Endoscopic resection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors in East Asian countries: a systematic review
- PMID: 35706787
- PMCID: PMC9189166
- DOI: 10.21037/tcr-21-2074
Endoscopic resection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors in East Asian countries: a systematic review
Abstract
Background: To assess the efficacy and safety of different endoscopic resection methods for colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) in East Asian countries.
Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases. Colorectal LSTs of the included studies were resected with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and/or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD). The main outcomes involved rates of en bloc resection, R0 resection, adverse events and recurrence.
Results: A total of 20 studies were finally included in the present study. The total number of lesions were 3,903 (EMR: 1,230, ESD: 2,673). EMR-en bloc resection was obtained in 395/591 (66.8%), with ESD-en bloc resection reported in 2,020/2,265 (89.2%) [odds ratio (OR) 0.244, P<0.0001, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.197-0.304]. EMR-R0 resection was achieved in 409/547 (74.8%), which was lower than that of ESD (1,895/2,241, 84.6%) (OR 0.541, P<0.0001, 95% CI: 0.432-0.677). Bleedings occurred more frequently in EMR than in ESD group (10.4% vs. 3.1%, OR 3.559, P<0.0001, 95% CI: 2.618-4.836). Rates of perforations in EMR and ESD were 0.4% and 4.1% (OR 0.099, P<0.0001, 95% CI: 0.036-0.27). Recurrence of EMR was higher than ESD group (6.3% vs. 1.0%, OR 6.732, P<0.0001, 95% CI: 3.751-12.082).
Discussion: Endoscopic resections of colorectal LSTs are safe and effective. ESD leads to higher rates of en bloc and R0 resection, as well as lower rates of bleeding and recurrence, but it has a high risk of perforation, compared with EMR.
Keywords: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR); colorectal laterally spreading tumors (colorectal LSTs); endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD).
2022 Translational Cancer Research. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://tcr.amegroups.com/article/view/10.21037/tcr-21-2074/coif). The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Figures



Similar articles
-
Endoscopic mucosal resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors: a meta-analysis.Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2020 Dec;112(12):941-947. doi: 10.17235/reed.2020.6681/2019. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2020. PMID: 33207885
-
Clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection for colorectal laterally spreading tumors with advanced histology.Surg Endosc. 2019 Aug;33(8):2562-2571. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6550-0. Epub 2018 Oct 22. Surg Endosc. 2019. PMID: 30350100
-
Endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal lesions: A systematic review.Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2016 Aug;104:138-55. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2016.06.008. Epub 2016 Jun 16. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2016. PMID: 27370173
-
Management of colorectal laterally spreading tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Endosc Int Open. 2019 Feb;7(2):E239-E259. doi: 10.1055/a-0732-487. Epub 2019 Jan 30. Endosc Int Open. 2019. PMID: 30705959 Free PMC article.
-
A systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic mucosal resection vs endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal sessile/non-polypoid lesions.Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2022 Aug;31(6):835-847. doi: 10.1080/13645706.2022.2032759. Epub 2022 Feb 3. Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2022. PMID: 35112654
References
Publication types
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials
Miscellaneous