| Title |
Comparison of endoscopic resection and gastrectomy for the treatment of early gastric cancer: a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-015-4681-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fan-Sheng Meng, Zhao-Hong Zhang, Ya-Mei Wang, Lin Lu, Jin-Zhou Zhu, Feng Ji |
| Abstract |
Endoscopic resection methods, including endoscopic mucosal resection and endoscopic submucosal dissection, have become standard treatment modalities for patients with early gastric cancer (EGC) and absolute indications, with en bloc resection being more frequent with the latter. Endoscopic resection, however, has been associated with higher recurrence and metachronous cancer rates than gastrectomy. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection and gastrectomy for EGC. PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science were electronically searched for relevant studies comparing endoscopic resection and gastrectomy for EGC from 1976 through March 2015. The primary endpoints were en bloc resection and histologically complete resection rates. The secondary endpoints were duration of hospital stay and rates of complications, recurrence, metachronous cancer and overall survival. This meta-analysis enrolled 10 studies with 2070 patients: 993 patients who underwent endoscopic resection and 1077 who underwent gastrectomy. Endoscopic resection was associated with shorter hospital stay (standardized mean difference -2.02; 95 % confidence interval [CI] -2.64 to -1.39) and lower complication rate (relative risk [RR] 0.41; 95 % CI 0.22-0.76) than gastrectomy. However, endoscopic resection was associated with lower rates of en bloc resection (odds ratio [OR] 0.05; 95 % CI 0.02-0.16) and histologically complete resection (OR 0.04; 95 % CI 0.01-0.11) and higher rates of recurrence (RR 5.23; 95 % CI 2.43-11.27) and metachronous cancer (RR 5.22; 95 % CI 2.40-11.34) than gastrectomy. Overall survival rate (OR 1.18; 95 % CI 0.76-1.82) was similar. Endoscopic resection is minimally invasive and as effective as surgery, suggesting that the former be considered standard treatment for EGC. It should be recommended as standard treatment for EGC with indications. Additional randomized controlled trials from more countries are required. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 14% |
| Other | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 9% |
| Librarian | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 45% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 December 2015.
All research outputs
#20,298,249
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#5,650
of 6,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#326,305
of 388,829 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#109
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,040 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 388,829 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.