Prognostic factors for ESD of early gastric cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and study aims Gastric neoplasms are one of the leading types of cancer in the world and early detection is essential to improve prognosis. Endoscopy is the gold-standard diagnostic procedure and allows adequate treatment in selected cases. Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has been reported to safely address most early gastric cancers (EGCs), with high curability rates. However, data on prognostic factors related to ESDs of EGCs are conflicting. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review the available literature and to perform a meta-analysis to identify the relevant prognostic factors in this context. Methods We performed this study according to PRISMA guidelines. Comparative studies assessing the relationship between curative resection or long-term curability rates and relevant prognostic factors were selected. Prognostic factors were demographic data, lesion features (location, morphology of the lesion, size, and depth of invasion), histological findings, Helycobacter pylori (HP) infection, presence of gastric a atrophy and body mass index (BMI). Finally, we also evaluated risk factors related to metachronous gastric neoplasm. Results The initial search retrieved 2829 records among which 46 studies were included for systematic review and meta-analysis. The total sample comprised 28366 patients and 29282 lesions. Regarding curative resection, pooled data showed no significant influence of sex [odds ratio (OR): 1.15 (0,97, 1.36) P  = 0.10 I 2  = 47 %] , age [OR: 1.00 (0.61, 1.64) P  = 1.00 I 2  = 58 %], posterior vs non-posterior location [OR: 1.35 (0.81, 2.27) P  = 0.25 I 2  = 84 %], depressed vs von-depressed macroscopic type[OR: 1.21 (0.99, 1.49) P  = 0.07 I 2  = 0 %], non-upper vs upper location [OR: 1.41 (0.93, 2.14) P  = 0.10 I 2  = 77 %] and BMI [OR: 0.84 (0.57; 1.26) P  = 0.41 I 2  = 0 %]. Differentiated neoplasms presented greater chance of cure compare to undifferentiated [OR: 0.10 (0.07, 0.15) P  < 0.00001 I 2  = 0 %]. Ulcerated lesions had lower curative rates compared to non-ulcerated [OR: 3.92 (2.81, 5.47) P  < 0.00001 I 2  = 44 %]. Lesions smaller than 20 mm had greater chance of curative resection [OR: 3.94 (3.25, 4.78) P  < 0.00001 I 2  = 38 %]. Bleeding during procedure had lower curative rates compared to non-bleeding [OR: 2.13 (1.56, 2.93) P  < 0.0001 I 2  = 0 %]. Concerning long-term cure, female gender [OR 1.62 (1.33, 1.97) P  < 0.00001 I 2  = 0 %] and the mucosal over SM1 cancers were protective factors [OR: 0.08 (0.02, 0.39) P  = 0.002 I 2  = 86 %]. Gastric atrophy [OR: 0.60 (0.45, 0.81) P  = 0.0006 I 2  = 42 %] and the pepsinogen I/pepsinogen II ratio [OR 2.29 (1.47, 3.57) P  = 0.0002 I 2  = 0 %] were risk factors to metachronous gastric neoplasm. Conclusions Ulcerated lesions, histology, bleeding and size > 20 mm are prognostic factors concerning curative resection. Regarding long-term cure, female gender and mucosal over SM1 cancer are predictive factors. Gastric atrophy and the pepsinogen ratio are risk factors for metachronous gastric neoplasm.

Adverse events after biliary sphincterotomy: Does the electric current mode make a difference? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Biliary sphincterotomy is an invasive method that allows access to the bile ducts, however, this procedure is not exempt of complications. Studies in the literature indicate that the mode of electric current used for sphincterotomy may carry different incidences of adverse events such as pancreatitis, hemorrhage, perforation, and cholangitis. AIM: To evaluate the safety of different modes of electrical current during biliary sphincterotomy based on incidence of adverse events. METHODS: We searched articles for this systematic review in Medline, EMBASE, Central Cochrane, Lilacs, and gray literature from inception to September 2019. Data from studies describing different types of electric current were meta-analyzed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The following electric current modalities were evaluated: endocut, blend, pure cut, pure cut followed by blend, monopolar, and bipolar. RESULTS: A total of 1791 patients from 11 randomized clinical trials evaluating the following comparisons: 1. Endocut vs Blend: No statistical difference in the incidence of bleeding (7% vs 13.4%; RD: -0.11 [-0.31, 0.08], P=0.27, I2=86%), pancreatitis (4.4% vs 3.5%; RD: 0.01 [-0.03, 0.04], P=0.62, I2=48%) and perforation (absence of cases in both arms). 2. Endocut vs Pure cut: Higher incidence of mild bleeding (without drop in hemoglobin levels, clinical repercussion or need for endoscopic intervention) in the pure cut group (9.2% vs 28.8%; RD: -0.19 [-0.27, -0.12], P<0.00001, I2=0%). No statistical difference regarding pancreatitis (5.2% vs 0.9%; RD: 0.05 [-0.01, 0.11], P=0.12, I2=57%), perforation (0.4% vs 0%; RD: 0.00 [-0.01, 0.02], P=0.7, I2=0%) or cholangitis (1.8% vs 3.2%; RD: -0.01 [-0.09, 0.06], P=0,7). 3. Pure cut vs blend: higher incidence of mild bleeding in the pure cut group (40.4% vs 16.7%; RD: 0.24 [0.15, 0.33], P<0.00001, I2=0%). No statistical difference concerning incidence of pancreatitis or cholangitis. 4. Pure cut vs Pure cut followed by Blend: No statistical difference regarding incidence of bleeding (22.5% vs 11.7%; RD: -0.10 [-0.24, 0.04], P=0.18, I2=61%) and pancreatitis (8.9% vs 14.8%; RD 0.06 [-0.02, 0.13], P=0.12, I2=0%). 5. Blend vs pure cut followed by blend: no statistical difference regarding incidence of bleeding and pancreatitis (11.3% vs 10.4%; RD -0.01 [-0.11, 0.09], P=0.82, I2=0%). 6. Monopolar vs bipolar: higher incidence of pancreatitis in the monopolar mode group (12% vs 0%; RD 0.12 [0.02, 0.22], P=0.01). CONCLUSION: Pure cut carries higher incidences of mild bleeding compared to endocut and blend. However, this modality might present a lower incidence of pancreatitis. The monopolar mode elicits higher rates of pancreatitis in comparison with the bipolar mode. There is no difference in incidence of cholangitis or perforation between different types of electric current. There is a lack of evidence in the literature to recommend one method over the others, therefore new studies are warranted. As there is no perfect electric current mode, the choice in clinical practice must be based on the patient risk factors.