Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license. No commercial re-use. See permissions. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc.
World J Gastroenterol. Sep 14, 2026; 32(34): 119968
Published online Sep 14, 2026. doi: 10.3748/wjg.119968
Published online Sep 14, 2026. doi: 10.3748/wjg.119968
Letter to the Editor: Management of incomplete resection of small rectal neuroendocrine tumours: An open question
Massimiliano Fabozzi, Maurizio Zizzo, Andrea Morini, Lorenzo Dell'Atti, Surgical Oncology Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Reggio Emilia 42122, Emilia-Romagna, Italy
Author contributions: Fabozzi M, Zizzo M, Morini A and Dell’Atti L contributed to the conception and design of the study, each author also contributed to manuscript drafting; Zizzo M, Morini A and Dell’Atti L contributed to collection, analysis and interpretation of available data; and all authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors report no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.
Corresponding author: Lorenzo Dell'Atti, MD, Surgical Oncology Unit, Azienda USL-IRCCS di Reggio Emilia, Via Giovanni Amendola, 2, Reggio Emilia 42122, Emilia-Romagna, Italy. lorenzo.dellatti@ausl.re.it
Received: February 13, 2026
Revised: March 26, 2026
Accepted: May 7, 2026
Published online: September 14, 2026
Processing time: 189 Days and 9.9 Hours
Revised: March 26, 2026
Accepted: May 7, 2026
Published online: September 14, 2026
Processing time: 189 Days and 9.9 Hours
Core Tip
Core Tip: This sensitivity meta-analysis of studies with ≥ 36 months follow-up confirms that salvage therapy does not significantly reduce recurrence rates compared with observation after incomplete resection of small rectal neuroendocrine tumours (odds ratio = 0.89, 95% confidence interval: 0.37-2.18). Despite a 25% residual tumour rate at salvage, long-term outcomes do not favour routine re-intervention. These findings challenge current clinical practice and support individualised management based on risk stratification rather than automatic salvage. However, given the low event rates and limited follow-up, current evidence supports shared decision-making with patients.