Hui-Min Guo1, Xiao-Qi Zhang1, Min Chen1, Shu-Ling Huang1, Xiao-Ping Zou1. 1. Hui-Min Guo, Xiao-Qi Zhang, Min Chen, Shu-Ling Huang, Xiao-Ping Zou, Department of Gastroenterology, the Affiliated Drum Tower Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing 210008, Jiangsu Province, China.
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the effectiveness of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in treating superficial esophageal cancer (SEC). METHODS: Studies investigating the safety and efficacy of ESD and EMR for SEC were searched from the databases of Pubmed, Web of Science, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Primary end points included the en bloc resection rate and the curative resection rate. Secondary end points included operative time, rates of perforation, postoperative esophageal stricture, bleeding and local recurrence. The random-effect model and the fixed-effect model were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Eight studies were identified and included in the meta-analysis. As shown by the pooled analysis, ESD had significantly higher en bloc and curative resection rates than EMR. Local recurrence rate in the ESD group was remarkably lower than that in the EMR group. However, operative time and perforation rate for ESD were significantly higher than those for EMR. As for the rate of postoperative esophageal stricture and procedure-related bleeding, no significant difference was found between the two techniques. CONCLUSION: ESD seems superior to EMR in the treatment of SEC as evidenced by significantly higher en bloc and curative resection rates and by obviously lower local recurrence rate.
AIM: To investigate the effectiveness of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) in treating superficial esophageal cancer (SEC). METHODS: Studies investigating the safety and efficacy of ESD and EMR for SEC were searched from the databases of Pubmed, Web of Science, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Primary end points included the en bloc resection rate and the curative resection rate. Secondary end points included operative time, rates of perforation, postoperative esophageal stricture, bleeding and local recurrence. The random-effect model and the fixed-effect model were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Eight studies were identified and included in the meta-analysis. As shown by the pooled analysis, ESD had significantly higher en bloc and curative resection rates than EMR. Local recurrence rate in the ESD group was remarkably lower than that in the EMR group. However, operative time and perforation rate for ESD were significantly higher than those for EMR. As for the rate of postoperative esophageal stricture and procedure-related bleeding, no significant difference was found between the two techniques. CONCLUSION: ESD seems superior to EMR in the treatment of SEC as evidenced by significantly higher en bloc and curative resection rates and by obviously lower local recurrence rate.
Authors: J J Deeks; J Dinnes; R D'Amico; A J Sowden; C Sakarovitch; F Song; M Petticrew; D G Altman Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2003 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: J F Oliveira; E G H Moura; W M Bernardo; E Ide; S Cheng; M Sulbaran; C M L Santos; P Sakai Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Philippe Bouchard; Juan-Carlos Molina; Jonathan Cools-Lartigue; Jonathan Spicer; Carmen L Mueller; Lorenzo E Ferri Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-01-31 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Akira Dobashi; Andrew C Storm; Louis M Wong Kee Song; Christopher J Gostout; Jodie L Deters; Charles A Miller; Mary A Knipschield; Elizabeth Rajan Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 4.584