Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for laterally spreading rectal tumours.

Aim: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are the two main techniques used for endoscopic resection of superficial rectal tumours. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of ESD and EMR in treating superficial rectal tumours.

Method: A retrospective observational study was conducted at two French centres including all patients treated with ESD or EMR for superficial rectal tumours. The primary outcome was the rate of local recurrence at the first follow-up endoscopy after endoscopic resection. Secondary outcomes included the curative resection rate, procedure duration, length of hospital stay, complication rates and the need for additional surgery.

Results: A total of 254 patients were included, 159 treated with ESD and 95 treated with EMR. The local recurrence rate at the first follow-up endoscopy was 8.6% and was significantly lower in the ESD group than in the EMR group (4.3% vs. 16.9%; p = 0.005). The rates of en bloc and histologically complete resections were higher in the ESD group (88.1% vs. 42.7% and 85.5% vs. 38.9%, respectively; p < 0.001), while the curative resection rate was 90.6% in the EMR group and 92.5% in the ESD group (p = 0.59). Mostly due to poor histoprognostical criteria, 6.0% of patients underwent additional surgery (6.3% vs. 5.2% in the ESD vs. EMR group, respectively; p = 0.73).

Conclusion: ESD demonstrated higher rates of en bloc, R0 resection than EMR, translating into significantly lower rates of local recurrence at the first follow-up endoscopy.