Jen-Hao Yeh1, Cheng-Hao Tseng2, Ru-Yi Huang3, Chih-Wen Lin1, Ching-Tai Lee4, Po-Jen Hsiao1, Tsung-Chin Wu1, Liang-Tseng Kuo5, Wen-Lun Wang6. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, E-DA Hospital/I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; School of Medicine, College of Medicine, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, E-DA Hospital/I-Shou University, Da-Chung Branch, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, E-DA Hospital/I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; School of Medicine, College of Medicine, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, E-DA Cancer Hospital/I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 3. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, E-DA Hospital/I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; School of Medicine, College of Medicine, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Department of Family Medicine, E-DA Hospital/I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 4. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, E-DA Hospital/I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; School of Medicine, College of Medicine, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. 5. Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Chia-Yi, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Chiayi, Taiwan. 6. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, E-DA Hospital/I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; School of Medicine, College of Medicine, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Electronic address: warrengodr@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is controversy over the best therapeutic approach for T1 colorectal cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term outcomes of endoscopic resection (ER) vs those of primary or additional surgery. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases through October 2019 for studies that reported outcomes (overall survival, disease-specific survival, recurrence-free survival at 5 years, recurrence, and metastasis) of ER vs surgery in patients with colorectal neoplasms. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated based on time to events. RESULTS: In total, 17 published studies with 19,979 patients were included. The median follow-up time among the studies was 36 months. The meta-analysis found no significant differences between primary ER and primary surgery in overall survival (79.6% vs 82.1%, HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.84-1.45), recurrence-free survival (96.0% vs 96.7%, HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.87-1.88), or disease-specific survival (94.8% vs 96.5%; HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.67-1.78). Additional surgery and primary surgery did not produce significant differences in recurrence-free survival (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.85-1.89). A significantly lower proportion of patients who underwent primary ER had procedure-related adverse events (2.3%) than patients who underwent primary surgery (10.9%) (P < .001). Lymphovascular invasion and rectal cancer, but not depth of submucosal invasion, were independently associated with recurrence for all T1 colorectal cancers. CONCLUSIONS: In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that ER should be considered as the first-line treatment for endoscopically resectable T1 colorectal cancers. In cases of noncurative resection, additional surgery can have comparable outcomes to primary surgery.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is controversy over the best therapeutic approach for T1 colorectal cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term outcomes of endoscopic resection (ER) vs those of primary or additional surgery. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases through October 2019 for studies that reported outcomes (overall survival, disease-specific survival, recurrence-free survival at 5 years, recurrence, and metastasis) of ER vs surgery in patients with colorectal neoplasms. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated based on time to events. RESULTS: In total, 17 published studies with 19,979 patients were included. The median follow-up time among the studies was 36 months. The meta-analysis found no significant differences between primary ER and primary surgery in overall survival (79.6% vs 82.1%, HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.84-1.45), recurrence-free survival (96.0% vs 96.7%, HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.87-1.88), or disease-specific survival (94.8% vs 96.5%; HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.67-1.78). Additional surgery and primary surgery did not produce significant differences in recurrence-free survival (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.85-1.89). A significantly lower proportion of patients who underwent primary ER had procedure-related adverse events (2.3%) than patients who underwent primary surgery (10.9%) (P < .001). Lymphovascular invasion and rectal cancer, but not depth of submucosal invasion, were independently associated with recurrence for all T1 colorectal cancers. CONCLUSIONS: In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that ER should be considered as the first-line treatment for endoscopically resectable T1 colorectal cancers. In cases of noncurative resection, additional surgery can have comparable outcomes to primary surgery.
Authors: Saurabh Chandan; Smit Deliwala; Shahab R Khan; Daryl Ramai; Babu P Mohan; Mohammad Bilal; Antonio Facciorusso; Lena L Kassab; Faisal Kamal; Banreet Dhindsa; Abhilash Perisetti; Douglas G Adler Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2022-01-06 Impact factor: 3.487