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

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_KONDO_Endoscopy_vs_surgery_in_the_treatment_of_early_2015.PDF (1.11 MB)
Citações na Scopus
31
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2015
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
Autores
BERNARDO, Wanderley Marques
BRAVO, Jose Goncalves Pereira
Citação
WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, v.21, n.46, p.13177-13187, 2015
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
AIM: To report a systematic review, establishing the available data to an unpublished 2a strength of evidence, better handling clinical practice.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. 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.
Palavras-chave
Gastric cancer, Endoscopy, Gastroscopy, Gastrectomy, Surgery, Systematic review
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/12702
Referências
  1. Kakushima N, 2007, J GASTROEN HEPATOL, V22, P311, DOI 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2006.04563.x
  2. Gotoda T, 2007, GASTRIC CANCER, V10, P1, DOI 10.1007/s10120-006-0408-1
  3. Toyokawa T, 2011, EUR J CLIN INVEST, V41, P474, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2362.2010.02428.x
  4. Isomoto H, 2010, EUR J GASTROEN HEPAT, V22, P311, DOI 10.1097/MEG.0b013e32832c61d7
  5. Etoh T, 2005, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V62, P868, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2005.09.012
  6. Lee CK, 2010, J GASTROEN HEPATOL, V25, P1507, DOI 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2010.006367.x
  7. Tokioka S, 2012, J GASTROEN HEPATOL, V27, P63, DOI 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2012.07075.x
  8. Song F, 2010, HEALTH TECHNOL ASSES, V14, P1, DOI 10.3310/hta14080
  9. Fukunaga S, 2012, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V75, P234
  10. Kim DY, 2014, GUT LIVER, V8, P519, DOI 10.5009/gnl13061
  11. Park YM, 2011, SURG ENDOSC, V25, P2666, DOI 10.1007/s00464-011-1627-z
  12. Higgins JPT, 2003, BRIT MED J, V327, P557, DOI 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
  13. Soetikno RM, 2003, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V57, P567, DOI 10.1067/mge.2003.130
  14. Folli S, 2001, JPN J CLIN ONCOL, V31, P495, DOI 10.1093/jjco/hye107
  15. Choi KS, 2011, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V73, P942, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2010.12.032
  16. Chiu PWY, 2012, SURG ENDOSC, V26, P3584, DOI 10.1007/s00464-012-2371-8
  17. Kim HS, 2000, YONSEI MED J, V41, P577
  18. [Anonymous], 2014, REVMAN COMP PROGR VE
  19. Kim YI, 2015, ENDOSCOPY, V47, P293, DOI 10.1055/s-0034-1391284
  20. Park CH, 2014, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V80, P599, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2014.04.042
  21. Hirasaki S, 2005, INTERNAL MED, V44, P1033, DOI 10.2169/internalmedicine.44.1033
  22. Abe S, 2013, ENDOSCOPY, V45, P703, DOI 10.1055/s-0033-1344396
  23. Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM), 2009, LEVELS EVIDENCE
  24. Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Headington Oxford, CRIT APPR TOP CAT
  25. Choi IJ, 2015, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V81, P333, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.047
  26. Fukase K, 1994, DIGEST ENDOSC, V6, P241, DOI 10.1111/j.1443-1661.1994.tb00373.x
  27. Japanese Gastric Canc Assoc, 2011, GASTRIC CANCER, V14, P113, DOI 10.1007/s10120-011-0042-4
  28. Liberati A, 2009, PLOS MED, V6, DOI 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
  29. Murakami T, 1979, World J Surg, V3, P685
  30. Nishida T, 1993, Nihon Ronen Igakkai Zasshi, V30, P376
  31. Oka S, 2014, SURG ENDOSC, V28, P639, DOI 10.1007/s00464-013-3222-y
  32. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, NEWCASTLE OTTAWA SCA
  33. PROSPERO Centre for Reviews and Dissemination University of York, GUID NOT REG SYST RE
  34. SIGN Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, HEALTHC IMPR SCOTL

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MGT
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICESP
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/InCor
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/35
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - ODS/03