnosis, and they are usually asymptomatic. Given these characteristics, endoscopic resection is considered a feasible treatment option for early-stage lesions. However, due to their inherent malignant potential, a comprehensive initial diagnostic evaluation is essential. Lymph node or distal metastasis can be present at diagnosis or may develop long after apparently successful primary treatment. Therefore, achieving complete resection using the most optimal resection method is crucial. Modified endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection are recommended over conventional forceps or snare polypectomy, which are associated with high incomplete resection rates. In case of incomplete resection, additional endoscopic resection can be a feasible option in selected cases. Furthermore, regular post-resection surveillance is needed, especially in patients with high-risk of recurrence such as poor pathologic result or incomplete resection.
Keywords: Neuroendocrine tumors; Rectal neoplasms; Colonoscopy; Endoscopic mucosal resection; Lymph nodes

INTRODUCTION

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) arise from enterochromaffin-like cells and can develop anywhere along the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, from the foregut to the hindgut. GEP-NETs encompass both GI and pancreatic NETs, and they account for approximately 2% of all GI malignancies. Among GI-NETs, rectal NETs (R-NETs) originated from the hindgut and are generally considered less aggressive than NETs arising from the small intestine or colon. The incidence of R-NETs has gradually increased in recent decades, especially in East Asia, largely due to the widespread use of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening program and better awareness of the disease.

Endoscopic resection is commonly performed for small, superficial, and well-differentiated GI-NETs in the stomach, duodenum, and rectum [1]. Therefore, a thorough understanding of the disease and careful selection of the patients based on appropriate indications are essential for optimal endoscopic management of R-NETs. In this manuscript, we reviewed the recent advances in the management and endoscopic treatment strategies for R-NETs.

EPIDEMIOLOGY OF R-NET

The incidence and prevalence of GEP-NETs have markedly increased over the last decades [2,3]. According to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, the age-adjusted incidence rate of GEP-NETs rose 6.4-fold from 1975 to 2015 (annual percentage change [APC], 4.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.75–5.20; P<0.01) [3]. Among them, R-NETs demonstrated the most significant increase (APC, 6.43; 95% CI, 5.65–7.23; P<0.001), whereas colonic NET exhibited the least significant increase (APC, 2.87; 95% CI, 2.28–3.47) [3]. In addition, the 20-year limited-duration prevalence of GEP-NETs also significantly increased, from 0.00138% in 1996 to 0.03917% in 2015. Among all primary sites, R-NETs had the highest prevalence, reaching 0.01505% in 2015 [3]. These trends are largely due to increased awareness of the disease and increased use of screening colonoscopy. Most R-NETs are asymptomatic and detected in screening colonoscopy, and the overall survival for localized R-NET is excellent (>25 years), which is better than that of localized colonic or cecal NET [2].

DIAGNOSIS AND INITIAL WORKUP OF R-NET

Typical endoscopic features of R-NET are yellowish or whitish protruding subepithelial lesions in the rectum [1]. As most R-NETs originate from the deep mucosal layer, the diagnostic yield of forceps biopsy is about 40% to 70%. However, post-biopsy scarring and fibrosis might make further endoscopic resection more difficult.

Considering its malignant potential, a thorough imaging workup is recommended for all R-NET cases. European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommend endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or rectal (pelvic) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for initial local staging [4,5]. EUS has advantages for assessing the characteristics of R-NETs and determining their depth of invasion and regional metastatic lymph nodes [4]. Rectal MRI has advantages in the detection and characterization of regional metastatic lymph node and is recommended for tumors ≥10 mm, World Health Organization (WHO) grade G2-G3, or lymph node involvement is suspected [4]. In addition, abdominopelvic and chest computed tomography (CT) is needed to assess distant metastasis. Somatostatin receptor-based positron emission tomography (PET)-CT, which offers superior sensitivity and specificity for detecting NETs, is used as a part of distant metastasis staging workup (Fig. 1) [4].

R-NETs are classified by pathologic grade according to the WHO classification, based on mitotic count and Ki-67 proliferation index. Tumors classified as G1 and G2 are considered well-differentiated tumors, whereas G3 is considered as poorly differentiated tumors and referred to as neuroendocrine carcinomas (Table 1).

