TY - JOUR
T1 - Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for treatment of rectal tumors
T2 - a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - McCarty, Thomas R.
AU - Bazarbashi, Ahmad Najdat
AU - Hathorn, Kelly E.
AU - Thompson, Christopher C.
AU - Aihara, Hiroyuki
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2020/4/1
Y1 - 2020/4/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)
KW - Endoscopic surgery
KW - Endoscopy
KW - Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM)
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85069745731&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00464-019-06945-1
DO - 10.1007/s00464-019-06945-1
M3 - Article
C2 - 31292744
AN - SCOPUS:85069745731
SN - 0930-2794
VL - 34
SP - 1688
EP - 1695
JO - Surgical endoscopy
JF - Surgical endoscopy
IS - 4
ER -