Microscopic positive tumor margin does not increase the rate of recurrence in endoscopic resected gastric mesenchymal tumors compared to negative tumor margin

A subepithelial lesion algorithm for endoscopic (SAFE) resection in the upper gastrointestinal tract

BACKGROUND

Complete excision of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (U-SELs) eliminates diagnostic uncertainty, obviates the need for surveillance, and may be necessary for definitive diagnosis and management. Current guidelines lack precision and cohesion, and surgery is associated with significant morbidity. We describe and report on the outcomes of our SEL algorithm for endoscopic (SAFE) resection.

METHODS

U-SELs were enrolled prospectively over 115 months until March 2023. All subjects underwent axial (computed tomography) imaging and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) to exclude a large exophytic component or invasion into local structures, and assess for muscularis propria (MP) involvement.

RESULTS

106 U-SELs (41 esophageal, 65 gastric) were resected (mean patient age 60.6 [SD 13.4]; 51.9% male). Esophageal U-SELs underwent endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD; n = 22) or submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER) if MP involvement was suspected (n = 19). Gastric U-SELs underwent STER (n = 6 at cardia), ESD (n = 47), or exposing endoscopic full-thickness resection (e-EFTR; n = 12). Technical success rates were 97.6% and 92.3%, respectively. Among the noncardiac gastric U-SELs, five resections (9.6%) were completed laparoscopically owing to deep and broad full-thickness involvement; five (9.6%) required laparoscopic gastrotomy and surgical retrieval after successful resection and closure owing to a large lesion size (mean 47 mm). There was no delayed bleeding, perforation, or recurrence at 13 months.

CONCLUSION

U-SELs may be effectively and safely treated by endoscopic resection. The SAFE approach provides a framework that facilitates structured decision-making. Esophageal U-SELs suspected of involving the MP should undergo STER. Gastric SELs are best managed by ESD, with a view to proceeding to e-EFTR. A laparoscopic upper gastrointestinal surgeon should be available in case surgical retrieval of the specimen or laparoscopic completion is required.

Follow-up analysis and research of very low-risk and low-risk gastrointestinal stromal tumors after endoscopic resection

Currently, due to limited long-term evidence, there remains some controversy surrounding the recommended postoperative monitoring strategy for primary low-risk gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). This study recruited a total of 532 patients diagnosed with very low-risk and low-risk GISTs who underwent endoscopic resection from 2015 to 2021, including 460 very low-risk patients and 72 low-risk patients. Descriptive statistical analysis was used to evaluate the clinical and pathological characteristics of GIST patients, and Kaplan-Meier methods were employed for survival analysis. The results showed that the 5-year recurrence-free survival rates for very low-risk and low-risk patients were 98.5% and 95.9%, respectively. The 5-year disease-specific survival rates for both groups were 100%. Additionally, the 5-year overall survival rates were 99.7% for very low-risk patients and 100% for low-risk patients (P = 0.69). Therefore, it is suggested that routine follow-up monitoring, including endoscopic surveillance and imaging, may not be necessary for very low-risk and low-risk GISTs after endoscopic resection.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection for gastric submucosal tumors: Japanese multicenter prospective study

OBJECTIVES

Early gastric cancer endoscopic resection (ER) is prominent in Japan. However, evidence regarding ER of gastric submucosal tumors (SMT) is limited. This prospective multicenter phase II study investigated the efficacy and safety of endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) for gastric SMT.

METHODS

Endoscopic full-thickness resection indication for gastric SMT was 11-30 mm, histologically proven or clinically suspicious (irregular margin, increasing size, or internal heterogeneity) gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), with no ulceration and intraluminal growth type. The primary end-point was the complete ER (ER0) rate, with a sample size of 42.

