Dataset Information

Comparison of efficacy and safety between endoscopic and laparoscopic resections in the treatment of gastric stromal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are still clinical controversy on the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection (ER) and laparoscopic resection (LR) in the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ER in the treatment of GISTs by comparing the relative outcomes of ER to LR.

Methods

PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched. Data were retrieved from January 2010 to January 2020 and subjected to a meta-analysis based on the intraoperative and postoperative outcomes of ER and LR. The intervention arm was treated by LR while the comparator arm was treated by ER. Relevant literature was selected based on the inclusion criteria, data was extracted, and quality evaluation of the included literature was carried out. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was applied for assessing the quality of included studies. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using the Cochrane χ² test and I² statistic, and Funnel plots and Egger's test were used to detect publication bias.

Results

The present analysis included 13 studies, comprising a total of 1,261 patients, (ER vs. LR: 543 vs. 718). The incidence rate of postoperative complications [odds ratio (OR), 0.400; P=0.001] was significantly lower in the ER group [3.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.015 to 0.055] than the LR group (8.9%; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.17). The meta-analysis revealed that the recurrence rate following ER (1.7%; 95% CI, 0.005 to 0.033) was lower than that following LR (2.5%; 95% CI, 0.012 to 0.041). The R0 resection rate of ER (99%; 95% CI, 0.975 to 0.999) was similar to that of LR (100%; 95% CI, 0.995 to 1.000). No publication bias in this study (P>0.10), and the sensitivity analysis showed that the study was robust.

Conclusions

ER was safer and more efficient than LR in terms of all the outcomes, except the R0 resection rate. Thus, ER should be considered the treatment of choice. However, attention should be paid to the surgical margin status following ER.

SUBMITTER: Wang YQ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9830358 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of efficacy and safety between endoscopic and laparoscopic resections in the treatment of gastric stromal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wang Yong-Qing YQ Li Long-Quan LQ Li Guang-Ming GM

Journal of gastrointestinal oncology 20221201 6

<h4>Background</h4>There are still clinical controversy on the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection (ER) and laparoscopic resection (LR) in the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ER in the treatment of GISTs by comparing the relative outcomes of ER to LR.<h4>Methods</h4>PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase were searched. Data were retrieved from January 2010 to January 2020 and subjected to a ...[more]

PMID: 36636080

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEndoscopic resection (ESR) is a novel minimally invasive procedure for superficial tumors. Its safety, efficiency, and outcome for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (gGISTs) less than 5 cm remains unclear compared to laparoscopic resection (LAR) and open resection (ONR). The current network meta-analysis aimed to review and analyze the available evidence of this question.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify eligible studies published up to July 6, 2020. The perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes among ESR, LAR, and ONR for gGIST (<5 cm) were estimated through the Bayesian network meta-analysis with a random-effect model.ResultsFifteen studies with 1,631 patients were included. ESR was associated with a shorter operative time [mean difference, MD: -36; 95% confidence interval, CI (-55, -16)], a higher rate of positive margin [odds ratio, OR: 5.1 × 1010, 95% CI (33, 2.5 × 1032)], and less costs [MD: -1 × 104, 95% CI (-1.6 × 104, -4.4 × 103)] but similar time to resume flatus [MD: 0.52, 95% CI (-0.16, 1.1)] and diet [MD: -3.5, 95% CI (-5.6, -1.6)] compared to LAR. A higher rate of total complications [OR: 11, 95% CI (1.2, 140)] was observed in patients who received ESR compared to patients who received LAR. After excluding perforation from the total complication category, the difference of complication between ESR and LAR disappeared [OR: 0.87, 95% CI (0.22, 2.3)]. The recurrence rate [OR: 1.3, 95% CI (0.40, 4.5)] and disease-free survival [hazard ratio: 1.26, 95% CI (0.60, 2.63)] showed no significant difference between ESR and LAR. ESR was associated with better or equivalent perioperative and long-term outcomes compared to ONR, except for positive margin. A subgroup analysis (<2 and 2-5 cm) showed no significantly different results among these three procedures either.ConclusionESR was shown to be a safe and efficient alternative procedure to both LAR and ONR for gGISTs less than 2 cm and within 2-5 cm, respectively, without worsening the oncologic outcomes. However, preoperative assessment of tumor site is of importance for the determination of procedures regarding the increased incidence of a positive margin related to ESR.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the recent large number of studies comparing endoscopic and laparoscopic resection for small gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) (diameter ≤ 5 cm), the results remain conflicting. The objective of this work was to perform a cumulative meta-analysis to assess the advantages and disadvantages of endoscopic resection vs. laparoscopic resection.MethodsThe meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We searched medical databases up to January 2020. Meta-analytical random or fixed effects models were used in pooled analyses. Meta-regression, cumulative meta-analyses, and subgroup analyses were performed to improve the accuracy of the conclusion. Sensitivity analyses were applied to assess the robustness of the results.ResultsA total of 12 cohort studies with 1383 participants comparing endoscopic resection and laparoscopic resection were identified, while three cohort studies with 167 participants comparing endoscopic resection and laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery were found. We found that endoscopic resection had shorter operation times (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -27.1 min, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -40.8 min to -13.4 min) and lengths of hospital stay (WMD = -1.43 d, 95% CI: -2.31 d to -0.56 d) than did laparoscopic resection. The results were stable and reliable. There were no significant differences in terms of blood loss, hospitalization costs, incidence of complications or recurrence rates. For tumor sizes 2 - 5 cm, endoscopic resection increased the risk of positive margins (relative risk [RR] = 5.78, 95% CI: 1.31 - 25.46). Although operation times for endoscopic resection were shorter than those of laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (WMD = -41.03 min, 95% CI: -59.53 min to -22.54 min), there was a higher incidence of complications (RR = 4.03, 95% CI: 1.57 - 10.34).ConclusionsIn general, endoscopic resection is an alternative method for gastric GISTs ≤ 5 cm. Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery may work well in combination. Further randomized controlled trials are recommended to validate or update these results.

Dataset Information

Comparison of efficacy and safety between endoscopic and laparoscopic resections in the treatment of gastric stromal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparison of efficacy and safety between endoscopic and laparoscopic resections in the treatment of gastric stromal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets