Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs. endoscopic mucosal resection in the treatment of early Barrett's neoplasia: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Megui Marilia Mansilla Gallegos, Igor Logetto Caetité Gomes, Vitor Ottoboni Brunaldi, Alexandre Moraes Bestetti, Sergio Barbosa Marques, Nelson Tomio Miyajima, Hiram Menezes Nascimento Filho, Pedro Henrique Veras Ayres da Silva, Angelo So Taa Kum, Wanderley Marques Bernardo, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura
{"title":"Endoscopic submucosal dissection vs. endoscopic mucosal resection in the treatment of early Barrett's neoplasia: Systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Megui Marilia Mansilla Gallegos, Igor Logetto Caetité Gomes, Vitor Ottoboni Brunaldi, Alexandre Moraes Bestetti, Sergio Barbosa Marques, Nelson Tomio Miyajima, Hiram Menezes Nascimento Filho, Pedro Henrique Veras Ayres da Silva, Angelo So Taa Kum, Wanderley Marques Bernardo, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura","doi":"10.1111/den.14892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Endoscopic resection is the preferred approach to treat early Barrett's neoplasia, reducing the need for surgical interventions. However, the best choice between endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) remains unclear. The study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EMR vs. ESD for early Barrett's neoplasia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An electronic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Central Cochrane, EMBASE, and LILACS until November 2023. Studies comparing ESD vs. EMR in the treatment of patients with early Barrett's neoplasia were included. This study was performed according to the Preferred Report Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The ROBIN-I tool was used to analyze the risk of bias and GRADE to measure the quality of the evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 9352 patients from 15 observational studies were included. Patients undergoing ESD had significantly higher rates of en-bloc (odds ratio [OR] 25.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 13.82, 48.74; I<sup>2</sup> = 52%; P < 0.00001) and R0 (OR 5.10, 95% CI 3.29, 7.91; I<sup>2</sup> = 73%; P < 0.00001) with a higher risk of adverse events, including bleeding, stricture formation, and perforation. In a subgroup analysis of patients who did not receive radiofrequency ablation, ESD had a lower recurrence rate than EMR (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05, 0.94; I<sup>2</sup> = 88%; P = 0.04).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Endoscopic submucosal dissection is more effective than EMR in treating early Barrett's neoplasia at the expense of higher adverse events rates.</p>","PeriodicalId":72813,"journal":{"name":"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/den.14892","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Endoscopic resection is the preferred approach to treat early Barrett's neoplasia, reducing the need for surgical interventions. However, the best choice between endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) remains unclear. The study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EMR vs. ESD for early Barrett's neoplasia.

Methods: An electronic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Central Cochrane, EMBASE, and LILACS until November 2023. Studies comparing ESD vs. EMR in the treatment of patients with early Barrett's neoplasia were included. This study was performed according to the Preferred Report Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The ROBIN-I tool was used to analyze the risk of bias and GRADE to measure the quality of the evidence.

Results: A total of 9352 patients from 15 observational studies were included. Patients undergoing ESD had significantly higher rates of en-bloc (odds ratio [OR] 25.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 13.82, 48.74; I2 = 52%; P < 0.00001) and R0 (OR 5.10, 95% CI 3.29, 7.91; I2 = 73%; P < 0.00001) with a higher risk of adverse events, including bleeding, stricture formation, and perforation. In a subgroup analysis of patients who did not receive radiofrequency ablation, ESD had a lower recurrence rate than EMR (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05, 0.94; I2 = 88%; P = 0.04).

Conclusion: Endoscopic submucosal dissection is more effective than EMR in treating early Barrett's neoplasia at the expense of higher adverse events rates.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
内镜黏膜下剥离术与内镜黏膜切除术在早期巴雷特瘤治疗中的对比:系统回顾与荟萃分析。
目的:内镜切除术是治疗早期巴雷特肿瘤的首选方法,可减少手术干预的需要。然而,内镜粘膜切除术(EMR)和内镜粘膜下剥离术(ESD)之间的最佳选择仍不明确。本研究旨在比较 EMR 与 ESD 对早期巴雷特肿瘤的疗效和安全性:方法:在 MEDLINE、Cochrane 中心、EMBASE 和 LILACS 中进行电子检索,检索期至 2023 年 11 月。方法:在MEDLINE、Central Corane、EMBASE和LILACS中进行电子检索,检索期至2023年11月,纳入了比较ESD与EMR治疗早期巴雷特瘤患者的研究。本研究根据《系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》指南进行。ROBIN-I工具用于分析偏倚风险,GRADE工具用于衡量证据质量:结果:共纳入了 15 项观察性研究中的 9352 名患者。结果:共纳入15项观察性研究中的9352名患者,ESD患者的全切率明显更高(几率比[OR] 25.96,95%置信区间[CI] 13.82,48.74;I2 = 52%;P 2 = 73%;P 2 = 88%;P = 0.04):结论:在治疗早期巴雷特瘤方面,内镜黏膜下剥离术比EMR更有效,但不良反应率较高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Diagnostic ability and adverse events of mucosal incision-assisted biopsy for gastric subepithelial tumors: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Is endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy better than surgical gastrojejunostomy or duodenal stenting? Current status and future perspectives for endoscopic treatment of local complications in chronic pancreatitis. Proposal of classification and terminology of interventional endoscopic ultrasonography/endosonography. Comorbidity burden and outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatment of pancreatic fluid collections: Multicenter study with nationwide data-based validation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1