ENDOSCOPIC TREATMENT OF R-NET

Endoscopic resection is the standard treatment not only for early GI cancer but also for early-stage R-NET (T1N0M0) [6]. Small (<10 mm) and superficial R-NETs without high-risk features are generally good candidates for endoscopic resection [7]. Previous studies have demonstrated that the incidence of lymph node metastasis in R-NETs ≤10 mm is significantly lower than in R-NETs 11–20 mm (1.1%–2.5% vs. 6.6%–12.8%) [4]. Nonetheless, complete resection should be achieved given their malignant potential. Until now, various endoscopic resection techniques have been developed. Conventional forceps or snare polypectomy is generally not recommended due to their high incomplete resection rate, as enteroendocrine cells often extend into the subepithelial layer, and submucosal invasion has been reported up to 76% of R-NETs (Table 2) [1,8].

Conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is technically simple, less invasive, and fast procedure. However, it has shown inferior outcomes in terms of en bloc and complete resection rates compared with modified EMR (mEMR) techniques. EMR with transparent cap (EMR-C), EMR with ligation (EMR-L), and EMR with precutting (EMR-P) are representative methods of mEMR (Table 2) [9]. Recently, anchored snare-tip (tip-in) EMR has been introduced, showing shorter procedure time with comparable efficacy [9,10]. The key principle of mEMR is to achieve deeper submucosal resection compared to conventional methods. For example, EMR-L demonstrated a significantly lower rates of deep margin positivity compared with conventional EMR (6% vs. 46%; P=0.029) [11]. Likewise, EMR-P showed favorable en bloc (98.6%) and complete resection rates (93.1%) [12]. In selected cases with sufficient expertise, endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) offers high complete resection rates which could reduce the risk of recurrence. However, ESD is associated with a higher risk of adverse events such as hemorrhage and perforation compared to mEMR. In previous study, mEMR and ESD showed comparable complete resection rate (90.0% vs. 82.3%) and post-procedural bleeding rate (5.5% vs. 2.8%) [13]. More recently, endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) using a dedicated over-the-scope clip and snare was introduced. EFTR enables complete full-thickness resection around the lesion, which minimize the chance of residual tumor, and also useful for additional resection after incomplete resection of R-NET (Fig. 1) [14,15]. However, it is currently not reimbursed and is therefore rarely used in Korea.

According to the ENETS guideline, mEMR, ESD, or EFTR are considered as feasible treatment options for R-NET <10 mm [4]. For tumors measuring 10–20 mm without definite lymph node metastasis, a personalized approach including full imaging and multidisciplinary discussion is recommended to determine whether endoscopic or surgical resection is suitable. For lesions >20 mm without definite metastasis, radical surgical resection such as low anterior resection or abdominopelvic resection is generally recommended (Fig. 1) [5].

In cases of incomplete endoscopic resection of small R-NETs, additional salvage endoscopic resection can be performed to eliminate residual tumors. A recent study investigating salvage endoscopic resection for previous incomplete or inappropriate resection revealed that residual tumors were significantly more common in conventional forceps or snare polypectomy and conventional EMR compared with mEMR or ESD (41.7%–70.0% vs. 0%). Furthermore, prior incomplete resection was significantly associated with residual tumor risk compared to prior complete resection (65.7% vs. 0%) [8].

POST-RESECTION SURVEILLANCE AND LONG-TERM FOLLOW-UP OF R-NET

Surveillance strategy following initial treatment of R-NET is based on the tumor size and outcome of the resection. According to the recent NCCN guideline, no routine follow-up is recommended after complete resection of small (<10 mm) RNET, considering the very low risk of lymph node or distant metastasis [5]. However, lymph node metastasis has been reported even in a small, low-risk R-NET although it is rare and its progression speed was very slow [16]. Therefore, a no follow-up policy should be adopted with caution, and only after careful patient selection in this situation.

For tumors measuring 10–20 mm, the NCCN guideline recommends colonoscopy with rectal MRI or EUS at 6 months and 12 months after resection [5]. After 12 months from the initial resection, follow-up with biochemical markers and abdominopelvic/chest CT were recommended every 1–2 years up to 10 years to monitor the local recurrence or distant metastasis [5].

According to the recent ENETS guideline, for small ( <10 mm) R-NET G1 without lymphovascular invasion after complete endoscopic resection, no routine follow-up is recommended. After complete resection of small R-NET G1 with lymphovascular invasion or G2/3, follow-up with pelvic MRI every 6 months and sigmoidoscopy yearly for at least 5 years is recommended. After incomplete resection of small R-NET G1/G2(low), follow-up with endoscopy and EUS or MRI yearly for at least 5 years is recommended. In addition, PET-CT is recommended initially and after 12 months [4].

