{"title":"Comparison of EMR versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for Barrett’s neoplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.gie.2024.06.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Aims</h3><div>EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are both accepted resection strategies for Barrett’s esophagus–related neoplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, a lack of consensus exists regarding which technique offers superior outcomes. This study aims to systematically review the evidence comparing EMR versus ESD in treating Barrett’s neoplasia and EAC.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We searched 3 databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central) through October 2023. We included studies comparing the efficacy of EMR and ESD for Barrett’s neoplasia and EAC. Primary outcomes include en bloc, R0, and curative resection; complete remission of dysplasia (CRD), and local recurrence. Secondary outcomes encompass adverse events.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Our search identified 905 records. Eleven studies were included in the final analyses. Data showed significantly higher en bloc resection rates with ESD (odds ratio [OR], 31.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.02-99.19; <em>P</em> < .01; 7 studies). R0 resection rates were significantly higher with ESD (OR, 5.92; 95% CI, 2.75-12.77; <em>P</em> < .01; 8 studies). Curative resection rates tended to be higher with ESD (OR, 3.49; 95% CI, 0.86-14.14; <em>P</em> = .080; 4 studies). There was no significant difference in CRD rates (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.37-2.26; <em>P</em> = .86; 3 studies). Local recurrence rates tended to be lower with ESD (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.11-1.04; <em>P</em> = .058; 10 studies). As for adverse events, there was no significant difference in bleeding, perforation, and postoperative stricture rates.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that ESD achieves higher en bloc, R0, and curative resection rates, with a tendency toward lower recurrence rates. These results suggest that ESD may be a more effective option for managing Barrett’s neoplasia and EAC. (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO] registration number: CRD42023426486.)</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12542,"journal":{"name":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","volume":"100 5","pages":"Pages 817-828.e5"},"PeriodicalIF":6.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastrointestinal endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016510724032735","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and Aims
EMR and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) are both accepted resection strategies for Barrett’s esophagus–related neoplasia and esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, a lack of consensus exists regarding which technique offers superior outcomes. This study aims to systematically review the evidence comparing EMR versus ESD in treating Barrett’s neoplasia and EAC.
Methods
We searched 3 databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central) through October 2023. We included studies comparing the efficacy of EMR and ESD for Barrett’s neoplasia and EAC. Primary outcomes include en bloc, R0, and curative resection; complete remission of dysplasia (CRD), and local recurrence. Secondary outcomes encompass adverse events.
Results
Our search identified 905 records. Eleven studies were included in the final analyses. Data showed significantly higher en bloc resection rates with ESD (odds ratio [OR], 31.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.02-99.19; P < .01; 7 studies). R0 resection rates were significantly higher with ESD (OR, 5.92; 95% CI, 2.75-12.77; P < .01; 8 studies). Curative resection rates tended to be higher with ESD (OR, 3.49; 95% CI, 0.86-14.14; P = .080; 4 studies). There was no significant difference in CRD rates (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.37-2.26; P = .86; 3 studies). Local recurrence rates tended to be lower with ESD (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.11-1.04; P = .058; 10 studies). As for adverse events, there was no significant difference in bleeding, perforation, and postoperative stricture rates.
Conclusions
This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that ESD achieves higher en bloc, R0, and curative resection rates, with a tendency toward lower recurrence rates. These results suggest that ESD may be a more effective option for managing Barrett’s neoplasia and EAC. (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews [PROSPERO] registration number: CRD42023426486.)
内镜下黏膜切除术与内镜下黏膜下剥离术治疗巴雷特氏肿瘤和食管腺癌的比较:系统综述与 Meta 分析》(Endoscopic Mucosal Resection versus Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Barrett's Neoplasia and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma)。
期刊介绍:
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy is a journal publishing original, peer-reviewed articles on endoscopic procedures for studying, diagnosing, and treating digestive diseases. It covers outcomes research, prospective studies, and controlled trials of new endoscopic instruments and treatment methods. The online features include full-text articles, video and audio clips, and MEDLINE links. The journal serves as an international forum for the latest developments in the specialty, offering challenging reports from authorities worldwide. It also publishes abstracts of significant articles from other clinical publications, accompanied by expert commentaries.