Randomised controlled trial of transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus endoscopic mucosal resection for large rectal adenomas (TREND Study).

OBJECTIVE: Non-randomised studies suggest that endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is equally effective in removing large rectal adenomas as transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), but EMR might be more cost-effective and safer. This trial compares the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of TEM and EMR for large rectal adenomas. DESIGN: Patients with rectal adenomas ≥3 cm, without malignant features, were randomised (1:1) to EMR or TEM, allowing endoscopic removal of residual adenoma at 3 months. Unexpected malignancies were excluded postrandomisation. Primary outcomes were recurrence within 24 months (aiming to demonstrate non-inferiority of EMR, upper limit 10%) and the number of recurrence-free days alive and out of hospital. RESULTS: Two hundred and four patients were treated in 18 university and community hospitals. Twenty-seven (13%) had unexpected cancer and were excluded from further analysis. Overall recurrence rates were 15% after EMR and 11% after TEM; statistical non-inferiority was not reached. The numbers of recurrence-free days alive and out of hospital were similar (EMR 609±209, TEM 652±188, p=0.16). Complications occurred in 18% (EMR) versus 26% (TEM) (p=0.23), with major complications occurring in 1% (EMR) versus 8% (TEM) (p=0.064). Quality-adjusted life years were equal in both groups. EMR was approximately €3000 cheaper and therefore more cost-effective. CONCLUSION: Under the statistical assumptions of this study, non-inferiority of EMR could not be demonstrated. However, EMR may have potential as the primary method of choice due to a tendency of lower complication rates and a better cost-effectiveness ratio. The high rate of unexpected cancers should be dealt with in further studies.

Total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer in an unselected population: quality assessment in a low volume center.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review the results and long-term outcome after total mesorectal excision (TME) for adenocarcinoma of the rectum in an unselected population in a community teaching hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1996 and 2003, 210 patients with rectal cancer were identified in our prospective database, containing patient characteristics, radiotherapy plans, operation notes, histopathological reports, and follow-up details. An evaluation of prognostic factors for local recurrence, distant metastases, and overall survival was performed. RESULTS: The mean age at diagnosis was 69 years (range 40-91 years). A total of 145 patients were treated by anterior rectal resection; 65 patients had to undergo an abdominoperineal resection (APR). Anastomotic leakage rate was 5%. Postoperative mortality was 3%. After a median follow-up of 3.6 years, the local recurrence-free rate in patients with microscopically complete resections was 91%. The 5-year overall survival rate was 58%. An increased serum carcinoembryonic antigen, an APR, positive lymph nodes, and an incomplete resection all significantly influenced the 5-year overall survival and local recurrence rate. In a multivariate analysis, age was the most important prognostic factor for overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with rectal cancer can safely be treated with TME in a community teaching hospital and leads to a good overall survival and an excellent local control. In patients aged above 80, treatment-related mortality is an important competitive risk factor, which obscures the positive effect of modern rectal cancer treatment.

Transanal endoscopic microsurgery versus endoscopic mucosal resection for large rectal adenomas (TREND-study).

BACKGROUND: Recent non-randomized studies suggest that extended endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is equally effective in removing large rectal adenomas as transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). If equally effective, EMR might be a more cost-effective approach as this strategy does not require expensive equipment, general anesthesia and hospital admission. Furthermore, EMR appears to be associated with fewer complications.The aim of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of TEM and EMR for the resection of large rectal adenomas. METHODS/DESIGN: Multicenter randomized trial among 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with a rectal adenoma > or = 3 cm, located between 1-15 cm ab ano, will be randomized to a TEM- or EMR-treatment strategy. For TEM, patients will be treated under general anesthesia, adenomas will be dissected en-bloc by a full-thickness excision, and patients will be admitted to the hospital. For EMR, no or conscious sedation is used, lesions will be resected through the submucosal plane in a piecemeal fashion, and patients will be discharged from the hospital. Residual adenoma that is visible during the first surveillance endoscopy at 3 months will be removed endoscopically in both treatment strategies and is considered as part of the primary treatment. Primary outcome measure is the proportion of patients with recurrence after 3 months. Secondary outcome measures are: 2) number of days not spent in hospital from initial treatment until 2 years afterwards; 3) major and minor morbidity; 4) disease specific and general quality of life; 5) anorectal function; 6) health care utilization and costs. A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis of EMR against TEM for large rectal adenomas will be performed from a societal perspective with respectively the costs per recurrence free patient and the cost per quality adjusted life year as outcome measures. Based on comparable recurrence rates for TEM and EMR of 3.3% and considering an upper-limit of 10% for EMR to be non-inferior (beta-error 0.2 and one-sided alpha-error 0.05), 89 patients are needed per group. DISCUSSION: The TREND study is the first randomized trial evaluating whether TEM or EMR is more cost-effective for the treatment of large rectal adenomas. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: (trialregister.nl) NTR1422.