Skip to main content
Download PDF

Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus surgery for early gastric cancer in the elderly: a pooled analysis

World Journal of Surgical Oncology volume 21, Article number: 283 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate whether there was a difference in overall survival (OS) between elderly patients with early gastric cancer (EGC) who underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and those who underwent surgery.

Methods

Four databases including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and CKNI were searched on March 20, 2023. The characteristics of the studies and the baseline information of the patients, including their medical histories, postoperative data, and prognoses, were recorded. Odds ratios (ORs) or mean differences (MDs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled up to calculate baseline information and postoperative information. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were used to calculate the prognosis of the patients. Stata V16.0 software was used for the data analysis.

Results

A total of eight studies involving 2334 patients were included for the data analysis in this study. After pooling up the data, we found that the ESD group had lower Eastern Cooperative Oncology Groupprevious (ECOG) scores (OR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.65, I2 = 59.69%, P = 0.00 < 0.05) than the surgery group. There were significant differences in the operation time (MD = -3.38, 95% CI = -5.19 to -1.57, I2 = 98.31%, P = 0.00 < 0.05), length of hospital stay (MD = -3.01, 95% CI = -4.81 to -1.20, I2 = 98.83%, P = 0.00 < 0.05) and hospitalization expenses (MD = -2.67, 95% CI = -3.59 to -1.75, I2 = 93.21%, P = 0.00 < 0.05) between the two groups. The ESD group had a lower OS rate (HR = 2.81, 95% CI = 2.20 to 3.58, I2 = 12.28%, P = 0.00 < 0.05).

Conclusion

Elderly patients with EGC who underwent ESD had a significantly worse OS rate than those who underwent surgery. If the patient’s condition was suitable, surgery was still recommended for these patients.

Introduction

Gastric cancer (GC) is recognized as one of the most common malignancies in the world and is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths [1,2,3,4]. In China, the incidence and mortality rates of GC are increasing, and approximately 400,000 new cases of GC are diagnosed each year [5]. At present, surgery is still the standard treatment [6,7,8].

As the proportion of elderly people increases and people take their health more seriously, the proportion of elderly people diagnosed with early gastric cancer (EGC) increases [9,10,11]. Elderly people are often in poor condition or have other comorbidities, and surgery may be overly invasive and may not improve the prognosis of elderly patients [12,13,14]. EGC is defined as cancer confined to the gastric mucosa or submucosa, regardless of lymph node metastasis. Therefore, the number of EGCs that are treated with endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has increased [15].

ESD or surgical resection are selected as treatments for EGC. The effectiveness of treatment modalities (ESD or surgery) for elderly patients with EGC remains controversial. A study reported that ESD was associated with worse overall survival (OS) [16]. Other studies showed that there was no significant difference in OS between ESD and surgery [17,18,19,20]. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether there is a difference in OS between the ESD and surgery.

Methods

Our pooling up analysis was produced in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [21]. The registration ID of this study on PROSPERO is CRD42023445142, and the link is https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023445142.

Search strategy

We searched four databases (PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and CNKI) on March 20, 2023. The key words of search strategy were ESD, elderly patients and GC. For ESD, we searched “endoscopic resection” OR “endoscopic submucosal dissection” OR “endoscopic mucosal resection”. For elderly patients, we searched “elderly patients” OR “older patients” OR “elderly people” OR “older people” OR elderly. In terms of GC, we searched “gastric cancer” OR “gastric carcinoma” OR “gastric neoplasms” OR “stomach cancer” OR “stomach carcinoma” OR “stomach neoplasms”. Each key word was made up of a topic word and free words. Between the topic words and the free words, “OR” was used. Then, the three key words were combined by “AND”. The searching fields were “title”, “abstract”, and “keywords”. Languages were limited to English and Chinese.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The inclusion criteria of eligible studies were as follows: 1, all patients were diagnosed with EGC; 2, both the ESD group and the surgery group were reported; and 3, elderly patients were reported. The exclusion criteria were as follows: 1, case reports, case series, comments, letters to the editor, conference abstracts and nonoriginal articles; 2, data were repeated or overlapped; and 3, incomplete information.

Study selection

Two authors searched the databases and identified eligible studies separately. First, duplicate studies were excluded. Then, the two authors scanned the titles and abstracts to find eligible studies. Finally, full text would be read to identify studies that could be included. Any disagreements were settled by a third author.

