Background & aims: There is controversy over the best therapeutic approach for T1 colorectal cancer. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of long-term outcomes of endoscopic resection (ER) vs those of primary or additional surgery.
Methods: We performed a systematic review of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases through October 2019 for studies that reported outcomes (overall survival, disease-specific survival, recurrence-free survival at 5 years, recurrence, and metastasis) of ER vs surgery in patients with colorectal neoplasms. Hazard ratios (HR) were calculated based on time to events.
Results: In total, 17 published studies with 19,979 patients were included. The median follow-up time among the studies was 36 months. The meta-analysis found no significant differences between primary ER and primary surgery in overall survival (79.6% vs 82.1%, HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.84-1.45), recurrence-free survival (96.0% vs 96.7%, HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.87-1.88), or disease-specific survival (94.8% vs 96.5%; HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.67-1.78). Additional surgery and primary surgery did not produce significant differences in recurrence-free survival (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.85-1.89). A significantly lower proportion of patients who underwent primary ER had procedure-related adverse events (2.3%) than patients who underwent primary surgery (10.9%) (P < .001). Lymphovascular invasion and rectal cancer, but not depth of submucosal invasion, were independently associated with recurrence for all T1 colorectal cancers.
Conclusions: In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that ER should be considered as the first-line treatment for endoscopically resectable T1 colorectal cancers. In cases of noncurative resection, additional surgery can have comparable outcomes to primary surgery.
Keywords: Colon Polyp; Colorectal Neoplasms; Polypectomy; Prognosis.
Copyright © 2020 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.