Endoscopic submucosal dissection in tumors extending to the dentate line compared to proximal rectal tumors: a systematic review with meta-analysis

被引:1
|
作者
Perez-Cuadrado-Robles, Enrique [1 ]
Chupin, Antoine [1 ]
Perrod, Guillaume [1 ]
Severyns, Thomas [1 ]
Cellier, Christophe [1 ]
Rahmi, Gabriel [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Paris Univ, Georges Pompidou European Hosp, Dept Gastroenterol, 20 Rue Le Blanc, F-75015 Paris, France
[2] PARCC, INSERM U970, Paris, France
关键词
dentate line; endoscopy; endoscopic mucosal resection; endoscopic submucosal dissection; rectal tumors;
D O I
10.1097/MEG.0000000000001998
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a validated treatment for early rectal tumors, but whether this therapy is efficient or not for rectal tumors extending to the dentate line (RTDL) remains unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness and safety of ESD in RTDL compared to non-RTDL. A search in PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane library up to April 2020 was conducted to identify studies that compared ESD in both localizations (RTDL and non-RTDL), reporting at least one main outcome (en bloc, complete resection, recurrence). Secondary outcomes were adverse event occurrence. Five observational studies including 739 patients with a total of 201 RTDL and 538 non-RTDL were considered. The proportion of female sex (66% vs. 36.9%, P < 0.001) and tumor size [mean difference = 7.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.01-12.49, P = 0.001] were higher in the RTDL group. There were no differences in en bloc resection rates between RTDL and non-RTDL groups [odds ratio (OR): 0.95, 95% CI: 0.50-1.79, P = 0.087]. The complete resection rate was significantly higher in the non-RTDL group (OR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.18-2.53, P = 0.005, I-2 = 0%). However, recurrence rates were comparable (RD: -0.04, 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.00, P = 0.06, I-2 = 0%). Concerning adverse events, there were no differences in terms of perforation (OR: 0.9, 95% CI: 0.26-3.08, P = 0.86, I-2 = 0%) or delayed bleeding (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.17-2.42, P = 0.51, I-2 = 35%). Anal pain rate was 28% (95% CI: 21.4-35.8%). ESD is an effective and safe therapeutic approach for RTDL with comparable recurrence rate to non-RTDL. The lower complete resection rate in RTDL needs to be clarified in studies.
引用
收藏
页码:121 / 127
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Comparison of endoscopic therapies for rectal neuroendocrine tumors: endoscopic submucosal dissection with myectomy versus endoscopic submucosal dissection
    Pinghu Sun
    Tuo Zheng
    Chunjiu Hu
    Tengjiao Gao
    Xiaoyun Ding
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2021, 35 : 6374 - 6378
  • [32] Usefulness of endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors
    Hamada, Yasuhiko
    Tanaka, Kyosuke
    Tano, Shunsuke
    Katsurahara, Masaki
    Kosaka, Ryo
    Noda, Tomohiro
    Aoki, Masatoshi
    Toyoda, Hideki
    Takei, Yoshiyuki
    Katayama, Naoyuki
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY, 2012, 24 (07) : 770 - 774
  • [33] Comparative analysis of the efficacy of transanal endoscopic microsurgery and endoscopic submucosal dissection in the treatment of rectal tumors
    Wuqiang, Zh.
    Haiyong, Zh.
    Yahong, C.
    Yingke, F.
    Juping, Zh.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION RESEARCH, 2024, 22 (04):
  • [34] Efficacy of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Ting Zhang
    Hao Zhang
    Furui Zhong
    Xuan Wang
    Surgical Endoscopy, 2021, 35 : 52 - 62
  • [35] Efficacy of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for superficial esophageal neoplastic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Zhang, Ting
    Zhang, Hao
    Zhong, Furui
    Wang, Xuan
    SURGICAL ENDOSCOPY AND OTHER INTERVENTIONAL TECHNIQUES, 2021, 35 (01): : 52 - 62
  • [36] Risk factors for unsuccessful colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Gu, Feng
    Jiang, Wei
    Zhu, Jingyi
    Ma, Lei
    He, Boyuan
    Zhai, Huihong
    DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE, 2024, 56 (08) : 1288 - 1297
  • [37] Endoscopic submucosal dissection of papillary adenocarcinoma of stomach; protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Bang, Chang Seok
    Choi, Jae Ho
    Lee, Jae Jun
    Baik, Gwang Ho
    MEDICINE, 2018, 97 (52)
  • [38] Risk factors for perforation of gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Ding, Xiang
    Luo, Hesheng
    Duan, Houyu
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY, 2019, 31 (12) : 1481 - 1488
  • [39] Efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal tunnel dissection vs endoscopic submucosal dissection for early superficial upper gastrointestinal precancerous lesions and tumors: A meta-analysis
    Liu, Yu Zhi
    Lv, Xiu He
    Deng, Kai
    Yang, Jin Lin
    JOURNAL OF DIGESTIVE DISEASES, 2020, 21 (09) : 480 - 489
  • [40] Curative Effect Analysis of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Giant Laterally Spreading Rectal Tumors
    Nie, Xubiao
    Jiang, Airui
    Wu, Xiaoling
    Bai, Jianying
    He, Song
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2024, 58 (02) : 169 - 175