Thomas R McCarty1, Ahmad Najdat Bazarbashi1, Kelly E Hathorn1, Christopher C Thompson1, Hiroyuki Aihara2. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. haihara@bwh.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While multiple studies have evaluated endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) to remove large rectal tumors, there remains a paucity of data to evaluate their comparative efficacy and safety. The primary aim of this study was to perform a structured systematic review and meta-analysis to compare efficacy and safety of ESD versus TEM for the treatment of rectal tumors. METHODS: Individualized search strategies were developed from inception through November 2018 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Measured outcomes included pooled enbloc resection rates, margin-negative (R0) resection rates, procedure-associated adverse events, and rates of recurrence. This was a cumulative meta-analysis performed by calculating pooled proportions. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran Q test and I2 statistics, and publication bias by funnel plot using Egger and Begg tests. RESULTS: Three studies (n = 158 patients; 55.22% male) were included in this meta-analysis. Patients with ESD compared to TEM had similar age (P = 0.090), rectal tumor size (P = 0.108), and diagnosis rate of adenoma to cancer (P = 0.53). ESD lesions were more proximal as compared to TEM (8.41 ± 3.49 vs. 5.11 ± 1.43 cm from the anal verge; P < 0.001). Procedure time and hospital stay were shorter for ESD compared to TEM [(79.78 ± 24.45 vs. 116.61 ± 19.35 min; P < 0.001) and (3.99 ± 0.32 vs. 5.83 ± 0.94 days; P < 0.001), respectively]. No significant differences between enbloc resection rates [OR 0.98 (95% CI 0.22-4.33); P = 0.98; I2 = 0.00%] and R0 resection rates [OR 1.16 (95% CI 0.36-3.76); P = 0.80; I2 = 0.00%] were noted between ESD and TEM. ESD and TEM reported similar rates of adverse events [OR 1.15 (95% CI 0.47-2.77); P = 0.80; I2 = 0.00%] and rates of recurrence [OR 0.46 (95% CI 0.07-3.14); P = 0.43; I2 = 0.00%]. CONCLUSION: ESD and TEM possess similar rates of resection, adverse events, and recurrence for patients with large rectal tumors; however, ESD is associated with significantly shorter procedure times and duration of hospitalization. Future studies are needed to evaluate healthcare utilization for these two strategies.
BACKGROUND: While multiple studies have evaluated endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) to remove large rectal tumors, there remains a paucity of data to evaluate their comparative efficacy and safety. The primary aim of this study was to perform a structured systematic review and meta-analysis to compare efficacy and safety of ESD versus TEM for the treatment of rectal tumors. METHODS: Individualized search strategies were developed from inception through November 2018 in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Measured outcomes included pooled enbloc resection rates, margin-negative (R0) resection rates, procedure-associated adverse events, and rates of recurrence. This was a cumulative meta-analysis performed by calculating pooled proportions. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran Q test and I2 statistics, and publication bias by funnel plot using Egger and Begg tests. RESULTS: Three studies (n = 158 patients; 55.22% male) were included in this meta-analysis. Patients with ESD compared to TEM had similar age (P = 0.090), rectal tumor size (P = 0.108), and diagnosis rate of adenoma to cancer (P = 0.53). ESD lesions were more proximal as compared to TEM (8.41 ± 3.49 vs. 5.11 ± 1.43 cm from the anal verge; P < 0.001). Procedure time and hospital stay were shorter for ESD compared to TEM [(79.78 ± 24.45 vs. 116.61 ± 19.35 min; P < 0.001) and (3.99 ± 0.32 vs. 5.83 ± 0.94 days; P < 0.001), respectively]. No significant differences between enbloc resection rates [OR 0.98 (95% CI 0.22-4.33); P = 0.98; I2 = 0.00%] and R0 resection rates [OR 1.16 (95% CI 0.36-3.76); P = 0.80; I2 = 0.00%] were noted between ESD and TEM. ESD and TEM reported similar rates of adverse events [OR 1.15 (95% CI 0.47-2.77); P = 0.80; I2 = 0.00%] and rates of recurrence [OR 0.46 (95% CI 0.07-3.14); P = 0.43; I2 = 0.00%]. CONCLUSION: ESD and TEM possess similar rates of resection, adverse events, and recurrence for patients with large rectal tumors; however, ESD is associated with significantly shorter procedure times and duration of hospitalization. Future studies are needed to evaluate healthcare utilization for these two strategies.
Authors: A Repici; C Hassan; D De Paula Pessoa; N Pagano; A Arezzo; A Zullo; R Lorenzetti; R Marmo Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-07-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: S U Park; Y W Min; J U Shin; J H Choi; Y-H Kim; J J Kim; Y B Cho; H C Kim; S H Yun; W Y Lee; H-K Chun; D K Chang Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2012-09-25 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Jonathan Ac Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Barnaby C Reeves; Jelena Savović; Nancy D Berkman; Meera Viswanathan; David Henry; Douglas G Altman; Mohammed T Ansari; Isabelle Boutron; James R Carpenter; An-Wen Chan; Rachel Churchill; Jonathan J Deeks; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jamie Kirkham; Peter Jüni; Yoon K Loke; Theresa D Pigott; Craig R Ramsay; Deborah Regidor; Hannah R Rothstein; Lakhbir Sandhu; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Holger J Schünemann; Beverly Shea; Ian Shrier; Peter Tugwell; Lucy Turner; Jeffrey C Valentine; Hugh Waddington; Elizabeth Waters; George A Wells; Penny F Whiting; Julian Pt Higgins Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-10-12
Authors: J W A Leijtens; L J H Smits; T W A Koedam; R G Orsini; S M van Aalten; M Verseveld; P G Doornebosch; E J R de Graaf; J B Tuynman Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2022-08-27 Impact factor: 3.699
Authors: Nik Dekkers; Jurjen J Boonstra; Leon M G Moons; Roel Hompes; Barbara A Bastiaansen; Jurriaan B Tuynman; Arjun D Koch; Bas L A M Weusten; Apollo Pronk; Peter A Neijenhuis; Marinke Westerterp; Wilbert B van den Hout; Alexandra M J Langers; Jolein van der Kraan; Alaa Alkhalaf; Jonathan Y L Lai; Frank Ter Borg; Hans Fabry; Eric Halet; Matthijs P Schwartz; Wouter B Nagengast; Jan Willem A Straathof; Rogier W R Ten Hove; Leendert H Oterdoom; Christiaan Hoff; Eric J Th Belt; David D E Zimmerman; Muhammed Hadithi; Hans Morreau; Erienne M V de Cuba; Jeroen W A Leijtens; Hans F A Vasen; Monique E van Leerdam; Eelco J R de Graaf; Pascal G Doornebosch; James C H Hardwick Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 3.067