| Literature DB >> 29588436 |
Sang Gyun Kim1, Chan Mi Park2, Na Rae Lee2, Jiyoung Kim2, Da Hyun Lyu2, Seung-Hee Park2, Il Ju Choi3, Wan Sik Lee4, Seun Ja Park5, Jae Jun Kim6, Ji Hyun Kim7, Chul-Hyun Lim8, Joo Young Cho9, Gwang Ha Kim10, Yong Chan Lee11, Hwoon-Yong Jung12, Jun Haeng Lee6, Hoon Jai Chun13, Sang-Yong Seol7.
Abstract
Background/Aims: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been regarded as a curative treatment for early gastric cancer (EGC) in indicated cases. The aim of this study was to evaluate the nationwide long-term clinical outcomes of ESD for EGC in Korea.Entities:
Keywords: Endoscopic mucosal dissection; Stomach neoplasms; Survival
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29588436 PMCID: PMC6027839 DOI: 10.5009/gnl17414
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gut Liver ISSN: 1976-2283 Impact factor: 4.519
Fig. 1Enrollment of patients.
EMR, endoscopic mucosal resection; ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection. *In 31 patients, viotation of enrollment is overlapped.
Baseline Characteristics of Patients and Lesions (n=697)
| Characteristic | Value |
|---|---|
| Male sex | 537 (77.0) |
| Age, yr | 62.7±9.2 |
| Family history of gastric cancer | 98 (14.1) |
| Multiplicity of cancer | 24 (3.4) |
| Location | |
| Lower 1/3 | 438 (62.8) |
| Middle 1/3 | 177 (25.4) |
| Upper 1/3 | 82 (11.8) |
| Histology | |
| Well or moderately differentiated | 677 (97.1) |
| Undifferentiated | 20 (2.9) |
| Tumor size, mm | |
| ≤20 | 512 (73.5) |
| 21–30 | 123 (17.6) |
| >30 | 62 (8.9) |
| Depth of tumor invasion | |
| Lamina propria | 350 (50.2) |
| Muscularis mucosa | 232 (33.3) |
| Submucosa | 115 (16.5) |
| Gross morphology | |
| Depressed | 375 (53.8) |
| Elevated | 168 (24.1) |
| Flat | 104 (14.9) |
| Unclassified | 50 (7.2) |
| Tumor-positive lateral margin | 3 (0.4) |
| Tumor-positive vertical margin | 13 (1.9) |
| Lymphatic invasion | 31 (4.5) |
| 691 (99.1) | |
| Complete resection | 567 (81.3) |
| Curative resection | 600 (86.1) |
Data are presented as number (%) or mean±SD.
Primary and Secondary Outcomes
| Total % (95% CI) | Curative resection % (95% CI) | Non-curative resection % (95% CI) | p-value | Complete resection % (95% CI) | Incomplete resection % (95% CI) | p-value | Absolute indication % (95% CI) | Expanded indication % (95% CI) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary outcome | ||||||||||
| DSFS | 90.6 (88.2–93.0) | 91.0 (88.6–93.6) | 87.3 (79.9–95.3) | 0.37 | 91.5 (88.6–93.2) | 86.1 (77.8–91.5) | 0.08 | 92.1 (88.8–94.5) | 88.1 (81.5–92.5) | 0.10 |
| Secondary outcome | ||||||||||
| OS | 96.6 (85.1–98.0) | 97.5 (96.1–98.9) | 91.1 (85.4–97.2) | 0.001 | 97.7 (95.9–98.7) | 91.6 (85.0–95.4) | 0.001 | 97.7 (95.5–98.8) | 97.0 (92.0–98.9) | 0.75 |
| DSS | 99.8 (99.5–100.0) | 100 | 98.8 (96.4–100.0) | 99.8 (98.6–100.0) | 100 | 100 | 100 | |||
| DFS | 87.9 (85.3–90.5) | 88.9 (86.2–91.7) | 81.4 (73.4–90.3) | 0.04 | 89.8 (86.7–92.2) | 79.4 (70.6–85.8) | 0.001 | 89.9 (86.4–92.6) | 86.2 (79.4–91.0) | 0.15 |
CI, confidence interval; DSFS, disease specific free survival; OS, overall survival; DSS, disease-specific survival; DFS, disease-free survival.
Fig. 2Survival rates of all patients.
Fig. 3Survival rates according to curative resection.
Recurrence Rate
| Total % (95% CI) | Curative resection % (95% CI) | Non-curative resection % (95% CI) | p-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All recurrence | 9.0 (6.9–11.8) | 8.9 (6.6–11.8) | 13.0 (5.2–20.2) | 0.72 |
| Local recurrence | 0.9 (0.4–2.0) | 0.7 (0.3–1.8) | 2.4 (0.6–9.1) | 0.17 |
| Distant metastasis | 0.5 (0.2–1.5) | 0.2 (0.0–1.2) | 2.4 (0.6–9.4) | 0.01 |
| Metachronous recurrence | 7.8 (5.8–10.4) | 8.1 (5.9–11.0) | 5.9 (2.2–15.8) | 0.40 |
CI, confidence interval.
Fig. 4Recurrence rates according to curative resection. (A) All recurrences of gastric cancer, including local, distant, and metachronous tumor. (B) Distant metastasis. (C) Local recurrence of index cancer. (D) Metachronous recurrence.
Fig. 5Survival rates for absolute and expanded criteria.