After complete resection of R-NET G1/G2 ≥ 10 mm, followup with MRI every 6 months and sigmoidoscopy yearly for at least 5 years is recommended. After complete resection of R-NET G3, follow-up with MRI every 3 months for 2 years, followed by 6 months for 5 years, and sigmoidoscopy 6 months for 2 years, followed by yearly for 5 years is recommended [4].

Chromogranin A (CgA) is a useful immunohistochemical marker in R-NET, although it is less commonly expressed than synaptophysin. A previous study reported that CgA positivity was more frequently observed in patients aged ≥50 years, male, those with incomplete resection, and more advanced stages. In addition, CgA expression was significantly associated with shorter survival outcomes in R-NET [17]. In the same study, patients with CgA positivity also showed elevated plasma CgA levels, suggesting its potential usefulness as a circulating tumor marker in R-NET [18]. However, other studies have reported no significant clinical association between plasma CgA level and the prognosis [19,20]. Therefore, further studies are needed to evaluate the clinical significance of plasma CgA as a biomarker in R-NET.

PROGNOSTIC FACTORS

Most R-NETs are small, localized, and superficial (confined to mucosa or submucosa) lesions, which carry a relatively low risk of lymph node metastasis. However, even in small size, high grade (G3), and positive lymphovascular invasion are important risk factors for lymph node metastasis. In these cases, additional surgical resection is generally warranted to decrease the risk of recurrence during surveillance (Fig. 1).

In addition, incomplete resection is another common reason for considering additional surgical resection. However, recent studies suggested that incomplete resection (R1) was not significantly associated with increased risk of metastasis or poor treatment outcomes, although the number of studied patients was very small [21,22]. It has been hypothesized that electrodiathermic burns themselves can cause coagulation necrosis at the remnant resection margin and may decrease the risk of local recurrence during follow-up, even in R1 cases [23]. Therefore, personalized management is warranted for the patients with R1 resection of R-NET and conservative management with close follow-up may be a valid option in selected patients (Fig. 1) [1].

Endoscopic resection is usually performed as a first treatment option in small ( <10 mm) R-NET. However, for more larger lesions measuring 10–20 mm, it is unclear whether endoscopic or surgical resection is more appropriate [4]. A previous study investigating the efficacy of endoscopic resection of 10–20 mm R-NET reported that lymph node or distant metastasis occurred in 2.9% of the patients during mean follow-up of 41.2 months. In this study, ESD was associated with significantly better long-term outcomes including a lower recurrence rate compared to mEMR or conventional EMR (0% vs. 6.9% vs. 12.5%; P=0.041) [21]. Although there are still limited data, endoscopic resection of large (10–20 mm) R-NET might be a feasible alternative option to decrease the unnecessary surgical resection in selected cases, especially in patients with older age and many comorbidities.

Multiple R-NETs at the time of diagnosis are not common, with an incidence of 2% to 5.7%. In some cases, it is difficult to differentiate multiple R-NETs from hyperplastic or adenomatous polyps [1]. The association between multiple R-NET and inflammatory bowel disease has been reported, and multiple tumors ( ≥ 8) were reported to be associated with a higher risk of lymph node metastasis [24]. Therefore, careful assessment is needed in cases of multiple R-NET.

To date, there was not enough data about molecular characteristics on R-NET. Although rare, BRAF V600E and D594G mutations have been reported in R-NET, especially in neuroendocrine carcinoma, suggesting the potential usefulness as viable molecular markers in R-NET [25]. Further studies are needed to investigate the potential molecular markers of R-NET.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

R-NETs are often detected in screening colonoscopy as early stage with small and superficial tumors. Considering its malignant potential, a comprehensive initial evaluation, including EUS and cross-sectional imaging studies, is needed. Endoscopic resection is the main treatment option in small or some large R-NETs, and mEMR or ESD are recommended as proper methods. Achieving complete resection is crucial to minimizing the risk of metastasis during follow-up. Long-term surveillance, including colonoscopy and imaging, is recommended for up to 5–10 years, particularly in patients with high-risk features or incomplete initial resection.

NOTES

Funding Source

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of Interest

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Author Contributions

Writing and approval of the final manuscript: Ryou S, Nam K.

Fig. 1.

