OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines for treating early gastric cancer (EGC) with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are being developed with broader criteria. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the application of expanded indications (EIN) by comparing outcomes between conventional indication (CIN) and EIN groups. METHODS: Literature databases were searched. Short-term outcomes, including endoscopic resection rates, complications and local recurrence, and long-term outcomes including gastric cancer-specific mortality and overall mortality were compared in the two groups. RESULTS: In all, 13 studies were identified and evaluated. The EIN group had lower rates of en bloc (93.6% vs 97.0%, P < 0.0001), complete (87.8% vs 95.8%, P < 0.00001) and curative resection (82.4% vs 94.0%, P < 0.00001) than the CIN group. The rates of delayed bleeding and perforation were both significantly higher in the EIN group (3.9% vs 2.8%, P = 0.04 and 3.9% vs 1.8%, P < 0.0001). Local recurrence rates were 0.6% in the CIN group and 1.5% in the EIN group (P = 0.03). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the gastric-cancer specific mortality (P = 0.22) and the overall mortality (P = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term mortality in the EIN group did not significantly differ from those in the CIN group, although the EIN group was associated with more unfavorable short-term outcomes. Thus, ESD could be recommended as an effective therapy for EGC of EIN.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Peng et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: