Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection therapies for rectal carcinoid tumors: a meta-analysis.

Abstract

PurposeSeveral endoscopic resection therapies have been applied for the treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors. However, there is currently no consensus regarding the optimal strategy. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or modified EMR (m-EMR) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for the treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors.Materials and MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, Medline, Embase and CNKI were searched up to the end of January 2014 in order to identify all studies on the effects of EMR (or m-EMR) and ESD on rectal carcinoid tumors.ResultsA total of fourteen studies involving 782 patients were included. The pooled data suggested a significantly higher rate of pathological complete resection among patients treated with ESD or m-EMR than those treated with EMR [odds ratio (OR)=0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.25-0.71; OR=0.10, 95% CI: 0.03-0.33, respectively], while there was no significant difference between the m-EMR group and ESD group (OR=1.19, 95% CI: 0.49-2.86); The procedure time of ESD was longer than EMR or m-EMR groups [mean differences (MD)=-11.29, 95% CI: -14.19 - -8.38, MD= -10.90, 95% CI: -18.69 - -3.11, respectively], but it was insignificance between the EMR and m-EMR groups. No significant differences were detected among the treatment groups with regard to complications or recurrence.ConclusionThe results of this meta-analysis suggest that treatment of rectal carcinoid tumors with ESD or m-EMR is superior to EMR, and the efficacy of m-EMR is equivalence to ESD treatment. However, more well-designed studies are needed to confirm these findings.