Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2020
Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Versus Surgery for Superficial Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Survival Analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lee Hyun Deok, Chung Hyunsoo, Kwak Yoonjin, Choi Jinju, Lee Ayoung, Kim Jue Lie, Cho Soo-Jeong, Kim Sang Gyun
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is a preferred treatment option for superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (SESCC). However, only few studies compared long-term survival outcomes of ESD with surgery. This study compared the overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival, and complication rates of ESD with those of surgery.
METHODS: We reviewed patients who underwent ESD (n = 70) or surgery (n = 114) for SESCC at Seoul National University Hospital from 2011 to 2017. A propensity score-matched analysis was used to reduce selection bias. To increase the precision of our results interpretation, subgroups were analyzed according to the depth of tumor invasion.
RESULTS: In the matching study, the ESD group (n = 34) showed comparable survival outcomes with the surgery group (n = 34). The 5-year OS rates were 89.4% vs 87.8% for the ESD and the surgery groups, respectively; similarly, the 5-year recurrence-free survival rates were 90.9% and 91.6%, respectively. The ESD group showed a lower early major complication rate (2.9% [1 of 34] vs 23.5% [8 of 34], P < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (median, 3.0 days vs 16.5 days, P < 0.001) than the surgery group. In the tumor in situ (Tis)-subgroup, ESD showed better OS than esophagectomy (P = 0.030). Between-group comparisons of survival outcomes in the T1a and T1b subgroups revealed no significant differences.
DISCUSSION: Long-term outcomes of ESD are comparable with surgery for patients with SESCC. For early major complications and duration of hospital stay, ESD was associated with better outcomes than radical surgery. These results support ESD as the preferred treatment option for SESCC.
METHODS: We reviewed patients who underwent ESD (n = 70) or surgery (n = 114) for SESCC at Seoul National University Hospital from 2011 to 2017. A propensity score-matched analysis was used to reduce selection bias. To increase the precision of our results interpretation, subgroups were analyzed according to the depth of tumor invasion.
RESULTS: In the matching study, the ESD group (n = 34) showed comparable survival outcomes with the surgery group (n = 34). The 5-year OS rates were 89.4% vs 87.8% for the ESD and the surgery groups, respectively; similarly, the 5-year recurrence-free survival rates were 90.9% and 91.6%, respectively. The ESD group showed a lower early major complication rate (2.9% [1 of 34] vs 23.5% [8 of 34], P < 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (median, 3.0 days vs 16.5 days, P < 0.001) than the surgery group. In the tumor in situ (Tis)-subgroup, ESD showed better OS than esophagectomy (P = 0.030). Between-group comparisons of survival outcomes in the T1a and T1b subgroups revealed no significant differences.
DISCUSSION: Long-term outcomes of ESD are comparable with surgery for patients with SESCC. For early major complications and duration of hospital stay, ESD was associated with better outcomes than radical surgery. These results support ESD as the preferred treatment option for SESCC.