Dataset Information

The safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection for treating early oesophageal carcinoma: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Oesophageal carcinoma is the sixth most lethal cancer in the world. At present, the choice of specific surgical methods is controversial. This study compares the safety and efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection in treating early oesophageal carcinoma.

Methods

We carried out a search of online databases including the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library with no language restrictions. The inclusion criteria were patients with early oesophageal carcinoma who accepted the treatment of endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with endoscopic mucosal resection.

Findings

A total of 1,462 patients with 1,650 lesions from nine studies were included in the meta-analysis. When compared with the endoscopic mucosal resection group, the en bloc resection (endoscopic submucosal dissection 67.94% vs endoscopic mucosal resection 52.78%; odds ratio 19.79, p = 0.000) and complete resection (endoscopic submucosal dissection 75.57% vs endoscopic mucosal resection 59.47%; odds ratio 16.10, p = 0.000) rates were significantly higher in the endoscopic submucosal dissection group, while the local recurrence rate was significantly lower in the endoscopic submucosal dissection group (endoscopic submucosal dissection 0.08% vs endoscopic mucosal resection 2.66%; odds ratio 0.08, p = 0.000). The incidence of complications and procedural time were also tested.

SUBMITTER: Wang HY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7591627 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the treatment effects of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) versus endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) for early gastric cancer (EGC).DesignMeta-analysis.MethodsWe systematically searched three electronic databases, including PubMed, EmBase and the Cochrane library for studies published with inception to January 2018. The eligible studies should be evaluated for the efficacy and safety of ESD versus EMR for patients with EGC. The summary ORs and standard mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs were employed as effect estimates. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to evaluate the impact of single study on overall analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed for investigated outcomes to evaluate the treatment effects of ESD versus EMR for patients with EGC with specific subsets.ResultsEighteen studies, with a total of 6723 patients with EGC, were included in final analysis. The summary ORs indicated that patients with EGC who received ESD were associated with an increased incidence of en bloc resection (OR: 9.00; 95% CI: 6.66 to 12.17; p<0.001), complete resection (OR: 8.43; 95% CI: 5.04 to 14.09; p<0.001) and curative resection (OR: 2.92; 95% CI: 1.85 to 4.61; p<0.001) when compared with EMR. Furthermore, ESD was associated with lower risk of local recurrence (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.34; p<0.001). In addition, there was no significant difference between ESD and EMR for the risk of bleeding (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.80; p=0.203). Though, ESD was correlated with greater risk of perforation (OR: 2.55; 95% CI: 1.48 to 4.39; p=0.001), and longer operation time (SMD: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.13 to 2.10; p=0.026) as compared with EMR. Additionally, several different features observed in included studies and patients could bias the effectiveness of ESD versus EMR in patients with EGC.ConclusionsESD is superior than EMR for en bloc resection, complete resection, curative resection and local recurrence, while it increased perforation risk and longer operation time.