Data collection

The information contained baseline characteristics of included studies and information of included patients. The studies’ characteristics included author, published year, country, study date, study type, sample size, language of the studies, and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) score. As for patients’ information, age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Groupprevious (ECOG), diabetes mellitus (DM), cardiovascular disease (CD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), liver dysfunction, tumor size, tumor location, histology, and invasion depth were collected. As for postoperative information, we included operation time, hospital stay, hospitalization expenses and fasting time. In terms of long-term outcome, OS was collected.

Quality and evidence assessment

The ROBINS-I grade was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies [22]. The ROBINS-I scale contained 7 domains (bias due to confounding, bias in selection of participants into the study, bias in classification of interventions, bias due to deviations from intended interventions, bias due to missing data, bias in measurement of outcomes, bias in selection of the reported result). The levels of risk bias included low risk, moderate risk, serious risk and critical risk. GRADEpro (McMaster University, 2020, Ontario, Canada) was used to used for assessing the quality of the evidence.

Statistical analysis

Dichotomous variables were described by odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous variables. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs were used to calculate OS of patients. To evaluate the statistical heterogeneity, the I2 value and the chi-squared test were used [23, 24]. We used the random effects model, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant [23]. Stata SE 16 was used for data analysis.

Results

Study selection

A total of 374 studies were searched from the three databases (111 studies from PubMed, 211 studies from Embase, 10 studies from the Cochrane Library, and 42 from CNKI). A total of 191 duplicate studies were eliminated. After the titles and abstracts of the remaining 183 studies were viewed, 14 studies were left for full-text screening. Eight studies were determined to be eligible and thereby included in this analysis [16,17,18,19,20, 25,26,27] (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of study selection

Full size image

Baseline characteristics of enrolled studies

A total of 2334 patients were included from the eight studies included in this study. All patients were divided into the ESD group and the surgery group (1017 in the ESD group and 1317 in the surgery group). All of the included patients were ≥ 60 years. The studies were mainly published between 2014 and 2023, except for one of them, which was published in 2005. The study period was from 1985 to 2018. Additional information (authors, published countries, study type, sample size, study language, ROBINS-I grade, and GRADE) is shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of included studies
Full size table

Baseline characteristics of the patients

We pooled up the baseline characteristics of the included patients including age, sex, ASA, ECOG, hypertension, DM, CD, CKD, liver dysfunction, and tumor characteristics, including size, location, histology, invasion depth. After data analysis, we only found that the ESD group had a lower ECOG (OR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.65, I2 = 59.69%, P = 0.00 < 0.05) than the surgery group. There were no significant differences in the other baseline information (P > 0.05). Additional details are shown in Table 2.

Table 2 Baseline information of the patients in the ESD and surgery groups
Full size table

Postoperative information

The operation time, fasting time, length of hospital stay, and hospitalization expenses were recorded. After the data analysis, there were significant differences in the operation time (MD = -3.38, 95% CI = -5.19 to -1.57, I2 = 98.31%, P = 0.00 < 0.05), length of hospital stay (MD = -3.01, 95% CI = -4.81 to -1.20, I2 = 98.83%, P = 0.00 < 0.05) and hospitalization expenses (MD = -2.67, 95% CI = -3.59 to -1.75, I2 = 93.21%, P = 0.00 < 0.05) between the two groups. However, the fasting time (MD = -6.45, 95% CI = -15.13 to 2.24, I2 = 99.20%, P = 0.15 > 0.05) was not significantly different between the two groups (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Postoperative information between the two groups. a, operation time between the ESD group and the surgery group; b, fasting time between the ESD group and the surgery group; c, hospital stay between the ESD group and the surgery group; d, hospitalization expenses between the ESD group and the surgery group. Abbreviations: ESD, endoscopic submucosal dissection

Full size image

OS of the patients

After pooling up the data, we found that the ESD group had a worse OS (HR = 2.81, 95% CI = 2.20 to 3.58, I2 = 12.28%, P = 0.00 < 0.05) (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Comparison of OS between the two groups. Abbreviations: OS, overall survival

Full size image

Meta regression analysis

According to the data analysis, we did not find any source of heterogeneity (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Funnel plot of overall complications

Full size image

Sensitivity analysis

The pooled analysis was repeatedly conducted to analyze the sensitivity by excluding each study, one at a time. The results were not significantly different after analyses after each exclusion.

