Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) versus endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for resection of non-pedunculated rectal lesions (TRIASSIC study): study protocol of a European multicenter randomised controlled trial.
Adenoma
Endoscopic submucosal dissection
Rectal cancer
Transanal minimally invasive surgery
Journal
BMC gastroenterology
ISSN: 1471-230X
Titre abrégé: BMC Gastroenterol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968547
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Jul 2020
13 Jul 2020
Historique:
received:
03
04
2020
accepted:
02
07
2020
entrez:
15
7
2020
pubmed:
15
7
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In the recent years two innovative approaches have become available for minimally invasive en bloc resections of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions (polyps and early cancers). One is Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS), the other is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD). Both techniques are standard of care, but a direct randomised comparison is lacking. The choice between either of these procedures is dependent on local expertise or availability rather than evidence-based. The European Society for Endoscopy has recommended that a comparison between ESD and local surgical resection is needed to guide decision making for the optimal approach for the removal of large rectal lesions in Western countries. The aim of this study is to directly compare both procedures in a randomised setting with regard to effectiveness, safety and perceived patient burden. Multicenter randomised trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with non-pedunculated lesions > 2 cm, where the bulk of the lesion is below 15 cm from the anal verge, will be randomised between either a TAMIS or an ESD procedure. Lesions judged to be deeply invasive by an expert panel will be excluded. The primary endpoint is the cumulative local recurrence rate at follow-up rectoscopy at 12 months. Secondary endpoints are: 1) Radical (R0-) resection rate; 2) Perceived burden and quality of life; 3) Cost effectiveness at 12 months; 4) Surgical referral rate at 12 months; 5) Complication rate; 6) Local recurrence rate at 6 months. For this non-inferiority trial, the total sample size of 198 is based on an expected local recurrence rate of 3% in the ESD group, 6% in the TAMIS group and considering a difference of less than 6% to be non-inferior. This is the first European randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of TAMIS and ESD for the en bloc resection of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions. This is important as the detection rate of these adenomas is expected to further increase with the introduction of colorectal screening programs throughout Europe. This study will therefore support an optimal use of healthcare resources in the future. Netherlands Trial Register, NL7083 , 06 July 2018.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In the recent years two innovative approaches have become available for minimally invasive en bloc resections of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions (polyps and early cancers). One is Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery (TAMIS), the other is Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD). Both techniques are standard of care, but a direct randomised comparison is lacking. The choice between either of these procedures is dependent on local expertise or availability rather than evidence-based. The European Society for Endoscopy has recommended that a comparison between ESD and local surgical resection is needed to guide decision making for the optimal approach for the removal of large rectal lesions in Western countries. The aim of this study is to directly compare both procedures in a randomised setting with regard to effectiveness, safety and perceived patient burden.
METHODS
METHODS
Multicenter randomised trial in 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients with non-pedunculated lesions > 2 cm, where the bulk of the lesion is below 15 cm from the anal verge, will be randomised between either a TAMIS or an ESD procedure. Lesions judged to be deeply invasive by an expert panel will be excluded. The primary endpoint is the cumulative local recurrence rate at follow-up rectoscopy at 12 months. Secondary endpoints are: 1) Radical (R0-) resection rate; 2) Perceived burden and quality of life; 3) Cost effectiveness at 12 months; 4) Surgical referral rate at 12 months; 5) Complication rate; 6) Local recurrence rate at 6 months. For this non-inferiority trial, the total sample size of 198 is based on an expected local recurrence rate of 3% in the ESD group, 6% in the TAMIS group and considering a difference of less than 6% to be non-inferior.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
This is the first European randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and safety of TAMIS and ESD for the en bloc resection of large non-pedunculated rectal lesions. This is important as the detection rate of these adenomas is expected to further increase with the introduction of colorectal screening programs throughout Europe. This study will therefore support an optimal use of healthcare resources in the future.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Netherlands Trial Register, NL7083 , 06 July 2018.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32660488
doi: 10.1186/s12876-020-01367-z
pii: 10.1186/s12876-020-01367-z
pmc: PMC7359465
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial Protocol
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
225Subventions
Organisme : ZonMw
ID : 852001926
Références
Int J Colorectal Dis. 2005 Mar;20(2):126-36
pubmed: 15449078
Gut. 2018 Nov;67(11):1965-1973
pubmed: 28988198
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2011 Sep-Oct;35(5):531-4
pubmed: 21926843
Ann Surg Oncol. 2009 May;16(5):1255-65
pubmed: 19219506
Gut. 2018 May;67(5):837-846
pubmed: 28659349
Gastroenterology. 2017 Sep;153(3):732-742.e1
pubmed: 28583826
Surg Endosc. 2020 Mar;34(3):1025-1034
pubmed: 31754850
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2009 Dec;35(12):1280-5
pubmed: 19487099
Surg Endosc. 2020 Apr;34(4):1688-1695
pubmed: 31292744
N Engl J Med. 2012 Feb 23;366(8):687-96
pubmed: 22356322
Surg Endosc. 2010 Sep;24(9):2200-5
pubmed: 20174935
Tech Coloproctol. 2014 Sep;18(9):775-88
pubmed: 24848524
BMC Surg. 2009 Mar 13;9:4
pubmed: 19284647
Gut. 2018 Sep;67(9):1745-1746
pubmed: 29055907
Eur Radiol. 2007 Feb;17(2):379-89
pubmed: 17008990
Endoscopy. 2017 Mar;49(3):270-297
pubmed: 28212588
Qual Life Res. 2016 Jul;25(7):1853-8
pubmed: 26711791
Surg Endosc. 2010 Feb;24(2):343-52
pubmed: 19517168
Am Surg. 2015 Mar;81(3):273-7
pubmed: 25760203
Surg Endosc. 2012 Aug;26(8):2220-30
pubmed: 22278105
Gastroenterology. 2011 Jun;140(7):1909-18
pubmed: 21392504
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007 Jun;5(6):678-83; quiz 645
pubmed: 17466600
Surg Endosc. 2014 Feb;28(2):427-38
pubmed: 24149849
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2016;908:161-81
pubmed: 27573772