Objective:Esophageal carcinoma(EC)is a primary global health concern,ranking as the eighth most common cancer and the sixth leading cause of cancer-related mortality.Endoscopic mucosal resection(EMR)and endoscopic sub...Objective:Esophageal carcinoma(EC)is a primary global health concern,ranking as the eighth most common cancer and the sixth leading cause of cancer-related mortality.Endoscopic mucosal resection(EMR)and endoscopic submucosal dissection(ESD)are widely used to manage early-stage EC and Barrett’s esophagus.However,their comparative efficacyand safety remain debated.This study aims to systematically compare the safety and efficacyof ESD and EMR in the treatment of early EC and Barrett’s esophagus.Methods:A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines.Databases,including MEDLINE(via PubMed),Google Scholar,and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published up to October 2024.Twenty-two studies involving 3309 patients(1425 with ESD and 1884 with EMR)met the inclusion criteria.The outcomes assessed included en bloc resection,R0 resection,curative resection,local recurrence,bleeding,perforation,and stricture formation.Risk ratios(RR)with 95%CIs were calculated via a random-effects model via RevMan 5.4.Results:ESD significantlyoutperformed EMR in en bloc resection(RR=2.22,95%CI:1.69–2.90;p<0.001),R0 resection(RR=1.93,95%CI:1.28–2.91;p=0.002),and curative resection rates(RR=2.29,95%CI:1.52–3.46;p<0.001).ESD was associated with lower local recurrence in patients with squamous cell carcinoma(SCC)(RR=0.13,95%CI:0.06–0.30;p<0.001),whereas recurrence was greater in patients with Barrett’s esophagus(RR=1.67,95%CI:1.30–2.14;p<0.001).No significant difference was observed in bleeding rates;however,ESD was associated with a greater risk of perforation(RR=2.94,95%CI:1.31–6.60;p=0.009).Conclusion:ESD is more effective than EMR in achieving complete and curative resections for early EC and SCC,particularly for lesions>20 mm.However,it has a higher complication rate,especially perforation.Careful patient selection and procedural expertise are essential when choosing between the two techniques.展开更多
文摘Objective:Esophageal carcinoma(EC)is a primary global health concern,ranking as the eighth most common cancer and the sixth leading cause of cancer-related mortality.Endoscopic mucosal resection(EMR)and endoscopic submucosal dissection(ESD)are widely used to manage early-stage EC and Barrett’s esophagus.However,their comparative efficacyand safety remain debated.This study aims to systematically compare the safety and efficacyof ESD and EMR in the treatment of early EC and Barrett’s esophagus.Methods:A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines.Databases,including MEDLINE(via PubMed),Google Scholar,and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published up to October 2024.Twenty-two studies involving 3309 patients(1425 with ESD and 1884 with EMR)met the inclusion criteria.The outcomes assessed included en bloc resection,R0 resection,curative resection,local recurrence,bleeding,perforation,and stricture formation.Risk ratios(RR)with 95%CIs were calculated via a random-effects model via RevMan 5.4.Results:ESD significantlyoutperformed EMR in en bloc resection(RR=2.22,95%CI:1.69–2.90;p<0.001),R0 resection(RR=1.93,95%CI:1.28–2.91;p=0.002),and curative resection rates(RR=2.29,95%CI:1.52–3.46;p<0.001).ESD was associated with lower local recurrence in patients with squamous cell carcinoma(SCC)(RR=0.13,95%CI:0.06–0.30;p<0.001),whereas recurrence was greater in patients with Barrett’s esophagus(RR=1.67,95%CI:1.30–2.14;p<0.001).No significant difference was observed in bleeding rates;however,ESD was associated with a greater risk of perforation(RR=2.94,95%CI:1.31–6.60;p=0.009).Conclusion:ESD is more effective than EMR in achieving complete and curative resections for early EC and SCC,particularly for lesions>20 mm.However,it has a higher complication rate,especially perforation.Careful patient selection and procedural expertise are essential when choosing between the two techniques.