RESULTS

We enrolled 46 patients with 46 lesions between September 2020 and May 2023 at seven Japanese institutions. The mean ± SD (range) endoscopic tumor size was 18.8 ± 4.5 (11-28) mm. The tumor resection and defect closure times were 54 ± 26 (22-125) min and 33 ± 28 (12-186) min, respectively. A 100% ER0 was achieved in all 46 patients. The EFTR procedure was accomplished in all patients without surgical intervention. One patient had delayed perforation and was managed endoscopically. GIST accounted for 76% (n = 35) of the cases. R0, R1, and RX rates were 33 (77%), 3 (6.5%), and 7 (15%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic full-thickness resection for gastric SMT of 11-30 mm is efficacious. It warrants further validation in a large-scale cohort study to determine the long-term outcome of this treatment for patients with gastric GIST.

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection for the treatment of intermediate- or high-risk gastric small gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Many studies of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (g-GISTs) following endoscopic resection (ER) have typically focused on tumor size, with most tumors at low risk of aggressiveness after risk stratification. There have been few systematic studies on the oncologic outcomes of intermediate- or high-risk g-GISTs after ER.

METHODS

From January 2014 to January 2020, we retrospectively collected patients considered at intermediate- or high-risk of g-GISTs according to the modified NIH consensus classification system. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Six hundred and seventy nine (679) consecutive patients were diagnosed with g-GISTs and treated by ER between January 2014 and January 2020 in three hospitals in Shanghai, China. 43 patients (20 males and 23 females) were confirmed at intermediate-or high-risk. The mean size of tumors was 2.23 ± 1.01 cm. The median follow-up period was 62.02 ± 15.34 months, with a range of 28 to 105 months. There were no recurrences or metastases, even among patients having R1 resections. The 5-year OS rate was 97.4% (42/43).

CONCLUSION

ER for intermediate- or high-risk gastric small GISTs is a feasible and safe method, which allows for a wait-and-see approach before determining the necessity for imatinib adjuvant or surgical treatment. This approach to g-GISTs does require that patients undergo close follow-up.

Endoscopic resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor using clip-and-cut endoscopic full-thickness resection: a single-center, retrospective cohort in Korea

BACKGROUND/AIMS

To overcome the technical limitations of classic endoscopic resection for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), various methods have been developed. In this study, we examined the role and feasibility of clip-and-cut procedures (clip-and-cut endoscopic full-thickness resection [cc-EFTR]) for gastric GISTs.

METHODS

Medical records of 83 patients diagnosed with GISTs after endoscopic resection between 2005 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Moreover, clinical characteristics and outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and cc-EFTR were performed in 51 and 32 patients, respectively. The GISTs were detected in the upper third of the stomach for ESD (52.9%) and cc-EFTR (90.6%). Within the cc-EFTR group, a majority of GISTs were located in the deep muscularis propria or serosal layer, accounting for 96.9%, as opposed to those in the ESD group (45.1%). The R0 resection rates were 51.0% and 84.4% in the ESD and cc-EFTR groups, respectively. Seven (8.4%) patients required surgical treatment (six patients underwent ESD and one underwent cc-EFTR,) due to residual tumor (n=5) and post-procedure adverse events (n=2). Patients undergoing R0 or R1 resection did not experience recurrence during a median 14-month follow-up period, except for one patient in the ESD group.

CONCLUSIONS

cc-EFTR displayed a high R0 resection rate; therefore, it is a safe and effective therapeutic option for small gastric GISTs.

Goldilocks principle of minimally invasive surgery for gastric subepithelial tumors

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive surgery had been tailored to individual cases of gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs) after comparing the clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection (ER), laparoscopic resection (LR), and hybrid methods.

AIM

To study the use of Goldilocks principle to determine the best form of minimally invasive surgery for gastric SETs.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, 194 patients of gastric SETs with high probability of surgical intervention were included. All patients underwent tumor resection in the operating theater between January 2013 and December 2021. The patients were divided into two groups, ER or LR, according to the tumor characteristics and the initial intent of intervention. Few patients in the ER group required further backup laparoscopic surgery after an incomplete ER. The patients who had converted open surgery were excluded. A logistic regression model was used to assess the associations between patient characteristics and the likelihood of a treatment strategy. The area under the curve was used to assess the discriminative ability of tumor size and Youden's index to determine the optimal cut-off tumor size.

