The effectiveness and safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer: a systematic review and metaanalysis
- 1.8k Downloads
Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) allows en bloc resection of the entire lesion, permitting a higher curative resection rate and increased quality of life by minimizing the resection size compared with that of endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR). Although ESD has been implemented at most university hospitals in Korea, potential complications of ESD such as bleeding and perforation raise doubts in the therapeutic decision on use of the ESD procedure for early gastric cancer patients and in reimbursement decision making. This systematic review aimed to address both the effectiveness and safety outcomes of ESD versus EMR for early gastric cancer.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Koreamed were searched using the primary keywords “stomach neoplasm” AND “endoscopic submucosal dissection” AND “endoscopic mucosal resection.” To assess the quality of selected studies, the methodologic approach of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network was used. Five effectiveness-relevant and three safety-relevant outcome measures were extracted. Bibliography management and metaanalysis for each outcome were conducted using Review Manager 5.0.
Three nonconcurrent cohort studies and nine retrospective cohort studies were identified. Metaanalyses showed ESD to be significantly more effective than EMR for en bloc resection (odds ratio [OR], 8.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.20–13.67), complete resection (OR, 14.11; 95% CI, 10.85–18.35), curative resection (OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.95–5.54), and local recurrence (risk ratio [RR], 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04–0.41). Whereas intraoperative bleeding (RR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.14–4.09), perforation risk (RR, 3.58; 95% CI, 1.95–6.55), and operation time (standard mean difference [SMD], 1.55; 95% CI, 0.74–2.37) were significantly greater for ESD, overall bleeding risk (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.76–1.98) and all-cause mortality (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.08–5.38) did not differ significantly between ESD and EMR.
Considering that bleeding risk did not differ significantly between ESD and EMR and that perforation risk usually does not lead to life-threatening disease, the effectiveness benefit of ESD can outweigh the overall harm compared with EMR on the condition that ESD is performed by experienced practitioners.
KeywordsEarly gastric cancer Endoscopic mucosal resection Endoscopic submucosal dissection Metaanalysis Systematic review
Young-Mi Park, Eun Cho, Hye-Young Kang, Jong-Mann Kim have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
- 4.Jung HY (2008) Extended approach of EMR/ESD in stomach cancer. J Korean Gastric Cancer Assoc 8:5–8Google Scholar
- 5.Hotta K, Oyama T, Akamatsu T, Tomori A, Hasebe O, Nakamura N, Kojima E, Suga T, Miyabayashi H, Ohta H (2010) A comparison of outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric neoplasms between high-volume and low-volume centers: multicenter retrospective questionnaire study conducted by the Nagano ESD study group. Intern Med 49:253–259PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Sumiyama K, Kaise M, Nakayoshi T, Kato M, Mashiko T, Uchiyama Y, Goda K, Hino S, Nakamura Y, Matsuda K, Mochizuki K, Kawamura M, Tajiri H (2004) Combined use of a magnifying endoscope with a narrow band imaging system and a multibending endoscope for en bloc EMR of early-stage gastric cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 60:79–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Chung IK, Lee JH, Lee SH, Kim SJ, Cho JY, Cho WY, Hwangbo Y, Keum BR, Park JJ, Chun HJ, Kim HJ, Kim JJ, Ji SR, Seol SY (2009) Therapeutic outcomes in 1,000 cases of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric neoplasms: Korean ESD study group multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 69:1228–1235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Min BH, Lee JH, Kim JJ, Shim SG, Chang DK, Kim YH, Rhee PL, Kim KM, Park CK, Rhee JC (2009) Clinical outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for treating early gastric cancer: comparison with endoscopic mucosal resection after circumferential precutting (EMR-P). Dig Liver Dis 41:201–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Watanabe K, Ogata S, Kawazoe S, Koyama T, Kajiwara T, Shimoda Y, Takase Y, Irie K, Mizuguchi M, Tsunada S, Iwakiri R, Fujimoto K (2006) Clinical outcomes of EMR for gastric tumors: historical pilot evaluation between endoscopic submucosal dissection and conventional mucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc 63:776–782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Choi KS, Jung HY, Choi KD, Chung JW, Oh TH, Jo JY, Song HJ, Lee GH, Byeon JS, Myung SJ, Yang SK, Kim JH (2006) Endoscopic submucosal dissection for gastric tumors: complete resection rate, resection time, and complications in comparison with endoscopic mucosal resection after circumferential mucosal incision with a needle knife. Korean J Gastrointest Endosc 32:326–332Google Scholar
- 23.Shimura T, Sasaki M, Kataoka H, Tanida S, Oshima T, Ogasawara N, Wada T, Kubota E, Yamada T, Mori Y, Fujita F, Nakao H, Ohara H, Inukai M, Kasugai K, Joh T (2007) Advantages of endoscopic submucosal dissection over conventional endoscopic mucosal resection. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 22:821–826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Nakamoto S, Sakai Y, Kasanuki J, Kondo F, Ooka Y, Kato K, Arai M, Suzuki T, Matsumura T, Bekku D, Ito K, Tanaka T, Yokosuka O (2009) Indications for the use of endoscopic mucosal resection for early gastric cancer in Japan: a comparative study with endoscopic submucosal dissection. Endoscopy 41:746–750PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Yamaguchi Y, Katusmi N, Aoki K, Toki M, Nakamura K, Abe N, Morozumi K, Sugiyama M, Ishida H, Takahashi S (2007) Resection area of 15 mm as dividing line for choosing strip biopsy or endoscopic submucosal dissection for mucosal gastric neoplasm. J Clin Gastroenterol 41:472–476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar