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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic surgery for the treatment of rectal neoplasia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2025Pooled it
- Risk of recurrence after local resection of T1 rectal cancer: a meta-analysis with meta-regression.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Pooled it
- Local recurrence after local excision of early rectal cancer: a meta-analysis of completion TME, adjuvant (chemo)radiation, or no additional treatment.The British journal of surgery · 2020Pooled it
- Early Rectal Cancer: Diagnostic Challenges and the Role of Endoscopic Intermuscular Dissection Within the Therapeutic Algorithm.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Efficacy, Safety and Oncological Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Approaches (EMR, ESD and TAMIS) for Early Rectal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
- Transanal excision of rectal polyp with gelofusin lift.ANZ journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Review
- Review
- Robotic transanal minimally invasive surgery (r-TAMIS): perioperative and short-term outcomes for local excision of rectal cancers.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection, Endoscopic Mucosal Resection, and Transanal Minimally Invasive Surgery for the Management of Rectal and Anorectal Lesions: A Narrative Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Review
- Clinicopathological characteristics of early gastric cancer with different level of undifferentiated component and nomogram to predict lymph node metastasis.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Article
- Pushing the boundaries of TAMIS : Transanal minimally invasive surgery (TAMIS) resection of a very large circumferential rectal polyp with combined laparoscopy for a synchronous right colonic lesion.Techniques in coloproctology · 2022Article
- The Role of Transanal Endoscopic Surgery for Early Rectal Cancer.Clinics in colon and rectal surgery · 2022Review
- Endoscopic Management of Complex Colorectal Polyps: Current Insights and Future Trends.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
36 authors at 20 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.