Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2015 Dec 14;21(46):13177-87.
doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i46.13177.

Endoscopy vs surgery in the treatment of early gastric cancer: Systematic review

André Kondo  1 , Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura  1 , Wanderley Marques Bernardo  1 , Osmar Kenji Yagi  1 , Diogo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura  1 , Eduardo Turiani Hourneaux de Moura  1 , José Gonçalves Pereira Bravo  1 , Kendi Yamazaki  1 , Paulo Sakai  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Endoscopy vs surgery in the treatment of early gastric cancer: Systematic review

André Kondo et al. World J Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Aim: To report a systematic review, establishing the available data to an unpublished 2a strength of evidence, better handling clinical practice.

Methods: A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, LILACS, Scopus and CINAHL databases. Information of the selected studies was extracted on characteristics of trial participants, inclusion and exclusion criteria, interventions (mainly, mucosal resection and submucosal dissection vs surgical approach) and outcomes (adverse events, different survival rates, mortality, recurrence and complete resection rates). To ascertain the validity of eligible studies, the risk of bias was measured using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. The analysis of the absolute risk of the outcomes was performed using the software RevMan, by computing risk differences (RD) of dichotomous variables. Data on RD and 95%CIs for each outcome were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel test and inconsistency was qualified and reported in χ(2) and the Higgins method (I (2)). Sensitivity analysis was performed when heterogeneity was higher than 50%, a subsequent assay was done and other findings were compiled.

Results: Eleven retrospective cohort studies were selected. The included records involved 2654 patients with early gastric cancer that filled the absolute or expanded indications for endoscopic resection. Three-year survival data were available for six studies (n = 1197). There were no risk differences (RD) after endoscopic and surgical treatment (RD = 0.01, 95%CI: -0.02-0.05, P = 0.51). Five-year survival data (n = 2310) showed no difference between the two groups (RD = 0.01, 95%CI: -0.01-0.03, P = 0.46). Recurrence data were analized in five studies (1331 patients) and there was no difference between the approaches (RD = 0.01, 95%CI: -0.00-0.02, P = 0.09). Adverse event data were identified in eight studies (n = 2439). A significant difference was detected (RD = -0.08, 95%CI: -0.10--0.05, P < 0.05), demonstrating better results with endoscopy. Mortality data were obtained in four studies (n = 1107). There was no difference between the groups (RD = -0.01, 95%CI: -0.02-0.00, P = 0.22).

Conclusion: Three-, 5-year survival, recurrence and mortality are similar for both groups. Considering complication, endoscopy is better and, analyzing complete resection data, it is worse than surgery.

Keywords: Endoscopy; Gastrectomy; Gastric cancer; Gastroscopy; Surgery; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Search strategy and study selection flowchart.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Three-year survival data after endoscopic and surgical treatment of early gastric cancer.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Five-year survival data after endoscopic and surgical treatment of early gastric cancer (excluding outlier).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Five-year survival data after endoscopic submucosal dissection and surgical treatment of early gastric cancer.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Adverse event data after endoscopic and surgical treatment of early gastric cancer.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Adverse event data after endoscopic submucosal dissection and surgical treatment of early gastric cancer.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Complete resection data after endoscopic and surgical treatment of early gastric cancer (excluding outlier).
Figure 8
Figure 8
Recurrence data after endoscopic and surgical treatment of early gastric cancer (excluding outliers).
Figure 9
Figure 9
Mortality data after endoscopic and surgical treatment of early gastric cancer.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. 2012. International Association of Cancer Registry (IACR): GLOBOCAN.
    1. Murakami T. Early cancer of the stomach. World J Surg. 1979;3:685–692. - PubMed
    1. Folli S, Morgagni P, Roviello F, De Manzoni G, Marrelli D, Saragoni L, Di Leo A, Gaudio M, Nanni O, Carli A, et al. Risk factors for lymph node metastases and their prognostic significance in early gastric cancer (EGC) for the Italian Research Group for Gastric Cancer (IRGGC) Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2001;31:495–499. - PubMed
    1. Soetikno RM, Gotoda T, Nakanishi Y, Soehendra N. Endoscopic mucosal resection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;57:567–579. - PubMed
    1. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2010 (ver. 3) Gastric Cancer. 2011;14:113–123. - PubMed