<b><i>Background and Aims:</i></b> Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) combines advantages of endoscopy and laparoscopy in order to resect upper gastrointestinal lesions. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LECS in patients with EGJ (esophagogastric junction), gastric and duodenal lesions, as well as to compare LECS with pure endoscopic and pure laparoscopic procedures. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched. Efficacy (R0, recurrence) and safety (conversion rate, procedure and hospitalization time, adverse events, mortality) outcomes were extracted and pooled (odds ratio or mean difference) using a random-effects model. Study quality was assessed with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and heterogeneity by Cochran’s Q test and I² . Subgroup analysis according to location was performed. <b><i>Results:</i></b> This meta-analysis included 24 studies/1,336 patients (all retrospective cohorts). No significant differences were found between LECS and preexisting techniques (endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)/laparoscopy) regarding any outcomes. However, there was a trend to shorter hospitalization time, longer procedure duration, and fewer adverse events in LECS versus Laparoscopy and ESD. R0 tended to be higher in the LECS group. Hospitalization time was significantly shorter in gastric versus EGJ lesions (mean 7.3 vs. 13.7 days, 95% CI: 6.6–7.9 vs. 8.9–19.3). There were no significant differences in conversion rate, adverse events, or mean procedural time according to location. There was a trend to higher conversion rate and longer procedure durations in EGJ and higher rate of adverse events in duodenal lesions. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> LECS is a valid, safe, and effective treatment option in patients with EGJ, gastric, and duodenal lesions, although existing studies are retrospective and prone to selection bias. Prospective studies are needed to assess if LECS is superior to established techniques. <b><i>Key Messages:</i></b> LECS is safe and effective in the treatment of upper gastrointestinal lesions, but there is no evidence of superiority over established techniques.

Introduction  Colorectal cancer is one of the neoplasms with the greatest social impact. Given the great molecular heterogeneity and diversity of pathophysiological mechanisms, it is difficult to define prognostic factors that could guide therapy. Objectives  To identify the molecular prognostic factors that may be of interest in clinical practice and to synthesize the existing evidence. Material and methods  The search for the articles was carried out using the PubMed platform and the keywords “sporadic colorectal cancer and prognosis”, for articles published between 2014 and 2019. We selected all articles published on studies in humans and written in English or Portuguese. Of the 215 articles found, 35 articles were selected to perform this review. Results  Current evidence supports the use of four molecular markers in clinical practice − KRAS, NRAS and BRAF (EGFR signalling pathway) and the mismatch repair status. Conclusion  The use of molecular biomarkers in clinical practice to define prognosis is still little supported by the existent evidence. The studies are slightly contradictory, so new projects and international collaborations must be carried out in this area to obtain more robust evidence.