Discussion

A total of 2334 patients were included from the eight included studies in this study. According to the data analysis, the outcomes revealed that the ESD group had shorter operation time, shorter hospital stays and less hospitalization expenses. Moreover, the elderly EGC patients who underwent ESD had a worse OS than those who underwent surgery.

Surgical treatment remains the most effective means of curing EGC [28]. However, in elderly patients who often have other comorbidities, the prognosis is worse than that in younger patients, even though curative resection could be achieved with surgical treatment [13, 29, 30]. Due to the poorer conditions of elderly people, surgery might be too invasive and does not necessarily have a better prognosis. Compared to surgery, ESD is a minimally invasive treatment, and elderly patients can also be safely treated with ESD [31, 32]. ESD became more popular in elderly EGC patients. Many previous studies have compared the effects of ESD treatment with surgery in elderly patients with EGC. However, there is still no definitive difference between ESD treatment and surgical treatment for elderly patients with EGC. Some studies revealed that the OS between the ESD group and the surgery group was not significantly different [17,18,19,20]. Kishida Y et al. conducted a study of 417 elderly patients (114 in the ESD group; 303 in the surgery group) and found that the ESD group had worse OS than the surgery group [16]. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to investigate whether there was a difference in OS between the elderly patients with EGC who underwent ESD and those who underwent surgery.

The choice of treatment for elderly patients with EGC was not necessarily curative, and the patient's prognosis had to be fully considered. ESD, as a minimally invasive treatment for EGC, was proven to be a safe treatment [33, 34]. For the treatment of elderly EGC, ESD is gaining attention. However, the prognosis of ESD in elderly patients remains unclear. Some studies reported that the incidence of heterochronous lesions after ESD is higher than that after surgery [33, 35,36,37]. Moreover, EGC still carries a risk of lymph node metastasis, and ESD does not allow the removal of potentially metastatic lymph nodes [17,18,19]. According to the data analysis, we found that the elderly patients with EGC in the ESD group had a worse OS than those in the surgery group. The reason for this result was unclear, but the possible mechanism might be as follows: 1. patients in the ESD group might have lymph node metastases that could not be cleared by ESD; 2. OS might be impacted by differences in the baseline characteristics of the patients rather than by differences in the treatment effect, since this population had a high rate of deaths from other causes.

On the other hand, Etoh T et al. showed that for elderly patients with EGC, surgery could be performed safely [18]. Cheng YX et al. [38] reported that age might not have been an independent prognostic factor affecting OS in patients with GC who underwent gastrectomy. However, we found that the OS in the ESD group was worse. In terms of OS, surgery might be a better choice for elderly patients with EGC. Moreover, we found that the ESD group had shorter operation time, shorter hospital stays and less hospitalization expenses than the surgery group. For these factors, ESD might be a better choice than surgery. Therefore, for elderly EGC patients in poor condition and with high anesthesia risks, surgery might not be the best treatment option, and ESD might be an acceptable treatment instead.

To our knowledge, this study was the first study to pool the comparative prognosis in GC patients who underwent ESD or surgery in previous studies. However, there were some limitations of this pooled analysis. First, there were inconsistent inclusion criteria, some elderly patients were ≥ 70 years of age, and some were ≥ 80 years of age. Second, all the studies were conducted in East Asia, which might have caused selection bias. Third, there was no consideration of the effect of other factors on OS. Forth, we could only extract the OR to evaluate dichotomous variables. Therefore, more detailed research on this topic is needed in the future.

