Poster Session I - A157 EFFICACY OF ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION (EMR) VERSUS ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION (ESD) FOR SUPERFICIAL DUODENAL LESIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Abstract Background ESD has been established as a minimally invasive resection method for superficial neoplasms of the esophagus, stomach, and colorectum. However, the optimal technique for superficial non-ampullary duodenal lesions (SDLs) is uncertain because potential gains in resection quality with ESD may trade off against safety. Aims This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse event rates of EMR versus ESD in adult patients with SDLs. Methods We searched MEDLINE and Embase (via Ovid) to July 14, 2025, for experimental and observational comparative studies. Two reviewers independently screened/extracted data assessed risk of bias and graded the level of certainty (GRADE). Random-effects models yielded risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. A prespecified subgroup analysis examined studies in which the EMR group reported mean/median lesion diameter ≥20 mm. Results Twenty-four retrospective cohort studies (5,515 lesions: EMR 3,709; ESD 1,806) were included. ESD improved en-bloc (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05–1.16) and R0 resection (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01–1.31); local recurrence did not differ (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.28–1.39). Procedural risk was higher with ESD, including intraprocedural perforation (RR 9.34, 95% CI 6.03–14.45) and delayed perforation (RR 5.82, 95% CI 3.09–10.96); delayed bleeding and the need for surgery or endoscopic reintervention were also increased. In the ≥20 mm subgroup, differences diminished; only intraprocedural perforation remained higher with ESD (RR 3.76, 95% CI 1.04–13.58). Certainty of evidence (GRADE) was low for efficacy (en-bloc, R0) and local recurrence, high for perforations, delayed bleeding, and surgical intervention, moderate for endoscopic reintervention, and low for mortality. Conclusions For SDLs, ESD achieves better resection quality but at greater procedural risk. EMR is a reasonable default first-line strategy for most benign polyps, reserving ESD for lesions where en bloc histology would alter management and where ESD can be completed in expert centers. Randomized trials, particularly lesion-stratified studies, are needed. Funding Agencies None

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology
Published
2026-02-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jcag/gwaf042.157
Primary Topic
Esophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Poster Session I - A157 EFFICACY OF ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION (EMR) VERSUS ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION (ESD) FOR SUPERFICIAL DUODENAL LESIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Malini Hu, Yuhong Yuan, C W Teshima, J Mosko et al.
Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology
Esophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
article

Poster Session I - A157 EFFICACY OF ENDOSCOPIC MUCOSAL RESECTION (EMR) VERSUS ENDOSCOPIC SUBMUCOSAL DISSECTION (ESD) FOR SUPERFICIAL DUODENAL LESIONS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Malini Hu, Yuhong Yuan, C W Teshima, J Mosko, T Nishimura, G May, N Calo, H Li, K Khalaf, Y Fujiyoshi, M A Bucheeri
article en

Abstract

Abstract Background ESD has been established as a minimally invasive resection method for superficial neoplasms of the esophagus, stomach, and colorectum. However, the optimal technique for superficial non-ampullary duodenal lesions (SDLs) is uncertain because potential gains in resection quality with ESD may trade off against safety. Aims This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and adverse event rates of EMR versus ESD in adult patients with SDLs. Methods We searched MEDLINE and Embase (via Ovid) to July 14, 2025, for experimental and observational comparative studies. Two reviewers independently screened/extracted data assessed risk of bias and graded the level of certainty (GRADE). Random-effects models yielded risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs. A prespecified subgroup analysis examined studies in which the EMR group reported mean/median lesion diameter ≥20 mm. Results Twenty-four retrospective cohort studies (5,515 lesions: EMR 3,709; ESD 1,806) were included. ESD improved en-bloc (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05–1.16) and R0 resection (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.01–1.31); local recurrence did not differ (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.28–1.39). Procedural risk was higher with ESD, including intraprocedural perforation (RR 9.34, 95% CI 6.03–14.45) and delayed perforation (RR 5.82, 95% CI 3.09–10.96); delayed bleeding and the need for surgery or endoscopic reintervention were also increased. In the ≥20 mm subgroup, differences diminished; only intraprocedural perforation remained higher with ESD (RR 3.76, 95% CI 1.04–13.58). Certainty of evidence (GRADE) was low for efficacy (en-bloc, R0) and local recurrence, high for perforations, delayed bleeding, and surgical intervention, moderate for endoscopic reintervention, and low for mortality. Conclusions For SDLs, ESD achieves better resection quality but at greater procedural risk. EMR is a reasonable default first-line strategy for most benign polyps, reserving ESD for lesions where en bloc histology would alter management and where ESD can be completed in expert centers. Randomized trials, particularly lesion-stratified studies, are needed. Funding Agencies None

Journal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologyVol. 9(Supplement_1)
St. Michael's Hospital (CA), University of Ottawa (CA), St Michael's Hospital (GB), McMaster University (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 57%
Esophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.