Senrebotase

Although endoscopic resection is an effective treatment of rectal neuroendocrine neoplasms (R-NENs) with low malignant potential, there is no consensus on the most recommended endoscopic method. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and acceptability of different endoscopic treatments for R-NENs with low malignant potential.

We searched databases for studies on treatments of R-NENs using endoscopic resection. These studies comprised techniques such as endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), modified endoscopic mucosal resection (EMRM), modified endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESDM), and transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM). The primary outcomes assessed were histological complete resection (HCR).

Overall, 38 retrospective studies (3040 R-NENs) were identified. Endoscopic mucosal resection with a cap (EMRC), endoscopic mucosal resection with ligation (EMRL), ESD, ESDM, and TEM demonstrated higher resectability than did EMR in achieving HCR. Endoscopic mucosal resection, EMRC, EMRL, EMRP, EMRD, and EMRU required shorter operation times than did ESD. Endoscopic mucosal resection, EMRC, ESDM, and TEM incurred lower risks than did ESD.

Regarding R-NENs <20 mm with low malignant potential, ESD could be used as the primary treatment. However, TEM may be more effective if supported by economic conditions and hospital facility. With respect to R-NENs <16 mm with low malignant potential, EMRL could be used as the primary treatment. In regard to R-NENs <10 mm with low malignant potential, EMRL, EMRC, and ESD could be used as the primary treatment. However, EMRL and EMRC might be better when operational difficulties and economic conditions were considered.

To report the first and largest systematic review and meta-analysis of radomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy and safety of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer for perioperative and oncological outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic literature retrieval via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane until December 2022 for RCTs which evaluated the efficacy and/or safety between TEM and TME for rectal cancer. Outcomes included operative time, blood loss, transfusion rates, hospital stay, complication rates, recurrence rates, and mortality. Results: A total of 5 RCTs involving 545 patients (272 TEM versus 273 TME) were included for the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the two groups for age, gender, and distance from lower border of tumor to anal verge. Meta-analysis found that the TEM group was significantly favorable than the TME group for blood loss (WMD: 172.01; 95 % CI: 212.78, -131.24; P < 0.00001), hospital stay (WMD: 2.58; 95 % CI: 3.01, -2.16; P < 0.00001), operative time (WMD: 81.86; 95 % CI: 87.51, -76.21; P < 0.00001) and transfusion rates (RR: 0.05; 95 % CI: 0.01, 0.38; P = 0.004). The complication rates (RR: 0.60; 95 % CI: 0.32, 1.11; P = 0.10), recurrence rates (RR: 1.10; 95 % CI: 0.66, 1.83; P = 0.72), and mortality (RR: 1.23; 95 % CI: 0.67, 2.26; P = 0.51) were similar in the two groups. Conclusions: TEM was an effective and safe approach with advantages in perioperative outcomes compared with TME approach. Caution should be exercised in interpreting the differences in surgical complications between TEM and TME group due to significant heterogeneity and instability.