In conclusion, elderly patients with EGC who underwent ESD had a worse OS than those who underwent surgery. If the patient’s condition was suitable, surgery was recommended for these patients.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Fock KM. Review article: the epidemiology and prevention of gastric cancer. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014;40(3):250–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.12814.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Peng D, Zou YY, Cheng YX, Tao W, Zhang W. Effect of time (season, surgical starting time, waiting time) on patients with gastric cancer. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021;29(14):1327–33. https://doi.org/10.2147/RMHP.S294141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tao W, Liu XY, Cheng YX, Kang B, Zhang H, Yuan C, et al. Does extended intraoperative peritoneal lavage really bring benefit on patients with gastric cancer? A meta-analysis of published clinical trials. Front Oncol. 2021;11:715040. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.715040.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Liu F, Peng D, Liu XY, Liu XR, Li ZW, Wei ZQ, et al. The effect of carbon nanoparticles staining on lymph node tracking in colorectal cancer: a propensity score matching analysis. Front Surg. 2023;1(10):1113659. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2023.1113659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen W, Zheng R, Baade PD, Zhang S, Zeng H, Bray F, et al. Cancer statistics in China, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016;66(2):115–32. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21338.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheng YX, Tao W, Kang B, Liu XY, Yuan C, Zhang B, et al. Impact of preoperative type 2 diabetes mellitus on the outcomes of gastric cancer patients following gastrectomy: a propensity score matching analysis. Front Surg. 2022;9:850265. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.850265.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Peng D, Cheng YX, Tao W, Zou YY, Qian K, Zhang W. Onco-metabolic surgery: a combined approach to gastric cancer and hypertension. Cancer Manag Res. 2020;26(12):7867–73. https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S260147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese gastric cancer treatment guidelines 2014 (ver. 4). Gastric Cancer. 2017;20(1):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-016-0622-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kosaka T, Endo M, Toya Y, Abiko Y, Kudara N, Inomata M, et al. Long-term outcomes of endoscopic submucosal dissection for early gastric cancer: a single-center retrospective study. Dig Endosc. 2014;26(2):183–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/den.12099.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Vasconcelos AC, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Libânio D. Endoscopic resection of early gastric cancer and pre-malignant gastric lesions. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(12):3084. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15123084.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Toyonaga T, Man-i M, East JE, Nishino E, Ono W, Hirooka T, et al. 1,635 Endoscopic submucosal dissection cases in the esophagus, stomach, and colorectum: complication rates and long-term outcomes. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(3):1000–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-012-2555-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bausys R, Bausys A, Vysniauskaite I, Maneikis K, Stratilatovas E, Strupas K. Surgical treatment outcomes of patients with T1–T2 gastric cancer: does the age matter when excellent treatment results are expected? World J Surg Oncol. 2018;16(1):79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-018-1388-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Nunobe S, Oda I, Ishikawa T, Akazawa K, Katai H, Isobe Y, Registration Committee of the Japanese Gastric Cancer., et al. Surgical outcomes of elderly patients with Stage I gastric cancer from the nationwide registry of the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Gastric Cancer. 2020;23(2):328–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-019-01000-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tan E, Lam S, Han SP, Storey D, Sandroussi C. Perioperative outcomes and survival in elderly patients aged ≥ 75 years undergoing gastrectomy for gastric cancer: an 18-year retrospective analysis in a single Western centre. Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2021;406(4):1057–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-021-02116-w.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Japanese Gastric Cancer Association. Japanese classification of gastric carcinoma: 3rd English edition. Gastric Cancer. 2011;14(2):101–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10120-011-0041-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kishida Y, Takizawa K, Kakushima N, Kawata N, Yoshida M, Yabuuchi Y, et al. Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus surgery in elderly patients with early gastric cancer of relative indication for endoscopic resection. Dig Endosc. 2022;34(3):497–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/den.14105.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Park CH, Lee H, Kim DW, Chung H, Park JC, Shin SK, et al. Clinical safety of endoscopic submucosal dissection compared with surgery in elderly patients with early gastric cancer: a propensity-matched analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80(4):599–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2014.04.042.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Etoh T, Katai H, Fukagawa T, Sano T, Oda I, Gotoda T, et al. Treatment of early gastric cancer in the elderly patient: results of EMR and gastrectomy at a national referral center in Japan. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62(6):868–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2005.09.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kang S, Lee JH, Kim Y, Park K, Na HK, Ahn JY, et al. Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection and surgery for early gastric cancer that is not indicated for endoscopic resection in elderly patients. Surg Endosc. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-023-09989-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Miyahara K, Ishida M, Kono Y, Hirata T, Obayashi Y, Gotoda T, et al. Prognosis after curative resection for stage IA gastric cancer in elderly patients: endoscopic submucosal dissection versus surgery. Surg Today. 2022;52(9):1329–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-022-02456-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;134:178–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Ioannidis JP. Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14(5):951–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.00986.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhang J, Zhang GX. Comparison of clinical outcomes between endoscopic submucosal dissection and surgery in the treatment of elderly patients with solitary early gastric cancer. Practical geriatrics. 2021;35(09):927–30.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Li WJ, Yu WS, Zhang XJ. Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection and surgery for early gastric cancer in the elderly. Chinese J Geriatric Multiorgan Dis. 2020;19(05):376–7.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jiang T, Liang Ge, Yuxin D, Peizhi L, Shuxin T. Efficacy of endoscopic versus surgical treatment of single early gastric cancer in the elderly eligible for expanded indications for endoscopic submucosal dissection. J Clin Surg. 2019;27(11):961–4.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Yang JY, Lee HJ, Kim TH, Huh YJ, Son YG, Park JH, et al. Short- and long-term outcomes after gastrectomy in elderly gastric cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(2):469–77. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5482-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Sakurai K, Muguruma K, Nagahara H, Kimura K, Toyokawa T, Amano R, et al. The outcome of surgical treatment for elderly patients with gastric carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2015;111(7):848–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.23896.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Fujiwara Y, Tsujie M, Hara J, Kato H, Kitani K, Isono S, et al. Comparison of gastric cancer surgery between patients aged >80 years and <79 years: complications and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors. Hepatogastroenterology. 2014;61(134):1785–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Watanabe M, Miyata H, Gotoh M, Baba H, Kimura W, Tomita N, et al. Total gastrectomy risk model: data from 20,011 Japanese patients in a nationwide internet-based database. Ann Surg. 2014;260(6):1034–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000781.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kurita N, Miyata H, Gotoh M, Shimada M, Imura S, Kimura W, et al. Risk model for distal gastrectomy when treating gastric cancer on the basis of data from 33,917 Japanese patients collected using a nationwide web-based data entry system. Ann Surg. 2015;262(2):295–303. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001127.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Park CH, Shin S, Park JC, Shin SK, Lee SK, Lee YC, et al. Long-term outcome of early gastric cancer after endoscopic submucosal dissection: expanded indication is comparable to absolute indication. Dig Liver Dis. 2013;45(8):651–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2013.01.014.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lee H, Yun WK, Min BH, Lee JH, Rhee PL, Kim KM, et al. A feasibility study on the expanded indication for endoscopic submucosal dissection of early gastric cancer. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(6):1985–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-010-1499-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tao M, Zhou X, Hu M, Pan J. Endoscopic submucosal dissection versus endoscopic mucosal resection for patients with early gastric cancer: a meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2019;9(12):e025803. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025803.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Hosokawa O, Kaizaki Y, Watanabe K, Hattori M, Douden K, Hayashi H, et al. Endoscopic surveillance for gastric remnant cancer after early cancer surgery. Endoscopy. 2002;34(6):469–73. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2002-32007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Min YW, Min BH, Lee JH, Kim JJ. Endoscopic treatment for early gastric cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(16):4566–73. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v20.i16.4566.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Cheng YX, Tao W, Liu XY, Yuan C, Zhang B, Zhang W, et al. The outcome of young vs. old gastric cancer patients following gastrectomy: a propensity score matching analysis. BMC Surg. 2021;21(1):399. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-021-01401-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledgment to all the authors in this article.

