Long-Term Outcome of Endoscopic Resection vs. Surgery for Early Gastric Cancer: A Non-inferiority-Matched Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Few studies have compared the long-term outcomes of endoscopic resection and surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term outcomes of endoscopic resection with those of surgery for early gastric cancer (EGC). METHODS: We reviewed prospectively collected data of patients who had undergone endoscopic resection (1,290 patients) or surgery (1,273 patients) for EGC. To reduce the effect of selection bias, we performed a propensity score-matching analysis between the two groups. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). The secondary outcomes were disease-specific survival, disease-free survival (DFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), occurrence of metachronous gastric cancer, treatment-related complications, length of hospital stay, and 30-day outcomes. The study was designed as a non-inferiority study and tested in an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: In a propensity-matched analysis of 611 pairs, the 10-year OS proportion was 96.7% in the endoscopic resection group and 94.9% in the surgery group (P=0.120) (risk difference -1.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.04-0.44, Pnon-inferiority=0.014), which met the non-inferiority criterion. In contrast, the 10-year RFS proportion was 93.5% in the endoscopic resection group and 98.2% in the surgery group (P<0.001) (risk difference 4.7%, 95% CI 2.50-6.97, Pnon-inferiority=0.820), which did not meet the non-inferiority criterion, mainly because of metachronous recurrence in the endoscopic resection group. The rate of early complications was higher in the endoscopic resection group than in the surgery group (9.0 vs. 6.6%, P=0.024), whereas the rate of late complications was higher in the surgery group than in the endoscopic resection group (0.5 vs. 2.9%, P<0.001). In the multiple Cox regression analysis, patient's age, the comorbidity index, the performance index, sex, tumor morphology, and depth of invasion were predictors of OS in patients with EGC. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic resection might not be inferior to surgery with respect to OS in patients with EGC lesions that meet the absolute or expanded criteria. However, DFS, RFS, and metachronous RFS might be lower after endoscopic resection than after surgery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".