Suggested management algorithm for rectal neuroendocrine tumor. EUS, endoscopic ultrasound; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; CT, computed tomography; PET, positron emission tomography; ER, endoscopic resection (modified endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection); EFTR, endoscopic full-thickness resection; SR, surgical resection; CTx, chemotherapy; LVI, lymphovascular invasion; TAMIS, transanal minimally invasive surgery; FU, follow-up. Modified from Rinke A, et al. J Neuroendocrinol 2023;35:e13309. [4]

Table 1.

Grade of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors

Grade	Mitoses (per10 HPFs)	K-67 index
G1 (low grade)	<2	< 2%
G2 (intermediate grade)	2–20	3%–20%
G3 (high grade)	> 20	> 20%

HPFs, high-power fields.

Table 2.

Variable Methods of Endoscopic Resection for Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors

Technique	Complete resection rate	Adverse event rate
Conventional snare polypectomy	20–30	NR
Conventional EMR	30–80	4.1
Modified EMR
EMR with transparent cap	83.3–100	2.9–4.8
EMR with band ligation	95.5–100	0–4.8
EMR with precutting (circumferential incision)	93.1–99.4	5.5
EMR with anchored snare-tip (or tip-in)	94.1	6.7
ESD	87.1–100	0.6–7
Hybrid ESD (circumferential precutting and snare resection)	94.1	2.5

NR, not recorded; EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Modified from Hong SM, et al. Clin Endosc 2022;55:496-506. [9]

REFERENCES

1. Panzuto F, O’Toole D, Klöppel G, et al. Controversies in NEN: an ENETS position statement on the endoscopic management of localised gastric, duodenal and rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms. J Neuroendocrinol 2025;e70060.PubMed PMC
2. Dasari A, Shen C, Halperin D, et al. Trends in the incidence, prevalence, and survival outcomes in patients with neuroendocrine tumors in the United States. JAMA Oncol 2017;3:1335–1342.Article PubMed PMC
3. Xu Z, Wang L, Dai S, et al. Epidemiologic trends of and factors associated with overall survival for patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in the United States. JAMA Netw Open 2021;4:e2124750.Article PubMed PMC
4. Rinke A, Ambrosini V, Dromain C, et al. European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) 2023 guidance paper for colorectal neuroendocrine tumours. J Neuroendocrinol 2023;35:e13309.PubMed
5. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Neuroendocrine and adrenal tumors [Internet]. c2025 [cited 2025 Jul 15]. https://www.nccn.org/guidelines/guidelines-detail?id=1448&utm_source.
6. Park CH, Yang DH, Kim JW, et al. Clinical practice guideline for endoscopic resection of early gastrointestinal cancer. Intest Res 2021;19:127–157.Article PubMed PDF
7. Chablaney S, Zator ZA, Kumta NA. Diagnosis and management of rectal neuroendocrine tumors. Clin Endosc 2017;50:530–536.Article PubMed PMC PDF
8. Park JB, Kim GH, Kim M, et al. Risk factors for residual tumors in histologically incompletely resected rectal neuroendocrine tumors. Dig Liver Dis 2025;57:1473–1480.Article PubMed
9. Hong SM, Baek DH. Endoscopic treatment for rectal neuroendocrine tumor: which method is better? Clin Endosc 2022;55:496–506.Article PubMed PMC PDF
10. Kim J, Kim J, Oh EH, et al. Anchoring the snare tip is a feasible endoscopic mucosal resection method for small rectal neuroendocrine tumors. Sci Rep 2021;11:12918.Article PubMed PMC PDF
11. Kim JS, Kim YJ, Chung JW, et al. Usefulness of endoscopic resection using the band ligation method for rectal neuroendocrine tumors. Intest Res 2016;14:164–171.Article PubMed PMC
12. So H, Yoo SH, Han S, et al. Efficacy of precut endoscopic mucosal resection for treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors. Clin Endosc 2017;50:585–591.Article PubMed PMC PDF
13. Kitagawa Y, Suzuki T, Miyakawa A, et al. Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection and modified endoscopic mucosal resection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors. Sci Rep 2025;15:5424.Article PubMed PMC PDF
14. Meier B, Albrecht H, Wiedbrauck T, Schmidt A, Caca K. Fullthickness resection of neuroendocrine tumors in the rectum. Endoscopy 2020;52:68–72.Article PubMed
15. Brand M, Reimer S, Reibetanz J, Flemming S, Kornmann M, Meining A. Endoscopic full thickness resection vs. transanal endoscopic microsurgery for local treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a retrospective analysis. Int J Colorectal Dis 2021;36:971–976.Article PubMed PDF
16. Kim SH, Yang DH, Lee JS, et al. Natural course of an untreated metastatic perirectal lymph node after the endoscopic resection of a rectal neuroendocrine tumor. Intest Res 2015;13:175–179.Article PubMed PMC
17. Kim J, Kim JY, Oh EH, et al. Chromogranin A expression in rectal neuroendocrine tumors is associated with more aggressive clinical behavior and a poorer prognosis. Am J Surg Pathol 2020;44:1496–1505.Article PubMed
18. Yang X, Yang Y, Li Z, et al. Diagnostic value of circulating chromogranin a for neuroendocrine tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015;10:e0124884.Article PubMed PMC
19. Marotta V, Zatelli MC, Sciammarella C, et al. Chromogranin A as circulating marker for diagnosis and management of neuroendocrine neoplasms: more flaws than fame. Endocr Relat Cancer 2018;25:R11–R29.Article PubMed
20. Koenig A, Krug S, Mueller D, et al. Clinicopathological hallmarks and biomarkers of colorectal neuroendocrine neoplasms. PLoS One 2017;12:e0188876.Article PubMed PMC
21. Goo JJ, Baek DH, Kim HW, et al. Clinical outcomes and risk factors associated with poor prognosis after endoscopic resection of 10-20 mm rectal neuroendocrine tumors: a multicenter, retrospective study of 10-year experience. Surg Endosc 2023;37:5196–5204.Article PubMed PDF
22. Dell’Unto E, Marasco M, Mosca M, et al. Clinical outcome of patients with gastric, duodenal, or rectal neuroendocrine tumors after incomplete endoscopic resection. J Clin Med 2024;13:2535.Article PubMed PMC
23. Kim JH, Cheon JH, Kim TI, et al. Effectiveness of radical surgery after incomplete endoscopic mucosal resection for early colorectal cancers: a clinical study investigating risk factors of residual cancer. Dig Dis Sci 2008;53:2941–2946.Article PubMed PDF
24. Zheng X, Wu M, Li S, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics of rectal multiple neuroendocrine neoplasms and literature review. BMC Surg 2023;23:147.Article PubMed PMC PDF
25. Li K, Liu Y, Han J, Gui J, Zhang X. The genetic alterations of rectal neuroendocrine tumor and indications for therapy and prognosis: a systematic review. Endocr J 2023;70:197–205.Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Endoscopic Resection of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors: Pathologic Risk Stratification and Surveillance Strategies
Ji Eun Kim
Journal of Digestive Cancer Research.2025; 13(3): 228. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Recent updates on the endoscopic treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5217/ir.2025.00141

