Alternative treatment strategies to EFTR with their respective efficacy based on literature review and calculation
| Treatment | n (N=180) | Efficacy (%) |
| Surgical oncological resection (laparoscopic) | 103 | 100 (assumed) |
| TEM | 3 | 88.5 (Arezzo et al, 2014)10 |
| EMR | 45 | 42.3 (Fujiya et al, 2015)9 |
| ESD | 29 | 74.6 (Arezzo et al, 2014)10 |
| Surgical treatment (laparoscopic and TEM) | 106 | 99.7 (calculated) |
| SER (EMR+ESD) | 74 | 54.9 (calculated) |
| Casemix alternative | 180 | 81.2 (calculated) |
The combined effectiveness of surgical treatment, SER and casemix alternative was calculated by multiplication of the number of patients in each modality (eg, 45 EMR cases for SER) with the respective R0 resection rate (0.423) as the first step. In the second step, this result would be summed up to the result of the other modalities (eg, ESD+EMR result for the SER methods) and divided by the number of patients in this group of resection method (eg, 74 patients in the SER group). Overall efficacy of surgical treatment and casemix alternative was performed in the same manner.
EFTR, endoscopic full-thickness resection; EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection; SER, standard endoscopic resection; TEM, transanal endoscopic microsurgery.