Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection with surgical gastrectomy for early gastric cancer: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: There are several surgical options for treating early gastric cancers (EGCs), such as endoscopic resection, laparoscopic or open gastrectomy with D1 or D2 lymphadenectomy. Endoscopic resection for EGC with low risk of lymph node metastasis has been widely accepted as a therapeutic alternative. The role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in treating EGC is not well established, especially when compared with resection surgery cases in a long-term follow-up scope. AIM: To compare the safety and efficacy of the short- and long-term outcomes between ESD and resection surgery. METHODS: We searched the databases of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from January 1990 to June 2018, enrolling studies reporting short- or long-term outcomes of ESD in comparison with resection surgery for EGC. The quality of the studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Stata software (version 12.0) was used for the analysis. Pooling analysis was conducted using either fixed- or random-effects models depending on heterogeneity across studies. RESULTS: Fourteen studies comprising 5112 patients were eligible for analysis (2402 for EGC and 2710 for radical surgery). Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the ESD approach showed advantages through decreased operation time [weighted mean difference (WMD): -140.02 min, 95%CI: -254.23 to -34.82 min, P = 0.009], shorter hospital stay (WMD: -5.41 d, 95% CI: -5.93 to -4.89 d, P < 0.001), and lower postoperative complication rate [Odds ratio (OR) = 0.39, 95%CI: 0.28-0.55, P < 0.001). Meanwhile, EGC patients who underwent ESD had higher recurrence rate (OR = 9.24, 95%CI: 5.94-14.36, P < 0.001) than resection surgery patients. However, the long-term survival including overall survival [Hazard ratio (HR) = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.26-1.00, P = 0.05] and event-free survival (HR = 1.59, 95%CI: 0.66-9.81, P = 0.300) showed no significant differences between these two groups. CONCLUSION: In the treatment of EGC, ESD was safe and feasible in comparison with resection surgery, with advantages in several surgical and post-operative recovery parameters. Although the recurrence rate was higher in ESD group, the long-term survival was still comparable in these two groups, suggesting ESD could be recommended as standard treatment for EGC with indications.