XML Download

Figure

Recent updates on the endoscopic treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumor

Fig. 1. Suggested management algorithm for rectal neuroendocrine tumor. EUS, endoscopic ultrasound; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; CT, computed tomography; PET, positron emission tomography; ER, endoscopic resection (modified endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection); EFTR, endoscopic full-thickness resection; SR, surgical resection; CTx, chemotherapy; LVI, lymphovascular invasion; TAMIS, transanal minimally invasive surgery; FU, follow-up. Modified from Rinke A, et al. J Neuroendocrinol 2023;35:e13309. [4]

Fig. 1.

Recent updates on the endoscopic treatment of rectal neuroendocrine tumor

Grade	Mitoses (per10 HPFs)	K-67 index
G1 (low grade)	<2	< 2%
G2 (intermediate grade)	2–20	3%–20%
G3 (high grade)	> 20	> 20%

Technique	Complete resection rate	Adverse event rate
Conventional snare polypectomy	20–30	NR
Conventional EMR	30–80	4.1
Modified EMR
EMR with transparent cap	83.3–100	2.9–4.8
EMR with band ligation	95.5–100	0–4.8
EMR with precutting (circumferential incision)	93.1–99.4	5.5
EMR with anchored snare-tip (or tip-in)	94.1	6.7
ESD	87.1–100	0.6–7
Hybrid ESD (circumferential precutting and snare resection)	94.1	2.5

Table 1. Grade of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors

HPFs, high-power fields.

Table 2. Variable Methods of Endoscopic Resection for Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors

NR, not recorded; EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Modified from Hong SM, et al. Clin Endosc 2022;55:496-506. [9]