Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 15, 2025
Intraoperative Gastroscopy for Tumor Localization in Laparoscopic Surgery for Gastric Adenocarcinoma
Published on: August 9, 2016
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Versus Surgery or Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Metachronous Early Gastric
Zhao Wu Meng1,2, Kirles Bishay1,2, Marcus Vaska3
1Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, CWPH 6D19, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4Z6, Canada.
Background:
Resection options for early gastric cancer (EGC) include endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), and surgery. In patients with metachronous EGC following previous resection, the optimal resection technique is not well elucidated. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing ESD to EMR, or ESD to surgery, in patients with metachronous EGC.
Methods:
We conducted an electronic search of studies reporting on outcomes and AEs following ESD versus either EMR or surgery for patients with metachronous EGC. Pooled odds ratios (OR) of included studies were obtained using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Funnel plots were produced and visually inspected for evidence of publication bias. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.
Results:
A total of 9367 abstracts were screened and 10 observational studies were included. The odds of complete resection were higher amongst patients undergoing ESD compared to EMR (OR 5.88, 95% confidence intervals, CI, 1.79-19.35), whereas the odds of complete resection were no different between ESD and surgery (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.04-8.24). There were no differences in the odds of local recurrence with ESD versus surgery (OR 5.01, 95% CI 0.86-29.13). Post-procedural bleeding did not differ significantly between ESD and EMR (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.16-3.00). There was no evidence of publication bias.
Discussion:
For metachronous EGC, ESD or surgery is preferred over EMR depending on local expertise and patient preferences, largely due to a higher risk of incomplete resection with EMR.
Review Registration:
PROSPERO CRD42021270445.