RESULTS

One-hundred ninety-four patients (100 in the ER group and 94 in the LR group) underwent tumor resection in the operating theater. In the ER group, 27 patients required backup laparoscopic surgery after an incomplete ER. The patients in the ER group had small tumor sizes and shorter procedure durations while the patients in the LR group had large tumor sizes, exophytic growth, malignancy, and tumors that were more often located in the middle or lower third of the stomach. Both groups had similar durations of hospital stays and a similar rate of major postoperative complications. The patients in the ER group who underwent backup surgery required longer procedures (56.4 min) and prolonged stays (2 d) compared to the patients in the LR group without the increased rate of major postoperative complications. The optimal cut-off point for the tumor size for laparoscopic surgery was 2.15 cm.

CONCLUSION

Multidisciplinary teamwork leads to the adoption of different strategies to yield efficient clinical outcomes according to the tumor characteristics.

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection for the treatment of esophageal gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a ten-year experience from a large tertiary center in China

BACKGROUNDS

Esophageal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (E-GISTs) are extremely rare and surgical resection is the recommended approach. However, surgical resection usually causes severe trauma that may result in significant postoperative morbidity. Endoscopic resection (ER) has developed rapidly in recent years and has been widely used in gastrointestinal lesions. Nevertheless, the feasibility and efficacy of ER in the management of E-GISTs are unknown.

METHODS

Retrospective data were collected from January 2011 to December 2020 in a large tertiary center of China. Twenty-eight patients with E-GISTs treated by ER were included in the study.

RESULTS

Of the 28 patients, there were 21 males and 7 females, with a median age of 55 years (40-70 years). The median tumor size was 15 mm (5-80 mm). The technical success rate was 100% (28/28), while the en bloc resection rate was 96.4% (27/28). The median operation time was 35 min (10-410 min). Sixteen (57.2%) tumors were categorized into very low risk group, six (21.4%) into low risk group, and six (21.4%) into high risk group. Pathologists carefully examined margins of each lesion. There were 11 lesions (39.3%) determined as R0 resection and 17 lesions (60.7%) as R1 resection with positive margins. The median hospital stay was 2 days (range, 1-8 days). One patient suffered from hydrothorax and required drainage, leading to a major adverse event rate of 3.6% (1/28). There was no conversion to surgery, and no death occurred within 30 days after the procedure. Imatinib was given to two patients after ER under multidisciplinary team surveillance. During follow-up (median of 54 months, 9-122 months), no recurrences or metastasis were observed.

CONCLUSION

ER is safe and effective for E-GISTs and might become an optional choice in the future. Multicenter, prospective, large samples with long-term follow-up studies are still needed.

Endoscopic resection for gastric submucosal tumors: Japanese multicenter retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

Limited information is available on the efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection (ER) of gastric submucosal tumors (SMTs) in Japanese endoscopic practice where ER for gastric tumors is extremely popular.

METHODS

We conducted this study to elucidate the current scenario of ER for gastric SMTs in Japanese endoscopic practice. Patients (from 12 institutions) with gastric SMTs who underwent ER were enrolled from the first case until August 2020.

RESULTS

We enrolled 117 patients with 118 lesions. The number of patients who underwent ER increased over the years. The mean endoscopic tumor size was 20 ± 7.2 (8-40) mm. The growth type was primarily intraluminal (90%). The mean resection and wound closure times were 58 ± 38 (range, 12-254) min and 31 ± 41 (range, 3-330) min, respectively. Complete ER was achieved for 117 (99%) lesions. Full-thickness resection rate was 44%; however, only 12 (10%) patients required abdominal paracentesis for decompression. Endoscopic treatments were completed in 115 (97%) lesions, while three lesions required conversions to laparoscopic surgery due to luminal collapse, uncontrolled bleeding, and difficulty in defect closure. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors were the most common pathology (74%). No recurrence was observed during the mean follow-up period of 4.3 ± 2.9 years. The 5-year overall survival rate was 98.9% (95% confidence interval 97.8-100%).

CONCLUSION

Performance of ER for gastric SMTs is increasing in Japan. The technique seems feasible in Japanese endoscopic practice, warranting further validation in a prospective study.

Laparoscopic resection is not superior to endoscopic resection for relative small gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A propensity score-matched study

Background and Aim

Endoscopic resection (ER) and laparoscopic resection (LAP) have been recommended for the treatment of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) less than 2 cm. However, the therapeutic approach for gastric GISTs between 2 and 5 cm in diameter is still under debate. In this retrospective study, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of ER for gastric GISTs (2–5 cm) compared with LAP.

Methods

From January, 2011 to January, 2018, 197 patients with GISTs at our institution with tumor diameter between 2 and 5 cm were included in our study. Clinical baseline characteristics, histopathological results, and perioperative outcomes were collected and compared in all the patients. Propensity score matching (PSM) methods were used to balance baseline characteristics.

Results

There was no significant difference in age (p = 0.246), gender (p = 0.572), tumor location (p = 0.333), pathological risk classification (p = 0.543), Ki-67 index (p = 0.212), and follow-up time (p = 0.831) in the ER and LAP groups. However, significance difference was found in times to liquid diet intake (4.45 ± 1.2 vs. 5.40 ± 1.5 days, p = 0.013) and hospital stays (7.72 ± 1.1 vs. 10.01 ± 1.3 days, p < 0.001). During the follow-up period, there was one recurrence in the ER group vs. two recurrences in the LAP group. After PSM, the tumor size was balanced between the two groups with 49 patients in each group. The times to liquid diet intake (4.18 ± 1.3 vs. 5.16 ± 1.6 days, p = 0.042) and hospital stay days (7.12 ± 1.1 vs. 9.94 ± 1.3, p < 0.0001) were still short in the ER group.

Conclusions

ER is more associated with a quick postoperative recovery than LAP. ER could be an alternative approach for gastric GISTs (2–5 cm). However, the long-term follow-up outcomes are still unclear and random control trials are needed.

Clinical outcomes of endoscopic treatment for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a single-center study of 240 cases in China

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic resection (ER) gradually becomes an important treatment method for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ER of gastric GISTs.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 240 patients with gastric GISTs who underwent ER at Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology from January 2010 to December 2019. The clinicopathologic, endoscopic and follow-up data of the patients were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean maximum tumor diameter was 1.67 ± 1.00 cm (range 0.2-6.5 cm), of which 156 cases (65.00%) were small gastric GISTs (tumor diameter < 2 cm). A total of 43 patients (17.92%) had perioperative bleeding, including 40 cases (16.67%) of minor bleeding and three cases (1.25%) of major bleeding. Perioperative perforation occurred in 101 patients (42.08%), of which 51 patients (21.25%) were active perforation and 50 patients (20.83%) were passive perforation. The en bloc resection rate was 97.08% (233/240), and seven cases (2.92%) had piecemeal resection. There were three cases (1.92%) of small gastric GISTs at intermediate risk and one case (0.64%) at high risk. A total of 193 patients were followed up, and no tumor residual, recurrence or metastasis occurred within a median follow-up time of 30 months (range 1-127 months).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic treatment for gastric GISTs is safe and effective. Piecemeal resection does not seem to be related to the patient's prognosis. Endoscopic resection can be performed if patients are willing to remove small gastric GISTs.

Comparison of safety and short-term outcomes between endoscopic and laparoscopic resections of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors with a diameter of 2-5 cm

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Developments of endoscopic techniques brought the possibility of endoscopic resection for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) of larger sizes. We aim to compare safety and short-term outcomes between endoscopic and laparoscopic resections of gastric GISTs with a diameter of 2-5 cm.

