4.7 Review

Endoscopic submucosal dissection for early Barrett's neoplasia: a meta-analysis

Journal

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY
Volume 87, Issue 6, Pages 1383-1393

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.09.038

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background and Aims: The role of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) in Barrett's esophagus (BE) is not well established. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ESD for the management of early BE neoplasia. Methods: Three online databases were searched. The Cochran Q test and I-2 were used to test for heterogeneity. Pooling was conducted using either fixed-or random-effects models depending on heterogeneity across studies. For the main outcomes, potential sources of heterogeneity were evaluated via linear regression analysis. Results: Eleven studies (501 patients, 524 lesions) were included. Mean lesion size was 27 mm (95% confidence interval [CI], 20.9-33.1). Pooled estimate for en bloc resection was 92.9% (95% CI, 90.3%-95.2%). The pooled R0 (complete) and curative resection rates were 74.5% (95% CI, 66.3%-81.9%) and 64.9% (95% CI, 55.7%-73.6%), respectively. There was no association between R0 or curative resection rates and study setting (Asia vs West), length of BE, lesion characteristics, procedural time, or length of follow-up. The pooled estimates for perforation and bleeding were 1.5% (95% CI, .4%-3.0%) and 1.7% (95% CI, .6%-3.4%), respectively. Esophageal stricture rate was 11.6% (95% CI, .9%-29.6%). Incidence of recurrence after curative resection was .17% (95% CI, 0%-.3%) at a mean follow-up 22.9 months (95% CI, 17.5-28.3). Conclusions: ESD for early BE neoplasia is associated with a high en bloc resection rate, acceptable safety profile, and low recurrence after curative resection. ESD should be considered as part of the armamentarium for the management of BE neoplasia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available