Modified Cap-Assisted Endoscopic Mucosal Resection Versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for the Treatment of Rectal Neuroendocrine Tumors ≤10 mm: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial. (23rd December 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gao, Xuelian; Huang, Shaohui; Wang, Yusi; Peng, Qun; Li, Weixin; Zou, Yingying; Han, Zelong; Cai, Jianqun; Luo, Yuchen; Ye, Yaping; Li, Aimin; Bai, Yang; Chen, Ye; Liu, Side; Li, Yue
• Is Part Of: American journal of gastroenterology. Volume 117:Number 12(2022)
• Page Start: 1982
• Page End: 1989
• Publication Date: 2022-12-23
• Subjects: Stomach -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Intestines -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; Gastrointestinal Diseases -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; Periodicals; 616.33
• DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001914
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0002-9270

Abstract

Abstract : INTRODUCTION: Although recent guidelines recommend endoscopic resection of rectal neuroendocrine tumors (NET) ≤10 mm, there is no consensus on which endoscopic modality should be performed. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of modified cap-assisted endoscopic mucosal resection (mEMR-C) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) methods for the treatment of rectal NET ≤10 mm. METHODS: A randomized noninferiority trial comparing mEMR-C and ESD was conducted. The primary outcome was the histological complete resection rate; the secondary outcomes included en bloc resection rate, operation time, complications, and so on. Subgroup analyses and follow-up were also performed. RESULTS: Ninety patients were enrolled, and 79 patients with pathologically confirmed rectal NET were finally analyzed, including 38 cases of mEMR-C and 41 cases of ESD. Histological complete resection rate was 97.4% in the mEMR-C group and 92.7% in the ESD group. The noninferiority of mEMR-C compared with that of ESD was confirmed because the absolute difference was 4.7% (2-sided 90% confidence interval, −3.3% to 12.2%; P = 0.616). En bloc resection and successful removal of rectal NET were achieved in all patients. Advantages of mEMR-C over ESD included shorter operation time (8.89 ± 4.58 vs 24.8 ± 9.14 minutes, P < 0.05) and lower hospitalization cost ($2, 233.76 ± $717.70 vs $2, 987.27 ± $871.81, P < 0.05). Postoperative complications were recorded in 4 patients who received mEMR-C and 2 patients in the ESD group (11.5% vs 4.9%, P = 0.509), which were all well managed using endoscopy. Similar findings were observed when subgroup analysis was performed. DISCUSSION: mEMR-C is noninferior to ESD with a similar complete resection rate. In addition, mEMR-C had shorter procedure duration time and lower hospitalization costs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03982264.