Cargando…

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

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 compari...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wang, Yong-Qing, Li, Long-Quan, Li, Guang-Ming
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9830358/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36636080
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jgo-22-1121
_version_ 1784867655761526784
author Wang, Yong-Qing
Li, Long-Quan
Li, Guang-Ming
author_facet Wang, Yong-Qing
Li, Long-Quan
Li, Guang-Ming
author_sort Wang, Yong-Qing
collection PubMed
description 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 χ(2) test and I(2) 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9830358
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98303582023-01-11 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 Li, Long-Quan Li, Guang-Ming J Gastrointest Oncol Original Article 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 χ(2) test and I(2) 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. AME Publishing Company 2022-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9830358/ /pubmed/36636080 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jgo-22-1121 Text en 2022 Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Wang, Yong-Qing
Li, Long-Quan
Li, Guang-Ming
Comparison of efficacy and safety between endoscopic and laparoscopic resections in the treatment of gastric stromal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Comparison of efficacy and safety between endoscopic and laparoscopic resections in the treatment of gastric stromal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Comparison of efficacy and safety between endoscopic and laparoscopic resections in the treatment of gastric stromal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of efficacy and safety between endoscopic and laparoscopic resections in the treatment of gastric stromal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of efficacy and safety between endoscopic and laparoscopic resections in the treatment of gastric stromal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Comparison of efficacy and safety between endoscopic and laparoscopic resections in the treatment of gastric stromal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort comparison of efficacy and safety between endoscopic and laparoscopic resections in the treatment of gastric stromal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9830358/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36636080
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jgo-22-1121
work_keys_str_mv AT wangyongqing comparisonofefficacyandsafetybetweenendoscopicandlaparoscopicresectionsinthetreatmentofgastricstromaltumorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lilongquan comparisonofefficacyandsafetybetweenendoscopicandlaparoscopicresectionsinthetreatmentofgastricstromaltumorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT liguangming comparisonofefficacyandsafetybetweenendoscopicandlaparoscopicresectionsinthetreatmentofgastricstromaltumorsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis