Cargando…
Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Background and study aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an advanced endoscopic technique that allows en-bloc resection of gastrointestinal tumor. We systematically review the medical literature in order to evaluate the safety and efficacy of colorectal ESD. Patients and methods: We perf...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG
2016
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5063641/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27747275 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-114774 |
_version_ | 1782460018662047744 |
---|---|
author | Akintoye, Emmanuel Kumar, Nitin Aihara, Hiroyuki Nas, Hala Thompson, Christopher C. |
author_facet | Akintoye, Emmanuel Kumar, Nitin Aihara, Hiroyuki Nas, Hala Thompson, Christopher C. |
author_sort | Akintoye, Emmanuel |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background and study aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an advanced endoscopic technique that allows en-bloc resection of gastrointestinal tumor. We systematically review the medical literature in order to evaluate the safety and efficacy of colorectal ESD. Patients and methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid, CINAHL, and Cochrane for studies reporting on the clinical efficacy and safety profile of colorectal ESD. Results: Included in this study were 13833 tumors in 13603 patients (42 % female) who underwent colorectal ESD between 1998 and 2014. The R0 resection rate was 83 % (95 % CI, 80 – 86 %) with significant between-study heterogeneity (P < 0.001) which was partly explained by difference in continent (P = 0.004), study design (P = 0.04), duration of the procedure (P = 0.009), and, marginally, by average tumor size (P = 0.09). Endoscopic en bloc and curative resection rates were 92 % (95 % CI, 90 – 94 %) and 86 % (95 % CI, 80 – 90 %), respectively. The rates of immediate and delayed perforation were 4.2 % (95 % CI, 3.5 – 5.0 %) and 0.22 % (95 % CI, 0.11 – 0.46 %), respectively, while rates of immediate and delayed major bleeding were 0.75 % (95 % CI, 0.31 – 1.8 %) and 2.1 % (95 % CI, 1.6 – 2.6 %). After an average postoperative follow up of 19 months, the rate of tumor recurrence was 0.04 % (95 % CI, 0.01 – 0.31) among those with R0 resection and 3.6 % (95 % CI, 1.4 – 8.8 %) among those without R0 resection. Overall, irrespective of the resection status, recurrence rate was 1.0 % (95 % CI, 0.42 – 2.1 %). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis, the largest and most comprehensive assessment of colorectal ESD to date, showed that colorectal ESD is safe and effective for colorectal tumors and warrants consideration as first-line therapy when an expert operator is available. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5063641 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | © Georg Thieme Verlag KG |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-50636412016-10-14 Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis Akintoye, Emmanuel Kumar, Nitin Aihara, Hiroyuki Nas, Hala Thompson, Christopher C. Endosc Int Open Background and study aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an advanced endoscopic technique that allows en-bloc resection of gastrointestinal tumor. We systematically review the medical literature in order to evaluate the safety and efficacy of colorectal ESD. Patients and methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid, CINAHL, and Cochrane for studies reporting on the clinical efficacy and safety profile of colorectal ESD. Results: Included in this study were 13833 tumors in 13603 patients (42 % female) who underwent colorectal ESD between 1998 and 2014. The R0 resection rate was 83 % (95 % CI, 80 – 86 %) with significant between-study heterogeneity (P < 0.001) which was partly explained by difference in continent (P = 0.004), study design (P = 0.04), duration of the procedure (P = 0.009), and, marginally, by average tumor size (P = 0.09). Endoscopic en bloc and curative resection rates were 92 % (95 % CI, 90 – 94 %) and 86 % (95 % CI, 80 – 90 %), respectively. The rates of immediate and delayed perforation were 4.2 % (95 % CI, 3.5 – 5.0 %) and 0.22 % (95 % CI, 0.11 – 0.46 %), respectively, while rates of immediate and delayed major bleeding were 0.75 % (95 % CI, 0.31 – 1.8 %) and 2.1 % (95 % CI, 1.6 – 2.6 %). After an average postoperative follow up of 19 months, the rate of tumor recurrence was 0.04 % (95 % CI, 0.01 – 0.31) among those with R0 resection and 3.6 % (95 % CI, 1.4 – 8.8 %) among those without R0 resection. Overall, irrespective of the resection status, recurrence rate was 1.0 % (95 % CI, 0.42 – 2.1 %). Conclusions: Our meta-analysis, the largest and most comprehensive assessment of colorectal ESD to date, showed that colorectal ESD is safe and effective for colorectal tumors and warrants consideration as first-line therapy when an expert operator is available. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2016-10 2016-09-30 /pmc/articles/PMC5063641/ /pubmed/27747275 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-114774 Text en © Thieme Medical Publishers |
spellingShingle | Akintoye, Emmanuel Kumar, Nitin Aihara, Hiroyuki Nas, Hala Thompson, Christopher C. Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5063641/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27747275 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-114774 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT akintoyeemmanuel colorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT kumarnitin colorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT aiharahiroyuki colorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT nashala colorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT thompsonchristopherc colorectalendoscopicsubmucosaldissectionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |