Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32660488›Full record

ArticleBMC gastroenterology2020

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.

Nik Dekkers, Jurjen J Boonstra, Leon M G Moons, Roel Hompes, Barbara A Bastiaansen, Jurriaan B Tuynman, Arjun D Koch, Bas L A M Weusten, Apollo Pronk, Peter A Neijenhuis and 26 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

36 authors at 20 institutions in 1 country.

Nik DekkersDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands. n.dekkers@lumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0301-7011
Jurjen J BoonstraDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leon M G MoonsDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Roel HompesDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Barbara A BastiaansenDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jurriaan B TuynmanDepartment of Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Arjun D KochDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Bas L A M WeustenDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands.
Apollo PronkDepartment of Surgery, Diakonessenhuis, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Peter A NeijenhuisDepartment of Surgery, Alrijne hospital, Leiderdorp, The Netherlands.
Marinke WesterterpDepartment of Surgery, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Wilbert B van den HoutDepartment of Medical Decision Making & Quality of Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Alexandra M J LangersDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jolein van der KraanDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Alaa AlkhalafDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Isala hospital, Zwolle, The Netherlands.
Jonathan Y L LaiDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Frank Ter BorgDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Deventer Hospital, Deventer, The Netherlands.
Hans FabryDepartment of Surgery, Bravis Hospital, Bergen op Zoom, The Netherlands.
Eric HaletDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Bravis Hospital, Bergen op Zoom, The Netherlands.
Matthijs P SchwartzDepartmet of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Meander Medical Center, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Wouter B NagengastDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Jan Willem A StraathofDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Rogier W R Ten HoveDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Alrijne Hospital, Leiderdorp, The Netherlands.
Leendert H OterdoomDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Hagaziekenhuis, The Hague, The Netherlands.
Christiaan HoffDepartment of Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
Eric J Th BeltDepartment of Surgery, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
David D E ZimmermanDepartment of Surgery, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Muhammed HadithiDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Hans MorreauDepartment of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Erienne M V de CubaPathan B.V. - Pathology Laboratorium, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jeroen W A LeijtensDepartment of Surgery, Laurentius Hospital, Roermond, The Netherlands.
Hans F A VasenDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Monique E van LeerdamDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Eelco J R de GraafDepartment of Surgery, IJsselland Hospital, Capelle aan den IJssel, The Netherlands.
Pascal G DoorneboschDepartment of Surgery, IJsselland Hospital, Capelle aan den IJssel, The Netherlands.
James C H HardwickDepartment of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NLAmsterdam University Medical Centers · NLAlrijne Ziekenhuis · NLBravis Ziekenhuis · NLIJsselland Ziekenhuis · NLMedisch Centrum Haaglanden · NLAlbert Schweitzer Ziekenhuis · NLDeventer Ziekenhuis · NLDiakonessenhuis hospital · NLElisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis · NLErasmus MC · NLHaga Hospital · NLIsala · NLLaurentius Ziekenhuis · NLMaasstad Ziekenhuis · NLMaastricht University · NLMeander Medisch Centrum · NLMedisch Centrum Leeuwarden · NLPathoFinder (Netherlands) · NLSt. Antonius Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

ZonMw 852001926
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 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.

methodsMulticenter 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: 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 registrationNetherlands Trial Register, NL7083 , 06 July 2018.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEndoscopic Mucosal ResectionRectal NeoplasmsTransanal Endoscopic SurgeryEquivalence Trials as TopicEuropeHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNetherlandsQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAdenomaEndoscopic submucosal dissectionRectal cancerTransanal minimally invasive surgery

Identifiers

PMID32660488
PMCPMC7359465
OpenAlexW3042564858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.