Cargando…

Endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric subepithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the therapeutic outcomes of the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) technique for the treatment of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using the core databases. Data on the complete resection rates and the procedu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bang, Chang Seok, Baik, Gwang Ho, Shin, In Soo, Suk, Ki Tae, Yoon, Jai Hoon, Kim, Dong Joon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Association of Internal Medicine 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5016280/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26898597
http://dx.doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2015.093
_version_ 1782452548923293696
author Bang, Chang Seok
Baik, Gwang Ho
Shin, In Soo
Suk, Ki Tae
Yoon, Jai Hoon
Kim, Dong Joon
author_facet Bang, Chang Seok
Baik, Gwang Ho
Shin, In Soo
Suk, Ki Tae
Yoon, Jai Hoon
Kim, Dong Joon
author_sort Bang, Chang Seok
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the therapeutic outcomes of the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) technique for the treatment of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using the core databases. Data on the complete resection rates and the procedure-related perforation rates were extracted and analyzed. A random effects model was then applied for this meta-analysis. RESULTS: In all, 288 patients with 290 SETs were enrolled from nine studies (44 SETs originated from the submucosal layer; 246 SETs originated from the muscularis propria layer). The mean diameter of the lesions ranged from 17.99 to 38 mm. Overall, the pooled complete resection rate was estimated to be 86.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78.9 to 91.3). If the analysis was limited to the lesions that originated from the submucosal layer, the pooled complete resection rate was 91.4% (95% CI, 77.9 to 97). If the analysis was limited to the lesions that originated from the muscularis propria, the pooled complete resection rate was 84.4% (95% CI, 78.7 to 88.8). The pooled procedure-related gastric perforation rate was 13% (95% CI, 9.4 to 17.6). Sensitivity analyses showed consistent results. Finally, publication bias was not detected. CONCLUSIONS: ESD, including endoscopic muscularis dissection, is a technically feasible procedure for the treatment of SETs. However, selection bias is suspected from the enrolled studies. For the development of a proper indication of ESD for SETs, further studies are needed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5016280
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher The Korean Association of Internal Medicine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50162802016-09-09 Endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric subepithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis Bang, Chang Seok Baik, Gwang Ho Shin, In Soo Suk, Ki Tae Yoon, Jai Hoon Kim, Dong Joon Korean J Intern Med Original Article BACKGROUND/AIMS: To evaluate the therapeutic outcomes of the endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) technique for the treatment of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using the core databases. Data on the complete resection rates and the procedure-related perforation rates were extracted and analyzed. A random effects model was then applied for this meta-analysis. RESULTS: In all, 288 patients with 290 SETs were enrolled from nine studies (44 SETs originated from the submucosal layer; 246 SETs originated from the muscularis propria layer). The mean diameter of the lesions ranged from 17.99 to 38 mm. Overall, the pooled complete resection rate was estimated to be 86.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78.9 to 91.3). If the analysis was limited to the lesions that originated from the submucosal layer, the pooled complete resection rate was 91.4% (95% CI, 77.9 to 97). If the analysis was limited to the lesions that originated from the muscularis propria, the pooled complete resection rate was 84.4% (95% CI, 78.7 to 88.8). The pooled procedure-related gastric perforation rate was 13% (95% CI, 9.4 to 17.6). Sensitivity analyses showed consistent results. Finally, publication bias was not detected. CONCLUSIONS: ESD, including endoscopic muscularis dissection, is a technically feasible procedure for the treatment of SETs. However, selection bias is suspected from the enrolled studies. For the development of a proper indication of ESD for SETs, further studies are needed. The Korean Association of Internal Medicine 2016-09 2016-02-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5016280/ /pubmed/26898597 http://dx.doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2015.093 Text en Copyright © 2016 The Korean Association of Internal Medicine This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Bang, Chang Seok
Baik, Gwang Ho
Shin, In Soo
Suk, Ki Tae
Yoon, Jai Hoon
Kim, Dong Joon
Endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric subepithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric subepithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric subepithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric subepithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric subepithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric subepithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort endoscopic submucosal dissection of gastric subepithelial tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5016280/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26898597
http://dx.doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2015.093
work_keys_str_mv AT bangchangseok endoscopicsubmucosaldissectionofgastricsubepithelialtumorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT baikgwangho endoscopicsubmucosaldissectionofgastricsubepithelialtumorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT shininsoo endoscopicsubmucosaldissectionofgastricsubepithelialtumorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT sukkitae endoscopicsubmucosaldissectionofgastricsubepithelialtumorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT yoonjaihoon endoscopicsubmucosaldissectionofgastricsubepithelialtumorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kimdongjoon endoscopicsubmucosaldissectionofgastricsubepithelialtumorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis