Selection bias complicates comparisons of endoscopic submucosal dissection vs. endoscopic mucosal resection in the treatment of colorectal neoplasms

Endoscopy 2017; 49(05): 511
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-101686

Letter to the editor

Takashi Kanesaka

¹Department of Gastrointestinal Oncology, Osaka Medical Center for Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases, Osaka, Japan

,

Ervin Toth

²Section of Gastroenterology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden

,

Henrik Thorlacius

³Section of Surgery, Department of Clinical Sciences, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden

References
1 Rolny P. The need for surgery after endoscopic treatment of colorectal neoplasms is the most important outcome criterion. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 80-82
2 Nakajima T, Saito Y, Tanaka S. et al. Current status of endoscopic resection strategy for large, early colorectal neoplasia in Japan. Surg Endosc 2013; 27: 3262-3270
3 Fujiya M, Tanaka K, Dokoshi T. et al. Efficacy and adverse events of EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection for the treatment of colon neoplasms: a meta-analysis of studies comparing EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 583-595
4 Arezzo A, Passera R, Marchese N. et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic submucosal dissection vs endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions. United European Gastroenterol J 2016; 4: 18-29
5 Saito Y, Uraoka T, Yamaguchi Y. et al. A prospective, multicenter study of 1111 colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissections (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 1217-1225