Predictors of lymph node metastasis and residual tumor in early gastric cancer patients after noncurative endoscopic resection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (June 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jiang, Bolun; Zhou, Li; Lu, Jun; Wang, Yizhi; Guo, Junchao
• Is Part Of: Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology. Volume 13(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-06
• Subjects: early gastric cancer -- lymph node metastasis -- noncurative endoscopic resection -- residual tumor -- risk factor; Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; Digestive organs -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Gastrointestinal system -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Liver -- Diseases -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Pharmacology -- Periodicals; Gastroenterology -- Periodicals; Gastrointestinal Diseases -- therapy -- Periodicals; Liver Diseases -- therapy -- Periodicals; Pharmacology -- Periodicals; Gastroentérologie -- Périodiques; Appareil digestif -- Maladies -- Traitement -- Périodiques; Tractus gastro-intestinal -- Maladies -- Traitement -- Périodiques; Hépatologie -- Périodiques; Foie -- Maladies -- Périodiques; Pharmacologie -- Périodiques; 616.3005
• DOI: 10.1177/1756284820935033
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1756-283X

Abstract

Background: It is challenging to identify the prevalence of lymph node metastasis (LNM) and residual tumor in patients with early gastric cancer (EGC) who underwent noncurative endoscopic resection (ER). This present meta-analysis was aimed to establish imperative potential predictive factors in order to select the optimal treatment method. Methods: A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed through 1 February 2019 to identify relevant studies, which investigated risk factors for LNM and residual tumor in patients with EGC who underwent noncurative ER. Eligible data were systematically reviewed through a meta-analysis. Results: Overall, 12 studies investigating the risk factor of LNM were included, totaling 3015 patients, 7 of which also involved cancer residues. After the present meta-analysis, six predictors, including tumor size >30 mm, tumor invasion depth (⩾500 μm from the muscularis mucosae), macroscopic appearance, undifferentiated histopathological type, positive vertical margin, and presence of lymphovascular invasion (including lymphatic invasion and vascular invasion) were significantly associated with LNM, whereas tumor size >30 mm, positive horizontal margin, and positive vertical margin were identified as significant predictors for the risk of residual tumor. No evidence of publication bias was observed. Conclusions: Six and three variables were established as significant risk factors for LNM and residual tumor in patients with EGC who underwent noncurative ER, respectively. Patients with EGC who present these risk factors after noncurative ER are strongly suggested to receive additional surgery, while others might be suitable for strict follow-up. This might shed some new light on the selection of follow-up treatment for noncurative ER.