Feasibility of Endoscopic Treatment for Rectal Carcinoid Tumors According to Tumor Size Soung Min Jeon, Jin Ha Lee, Sung Pil Hong, Tae Il Kim, Won Ho Kim, Jae Hee Cheon Department of Internal Medicine and Institute of Gastroenterology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea Background/Aims: This study was aimed to assess whether endoscopic treatment for rectal carcinoid tumors larger than 10 mm is feasible in terms of the rates of en bloc resection, histological complete resection, complication incidence, and tumor recurrence. Methods: Endoscopic treatments including conventional endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic mucosal resection using a cap (EMR-C), and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) were performed to 101 patients among 111 patients diagnosed to have rectal carcinoid tumors at Severance Hospital in Seoul, Korea, between January 2005 and December 2009. All patients were confirmed to have no muscular layer invasion, no metastases to the lymph nodes or distal organs, and no atypical histological features. The patients were categorized into three groups by tumor size; (A) 1 10 mm, (B) 11 15 mm, and (C) 16 20 mm. We retrospectively reviewed their endoscopic pictures/video and medical records, and analyzed differences in results of endoscopic treatment and follow-up among the 3 groups. Results: Among the 3 groups, significant differences in baseline characteristics of patients and tumors were not shown except for tumor size. Although the rates of en bloc resection and pathologic complete resection did not differ according to tumor size, complication incidence and the rates of local recurrence, metastasis, and need for additional rescue therapy were higher as tumor size was larger (complication rate; 8.1%, 21.4%, 46.2%, p 0.001/ recurrence rate; 1.4%, 7.1%, 38.5%, p 0.001/ metastasis rate; 1.4%, 7.1%, 23.1%, p 0.004/ need for rescue therapy; 5.4%, 21.4%, 61.5%, p 0.001, in A, B, and C groups, respectively). In multivariate analysis for the risk factors of additional treatment after endoscopic treatment of rectal carcinoids, method of endoscopic treatment, invasion depth, and en bloc resection were not found to be independent risk factors, but only tumor size was an independent risk factor (RR of 11 20 mm to 1 10 mm in tumor size; 13.098, p 0.008/RR of 16 20 mm to 1 15 mm in tumor size; 20.894, p 0.002). ESD was superior to EMR/EMR-C in terms of rates of endoscopically and pathologically complete resection and complication. However, the procedure time of ESD was longer than EMR/EMR-C and the rate of additional rescue therapy after ESD did not reveal statistical differences compared with EMR/EMRC in all groups. Conclusions: In rectal carcinoid tumors with size 10mm, endoscopic treatment might be most feasible and both EMR/EMR-C and ESD showed similar efficacy and safety. However, surgery is still indicated for rectal carcinoid tumors which are larger than 10 mm because of high risk of need for additional rescue therapy and metastasis.