Funding

This study is supported by the first-class discipline construction project of the first clinical medicine (CYYY- YJSJGXM-202313).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Fei Liu and Ze-Lin Wen are co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400016, China

    Fei Liu, Xu-Rui Liu, Zi-Wei Li, Quan Lv, Wei Zhang & Dong Peng

  2. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Chongqing Medical University, Yongchuan Hospital, Chongqing, 402160, China

    Ze-Lin Wen

Authors
  1. Fei Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ze-Lin Wen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xu-Rui Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zi-Wei Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Quan Lv
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Wei Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dong Peng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Data extraction, Fei Liu and Ze-Lin Wen; quality assessments, Dong Peng and Wei Zhang; data analysis, Xu-Rui Liu, Zi-Wei Li, and Quan Lv; writing the main manuscript text, Fei Liu, and Ze-Lin Wen; writing review and editing, Xu-Rui Liu, Zi-Wei Li, and Quan Lv. Dong Peng prepared Figs. 1, 2 and 3. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dong Peng.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not apply.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, F., Wen, ZL., Liu, XR. et al. Comparison of endoscopic submucosal dissection versus surgery for early gastric cancer in the elderly: a pooled analysis. World J Surg Onc 21, 283 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-023-03167-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-023-03167-7

Keywords

World Journal of Surgical Oncology

ISSN: 1477-7819

Contact us