Long-term Outcomes of Primary Endoscopic Resection vs Surgery for T1 Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

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 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.