Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) Offers a Safer and More Cost-effective Alternative to Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery (TEM): An International Collaborative Study.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) are minimally invasive procedures that treat early rectal cancer (ERC). Both are effective treatments, yet there are very few studies comparing them. The aim of our study was to identify ideal candidates for each procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2016 and November 2019, 204 ERC patients were managed with either ESD (n=101) or TEM (n=103) at 7 international centers. Data analyzed included clinical success, tumor characteristics, procedure info, and recurrence rates. RESULTS: Median tumor size was 40 mm±23.9 in the ESD group and 56 mm±27.9 in the TEM group, significantly larger in the latter ( P <0.00001). Average procedure time was 131.5±67.9 minutes in ESD group and 104.9±28.4 minutes in TEM group ( P =0.000347). Average hospital stay was 3.3±2.6 days in the ESD group and 4.7±0.7 days in the TEM group ( P <0.00001). Adverse event rate was 6.8% in the ESD group and 24% in the TEM group. There were no significant difference in the rate of en bloc resection, technical success, tumor location, necessity of additional procedures, and tumor recurrence rates. CONCLUSION: Compared with TEM, ESD is a safer procedure with shorter hospital stay and should be offered for patients who have ERC.

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.