We read the article by Leijtens et al. [1] with a great interest, as this is a relevant topic in rectal cancer. Although we wish to congratulate the authors for their work, we would also like to add a word of caution. The article by Leijtens et al. [1] was a retrospective, multicenter, observational study reviewing the role of transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) from 1994 to 2010. One of the major advantages of such a design is the opportunity to provide long-term follow-up data on recurrence, overall, and disease-specific survival rates [2]. However, the authors drew their conclusions based on data obtained from less than 3-year follow-up; therefore, the year of their publication, namely, 2018 remains unclear.

Although we support the authors’ strategy to perform TEM as a diagnostic tool in case of false-negative endoscopic biopsies of large tubulo-villous adenomas, we wish to express a concern regarding the violation of the total mesorectal excision (TME) plane. In fact, full-thickness local excision may not be necessary to establish an accurate diagnosis, which can be accomplished by endoscopic submucosal dissection [3].

Although we agree with the authors’ suggestion that TEM can be a valuable instrument to palliate symptoms in old frail patients with rectal cancer, we respectfully disagree with the authors’ conclusion that TEM can be a definitive procedure not followed by TME when the intent is cure in patients with resectable rectal cancer. In fact, reliable data suggest that transanal excision (such as TEM is) may result in higher risk for cancer-related death [4].

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

None.

1.
Leijtens JWA, Koedam TWA, Borstlap WAA, Maas M, Doornebosch PG, Karsten TM, Derksen EJ, Stassen LPS, Rosman C, de Graaf EJR, Bremers AJA, Heemskerk J, Beets GL, Tuynman JB, Rademakers KLJ: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery with or without completion total mesorectal excision for T2 and T3 rectal carcinoma. Dig Surg 2018; 1–7.
2.
Markman M: A unique role for retrospective studies in clinical oncology. Oncology 2014; 86: 350.
3.
Wang S, Gao S, Yang W, Guo S, Li Y: Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus local excision for early rectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol 2016; 20: 1–9.
4.
Nash GM, Weiser MR, Guillem JG, Temple LK, Shia J, Gonen M, Wong WD, Paty PB: Long-term survival after transanal excision of T1 rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 2009; 52: 577–582.
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
2018
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.