Cargando…

Undifferentiated-predominant mixed-type early gastric cancer is more aggressive than pure undifferentiated type: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that differentiated-predominant mixed-type early gastric cancer (EGC) is more aggressive than pure differentiated-type EGC. However, the biological behaviour of undifferentiated-predominant mixed-type (MU) EGC and pure undifferentiated-type (PU) EGC are controversial....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yang, Peng, Zheng, Xiang-Dong, Wang, Jun-Mei, Geng, Wen-Bin, Wang, Xiaoyong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8990716/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35393309
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054473
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that differentiated-predominant mixed-type early gastric cancer (EGC) is more aggressive than pure differentiated-type EGC. However, the biological behaviour of undifferentiated-predominant mixed-type (MU) EGC and pure undifferentiated-type (PU) EGC are controversial. This study was conducted to compare the biological behaviour of MU EGC and PU EGC. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies was conducted using literature published through PubMed and Embase from inception to 9 November 2021. Inclusion criteria were: (1) a direct or indirect comparison of MU and PU; (2) patients with EGC; (3) a specified outcome of lymph node metastasis (LNM), lymphovascular invasion, submucosal invasion and/or ulcer findings; and (4) the primary lesion was obtained. The literature search, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. The meta-analysis was conducted with a random-effect model using the Mantel-Haenszel method. RESULTS: Twelve publications with 5644 patients were included. Patients with MU EGC had significantly higher risk of LNM (OR 2.28; 95% CI 1.72 to 3.03) and submucosal invasion (OR 2.19; 95% CI 1.90 to 2.52) compared with patients with PU EGC. No difference was found between patients with MU and PU EGC with respect to lymphovascular invasion risk (OR 1.81; 95% CI 0.84 to 3.87). After stratifying the data according to depth of tumour invasion, a significantly higher risk for LNM was associated with intramucosal MU EGC (OR 2.56; 95% CI 1.66 to 3.95) and submucosal MU EGC (OR 2.63; 95% CI 2.06 to 3.06). Submucosal MU EGC also had a significantly higher risk of lymphovascular invasion (OR 2.40; 95% CI 1.79 to 3.21) compared with submucosal PU EGC. DISCUSSION: Patients with MU EGC had an increased risk of submucosal invasion and LNM compared with patients with PU EGC. MU patients with submucosal EGC also had an increased lymphovascular invasion risk compared with PU patients. Therefore, attention should be focused on the clinical management of patients with MU EGC.