Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for rectal carcinoid tumor. A meta-analysis and meta-regression with single-arm analysis

Objective As there has been so far no consensus on the best endoscopic resection technique, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for treating rectal carcinoid tumors. Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for articles on the treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors using ESD vs EMR published up to October 2020 for outcomes including en bloc and complete resection, margin involvement, procedure time, requirement for additional surgery, bleeding, perforation and recurrence. Risk ratio and weighted mean differences were used for a DerSimonian and Laird random effects pairwise meta-analysis. Single-arm meta-analyses of proportions and random effects meta-regression analysis were also conducted. Results Twenty-two studies involving 1360 rectal carcinoid tumors were included, in which 655 and 705 rectal carcinoid tumors were resected with ESD and EMR, respectively. The resection efficacy of ESD was comparable to that of EMR for tumors <10 mm. However, there were a significantly higher complete resection rate, and lower rates of vertical margin involvement and requirement for additional surgery using ESD than using EMR for tumors <= 20 mm. ESD had a longer procedure time and an increased likelihood of bleeding than EMR. Conclusions ESD is more effective in providing a curative treatment for rectal carcinoid tumors <= 20 mm in size as ESD can achieve a higher complete resection rate with lower vertical margin involvement than EMR. While they are suitable for treating rectal carcinoid tumors <10 mm as both techniques provide similar efficacy.

Automated summary

ESD is more effective in providing a curative treatment for rectal carcinoid tumors <= 20 mm in size as it can achieve a higher complete resection rate with lower vertical margin involvement and requirement for additional surgery than EMR. However, both ESD and EMR provide similar efficacy for tumors <10 mm, with ESD having a longer procedure time and a higher risk of bleeding.