METHODS

This is a single-center, retrospective cohort study. The clinical data, perioperative conditions, and the adverse events of patients who underwent endoscopic or laparoscopic resection for gastric GIST of 2-5 cm in Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, from January 2016 to December 2020 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 346 patients were reviewed; 12 patients who failed to accomplish the planned procedure were excluded; 182 underwent laparoscopic resection; and 152 underwent endoscopic resection. Significant differences exist in the tumor size between the laparoscopic group (3.43 ± 0.86 cm) and the endoscopic group (2.78 ± 0.73 cm) (P < 0.01). Compared with laparoscopic resection, endoscopic resection was associated with faster recovery (P < 0.01), shorter hospital stays (P < 0.01), and lower cost (P < 0.01). The incidence of Clavien-Dindo grade II-V adverse events in the endoscopic group (3/152) was significantly lower than that in the laparoscopic group (12/182) (P = 0.04). After a propensity score matching analysis, the endoscopic group showed similar incidences of complications with the laparoscopic group, while the advantages over laparoscopic resection in postoperative hospital stay, time to first oral intake, and hospitalization expenses remained significant (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection is a safe and cost-effective method for 2-5 cm of gastric GISTs compared with laparoscopic resection.

Long-term prognosis of small gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors with high histological grade: a longitudinal nested cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) are mostly seen in the stomach. Clinical data on GISTs ≤ 2 cm with > 5 mitosis/50 HPFs are limited. This study aimed to analyze small GISTs with high histological grades to gain a more comprehensive understanding of their clinical characteristics with long-term follow-up.

METHODS

This was a nested cohort study of patients with gastric GISTs ≤ 2 cm and > 5 mitosis/50 HPFs. Individuals with endoscopically resected gastric specimens diagnosed as GISTs between January 2008 and July 2019 were enrolled. We analyzed baseline clinicopathological characteristics, perioperative characteristics, risk of recurrence, and metastasis during follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients diagnosed with gastric GISTs ≤ 2 cm and > 5 mitosis/50 HPFs were enrolled. The mean tumor size was 1.6 ± 0.4 cm (median 1.7 cm, range 0.8-2.0 cm). ESD was performed in 33 patients (60.0%) and EFTR in 22 patients (40.0%). Mean mitotic figures were 8.9/50 HPFs. Postoperative bleeding in one patient (1.8%) was the only severe adverse event. The mean follow-up period was 61.2 ± 33.9 months (median 53 months, range 13-133 months). Five patients (5/55, 9.1%) received additional therapies, including partial gastrectomy and adjuvant Imatinib. Only two patients (2/55, 3.6%) showed signs of recurrence. We observed no significant difference regarding baseline clinical characteristics and recurrence among GISTs with mitosis < 10/50 HPF and ≥ 10/50 HPF. No patient had signs of metastasis during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic resection of gastric GISTs ≤ 2 cm with > 5 mitosis/50 HPFs has a low risk of recurrence and metastasis in the long term. Endoscopic resection of GISTs is safe and feasible.

Comparison of Prognosis Between Microscopically Positive and Negative Surgical Margins for Primary Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

This meta-analysis aimed to determine the prognostic impact of microscopically positive margins (R1) on primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

Methods

A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for studies up to 23 November 2020. The pooled disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) between R1 and negative margins (R0) were estimated using a random-effects model.

Results

Twenty studies with 6,465 patients were included. Compared with R0 resection, R1 was associated with poor DFS in patients who did not receive adjuvant Imatinib (HR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.26-2.09; P = 0.48, I² = 0%; reference: R0). This negative impact of R1 disappeared with the use of adjuvant Imatinib (HR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.95-1.60; P = 0.38, I2 = 6%; reference: R0). R1 was related to poor DFS in gastric GISTs (HR: 2.15, 95% CI: 1.15-5.02, I² = 0%; reference: R0), which was attenuated in the subgroup of adjuvant Imatinib (HR: 2.24, 95% CI: 0.32-15.60; P = 0.84, I² = 0%; reference: R0). Rectal GIST with R1 margin who even received adjuvant Imatinib still had poor DFS (HR: 3.79, 95% CI: 1.27-11.31; P = 0.54, I² = 0%; reference: R0). Patients who underwent R1 resection had similar OS compared with those underwent R0 resection regardless of the use of adjuvant Imatinib.

