Endoscopic and trans-anal local excision vs. radical resection in the treatment of early rectal cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Abstract

The management of early-stage rectal cancer in clinical practice is controversial. The aim of this network meta-analysis was to compare oncological and postoperative outcomes for T1T2N0M0 rectal cancers managed with local excision in comparison to conventional radical resection. A systematic review of Medline, Embase and Cochrane electronic databases was performed. Relevant studies were selected using PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcomes measured were 5-year local recurrence and overall survival. Secondary outcomes included rates of postoperative complication, 30-day mortality, positive margin and permanent stoma formation. Three randomized controlled trials and 27 observational studies contributed 8570 patients for analysis. Radical resection was associated with reduced 5-year local recurrence in comparison to local excision. This was statistically significant in comparison to trans-anal local excision (odds ratio (OR) 0.23; 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.30) and favourable in comparison to endoscopic techniques (OR 0.40; 95% confidence interval 0.13-1.23) although this did not reach clinical significance. Positive margin rates were lowest for radical resection. However, 30-day mortality rates, perioperative complications and permanent stoma rates all favoured local excision with no statistically significant difference between endoscopic and trans-anal techniques. Radical resection of early rectal cancer is associated with the lowest 5-year local recurrence rates and the lowest rate of positive margins. However, this must be balanced with its higher 30-day mortality and complication rates as well as the increased risk of permanent stoma. The emerging potential role of neoadjuvant therapy prior to local resection, and the heterogeneity of its use, as an alternative treatment for early rectal cancer further complicates the treatment paradigm and adds to controversy in this field.