Transanal Endoscopic Microsurgery or Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in Early Rectal Tumors: A Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: The MUCEM Study

Read full text
Authors: Laura Beyer-Berjot, Coralie Delettrez, Jérémie Jacques, Philippe Rouanet, Stanislas Chaussade, Jérémie H. Lefèvre, Edouard Chabrun, Stéphane Koch, Jean-Jacques Tuech, Valérie Bridoux, Eric Rullier, Quentin Denost
+24 more Yves Panis, Léon Maggiori, S. Benoist, Antoine Brouquet, Marc A. Barthet, Jean-Michel Gonzalez, Eddy Cotte, Justine Arquilliere, Mehrdad Jafari, G. Meurette, Laurent Poincloux, Philippe Zerbib, Jean-Marc Regimbeau, Charles Sabbagh, Michel Prudhomme, Romain Legros, Stéphane Berdah, Benoit Dervaux, Mohamed Boucékine, Fanette Deniès, Jérôme Rivory, Karine Baumstarck, Mathieu Pioche, Vincent Lépilliez
Cited by: 1
References: 38

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: For the local excision of early rectal tumors (ERTs), the relative effectiveness of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) vs transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is subject to debate. The comparisons are limited to retrospective, single-center studies lacking a health economic assessment. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted alongside a nonrandomized, 2-arm, comparative, multicenter study. The main inclusion criterion was an ERT (adenomas, in situ and usT1N0 carcinomas) that could be resected with ESD or TEM, depending on the center. The primary effectiveness criterion was complete resection. A health care system perspective and a 1-year horizon were adopted for the cost evaluation. The results of the analysis were adjusted for baseline covariates: age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, histology, and previous pelvic surgery. RESULTS: A total of 213 ESD and 117 TEM procedures were analyzed. At 1 year and with a willingness to pay of €2500 for complete resection, the incremental net monetary benefit of ESD was significant (€1797; 95% confidence interval, €861-€3,032; P < .001). ESD was more cost-effective for decision thresholds ranging from €0 to €6000. In terms of secondary outcomes, the en bloc excision rate favored ESD (99.0% vs 92.5%, P < .01). There were no significant between-group differences in overall and major morbidity. At 3 years, a cost-utility analysis did not reveal between-group differences in health-related quality of life, and the overall survival rates were similar. However, the disease-free survival rate was higher after ESD (94.3% vs 84.6% for TEM; adjusted hazard ratio, 3.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.64-7.75; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: For ERT, ESD was more cost-effective and offered higher-quality excision and lower recurrence rates than TEM. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02885142).

Fields of Study & Subjects

Gastric Cancer Management and Outcomes Gastrointestinal Tumor Research and Treatment Esophageal Cancer Research and Treatment

Publication details

Journal / source
Gastroenterology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Volume
170
Issue
7
Pages
1533–1545
Publication date
29 January 2026
Language
EN