Endoscopy vs surgery in the treatment of early gastric cancer: Systematic review

Table 1 Summary of included studies evaluating the treatment of early gastric cancer

Ref.	Study design	No. of patients	Inclusion criteria	EA	SA	Follow-up (median)	Outcomes
						EA + SA
Nishida et al[16]	RC	109	AI	EMR, laser	Not specified	(2-3 yr)	3-5 yr SR + CRR
Fukase et al[14]	RC	175	AI	EMR, HFC, laser	Not specified	6 mo (5-10 yr)	5-10 yr SR + CRR
Kim et al[17]	RC	55	AI	EMR-L	Gastr + lymphadenect	35.3 mo + 29.3 mo	3 yr SR + CRR + RR
Etoh et al[15]	RC	93	AI	EMR	Gastrectomy	57 mo	3-5 yr SR + CRR + AER + MR
Choi et al[18]	RC	551	AI	EMR	Gastrectomy	81 mo + 88 mo	3-5-10 yr SR + RR + AER + MR
Chiu et al[19]	RC	114	AI	ESD	Gastr + lymphadenect	27 mo + 77.6 mo	3 yr SR + AER + MR
Fukunaga et al[20]	RC	287	AI or EI	ESD	Not specified	45.3 mo + 67.2 mo	5 yr SR + AER + RR
Park et al[21]	RC	225	AI or EI	ESD	Gastr + lymphadenect	17.6 mo + 24.2 mo	5 yr SR + RR + AER + MR
Kim et al[22]	RC	213	AI or EI	ESD	Gastr + lymphadenect	76.7 mo + 65.5 mo	3 yr + 5 yr + CRR + AER + RR
Choi et al[23]	RC	375	AI	EMR, ESD	Gastr + lymphadenect	76.4 mo	5 yr SR + RR + AER
Kim et al[24]	RC	457	EI	EMR, ESD	Gastr + lymphadenect	58.6 mo	5 yr SR + RR + AER

EA: Endoscopic approach; SA: Surgical approach.

Table 2 Quality measures of the analyzed studies: Newcastle-Ottawa Scale - Bias measures

Ref.	Representativeness of exposed cohort and selection of the non exposed cohort (max. 2 points)	Ascertainment of exposure (max. 1 point)	Demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study (max. 1 point)	Comparability of cohorts on the basis of the design or analysis (max. 2 points)	Assessment of outcome (max. 1 point)	Length and adequacy of follow up (max. 2 points)	Score and levels of evidence
Nishida et al[16]	2	1	1	1	1	1	7 - 2b - acceptable (+)
Fukase et al[14]	2	1	1	1	1	1	7 - 2b - acceptable (+)
Kim et al[17]	2	1	1	2	1	2	9 - 2b - acceptable (+)
Etoh et al[15]	2	1	1	2	1	2	9 - 2b - acceptable (+)
Choi et al[18]	2	1	1	2	1	2	9 - 2b - acceptable (+)
Chiu et al[19]	2	1	1	1	1	2	8 - 2b - acceptable (+)
Fukunaga et al[20]	2	1	1	1	1	2	8 - 2b - acceptable (+)
Park et al[21]	2	1	1	2	1	2	9 - 2b - acceptable (+)
Kim et al[22]	2	1	1	2	1	2	9 - 2b - acceptable (+)
Choi et al[23]	2	1	1	2	1	2	9 - 2b - acceptable (+)
Kim et al[24]	2	1	1	2	1	2	9 - 2b - acceptable (+)