4.6 Article

Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection and surgery for early gastric cancer that is not indicated for endoscopic resection in elderly patients

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-09989-6

Keywords

Aged; Endoscopic mucosal resection; Gastrectomy; Stomach neoplasms

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to compare the outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and surgery in elderly patients with early gastric cancer (EGC) that is not indicated for endoscopic resection (ER). The results showed that ESD may be an alternative option for elderly patients aged >= 75 years who are not suitable for ER.
BackgroundEndoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is sometimes performed for early gastric cancer (EGC) which is not indicated for endoscopic resection (ER) in elderly patients considering old age and comorbidities. We aimed to compare outcomes between ESD and surgery in elderly patients with EGC that is not indicated for ER.MethodsElderly patients aged >= 75 years who underwent either ESD or surgery for EGC which was not indicated for ER between 2005 and 2015 were retrospectively investigated.ResultsAmong a total of 294 patients, 59 (20.1%) and 235 (79.9%) patients underwent ESD and surgery as the initial treatment, respectively. The ESD group had smaller size of tumors (25 vs. 30 mm, p = .001) and higher rate of differentiated-type cancer than the surgery group had (88.1% vs. 60.9%, p = 0.001). With a median observation period of 91.8 months (range 11.6-198.1 months), 141 (48.0%) patients died: 25 (42.4%) and 116 (49.4%) patients in the ESD group and the surgery group, respectively. Overall survival and disease-free survival between the two groups had no significant differences (p = 0.982. p = 0.155, respectively).ConclusionsESD may be an alternative option for EGC which is not indicated for ER in elderly patients aged >= 75 years, considering old age and comorbidity.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available