Conclusion

R1 was associated with poor DFS for primary GISTs, which was attenuated by adjuvant therapy with Imatinib. Similar result was observed in the gastric GISTs subgroup. Rectal GIST patients with R1 resection had poor DFS even when they received adjuvant Imatinib. The R1 margin did not influence the OS of GISTs.

Endoscopic management of subepithelial lesions including neuroendocrine neoplasms: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as the best tool to characterize subepithelial lesion (SEL) features (size, location, originating layer, echogenicity, shape), but EUS alone is not able to distinguish among all types of SEL.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests providing tissue diagnosis for all SELs with features suggestive of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) if they are of size > 20 mm, or have high risk stigmata, or require surgical resection or oncological treatment.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or mucosal incision-assisted biopsy (MIAB) equally for tissue diagnosis of SELs ≥ 20 mm in size.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends against surveillance of asymptomatic gastrointestinal (GI) tract leiomyomas, lipomas, heterotopic pancreas, granular cell tumors, schwannomas, and glomus tumors, if the diagnosis is clear.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 5: ESGE suggests surveillance of asymptomatic esophageal and gastric SELs without definite diagnosis, with esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) at 3-6 months, and then at 2-3-year intervals for lesions < 10 mm in size, and at 1-2-year intervals for lesions 10-20 mm in size. For asymptomatic SELs > 20 mm in size that are not resected, ESGE suggests surveillance with EGD plus EUS at 6 months and then at 6-12-month intervals.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 6: ESGE recommends endoscopic resection for type 1 gastric neuroendocrine neoplasms (g-NENs) if they grow larger than 10 mm. The choice of resection technique should depend on size, depth of invasion, and location in the stomach.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE suggests considering removal of histologically proven gastric GISTs smaller than 20 mm as an alternative to surveillance. The decision to resect should be discussed in a multidisciplinary meeting. The choice of technique should depend on size, location, and local expertise.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that, to avoid unnecessary follow-up, endoscopic resection is an option for gastric SELs smaller than 20 mm and of unknown histology after failure of attempts to obtain diagnosis.Weak recommendation, very low quality evidence. 9: ESGE recommends basing the surveillance strategy on the type and completeness of resection. After curative resection of benign SELs no follow-up is advised, except for type 1 gastric NEN for which surveillance at 1-2 years is advised.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 10: For lower or upper GI NEN with a positive or indeterminate margin at resection, ESGE recommends repeating endoscopy at 3-6 months and another attempt at endoscopic resection in the case of residual disease.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Predictors of the difficulty for endoscopic resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor and follow-up data

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are among the most common submucosal tumors in the stomach that require therapeutic intervention. We aim to identify the predictors of technical difficulty during endoscopic resection of gastric GIST and to investigate follow-up outcomes.

METHODS

Patients with gastric GISTs were reviewed from June 2009 to June 2020 at Zhongshan Hospital. Clinical and pathological features, endoscopic procedure information, and follow-up data were collected and analyzed. A nomogram was developed and validated internally and externally.

RESULTS

A total of 628 GISTs were finally analyzed. The difficulty was experienced in 66 cases. GISTs size (2-3 cm: OR 2.431 P = 0.018 and > 3 cm: OR 9.765 P < 0.001), invasion depth beyond submucosal (MP: OR 2.280, P = 0.038 and MP-ex: OR 4.295, P = 0.002), and lack of experience (OR 2.075, P = 0.016) were independent risk factors of difficulty. The nomogram prediction model showed a bias-corrected C-index value of 0.778 and acquired an area under curve (AUC) of 0.756 on the external validation cohort. At the cut-off of 0.15, the nomogram's negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy (ACC) were 94.9% and 79.8% in identifying non-difficult GISTs. Follow-up results showed that only five GIST patients had local recurrence after endoscopic resection.

CONCLUSIONS

Tumor size, invasion depth, and endoscopists' experience were risk factors for the difficulty of endoscopic GIST resection. Our nomogram provided a valuable tool for screening non-difficult GIST resection.