IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0141427.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery and Total Mesorectal Excision in the Treatment of T1 Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Jun-Yang Lu
  • Guo-Le Lin
  • Hui-Zhong Qiu
  • Yi Xiao
  • Bin Wu
  • Jiao-Lin Zhou

Abstract

Background: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) for the treatment of early-stage rectal cancer has attracted attention due to its advantages of reduced surgical trauma, fewer complications, low operative mortality, rapid postoperative recovery and short hospital stay. However, there are still significant controversies regarding TEM for the treatment of rectal cancer, mainly related to the prognosis associated with this method. Objective: This study sought to compare the efficacy of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) and total mesorectal excision (TME) for the treatment of T1 rectal cancer. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase and CNKI databases. Based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews, we screened the trials, evaluated the quality and extracted the data. Results: One randomized controlled trial (RCT) and six non-randomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were included in the meta-analysis (a total of 860 rectal cancer patients were included; 303 patients were treated with TEM, and 557 patients were treated with TME). Analysis revealed that all seven studies reported local recurrence rates, and there was a significant difference between the TEM and TME groups [odds ratio (OR) = 4.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) (2.03, 10.53), P = 0.0003]. A total of five studies reported distant metastasis rates, and there was no significant difference between the TEM and TME groups [OR = 0.74, 95%CI (0.32, 1.72), P = 0.49]. A total of six studies reported postoperative overall survival of the patients, and there was no significant difference between the TEM and TME groups [OR = 0.87, 95%CI(0.55, 1.38), P = 0.55]. In addition, two studies reported the postoperative disease-free survival rates of patients, and there was no significant difference between the TEM and TME groups [OR = 1.12, 95%CI (0.31, 4.12), P = 0.86]. Conclusions: For patients with T1 rectal cancer, the distant metastasis, overall survival and disease-free survival rates did not differ between the TEM and TME groups, although the local recurrence rate after TEM was higher than that after TME.

Suggested Citation

  • Jun-Yang Lu & Guo-Le Lin & Hui-Zhong Qiu & Yi Xiao & Bin Wu & Jiao-Lin Zhou, 2015. "Comparison of Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery and Total Mesorectal Excision in the Treatment of T1 Rectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-11, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0141427
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0141427
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141427
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141427&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0141427?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0141427. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.