Effectiveness and safety of endoscopic resection for gastric GISTs: a systematic review

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.

Development and validation of a preoperative difficulty scoring system for endoscopic resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor: a multi-center study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic resection (ER) is a promising technique for resecting gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (gGISTs); however, ER is technically challenging. This study aimed to develop and validate a difficulty scoring system (DSS) to determine the difficulty for ER of a gGIST.

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 555 patients with gGISTs in multi-centers from December 2010 to December 2022. Data on patients, lesions, and outcomes of ER were collected and analyzed. A difficult case was defined as an operative time ≥ 90 min, or the occurrence of severe intraoperative bleeding, or conversion to laparoscopic resection. The DSS was developed in the training cohort (TC) and validated in the internal validation cohort (IVC) and external validation cohort (EVC).

RESULTS

The difficulty occurred in 97 cases (17.5%). The DSS comprised the following: tumor size ≥ 3.0 cm (3 points) or 2.0-3.0 cm (1 point); location in the upper third of the stomach (2 points); invasion depth beyond the muscularis propria (2 points); lack of experience (1 point). The area under the curve (AUC) of DSS in IVC and EVC was 0.838 and 0.864, respectively, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 0.923 and 0.972, respectively. The proportions of difficult operation in easy (score 0-3), intermediate (score 4-5), and difficult (score 6-8) categories were 6.5%, 29.4%, and 88.2% in the TC, 7.7%, 45.8%, and 85.7% in the IVC, and 7.0%, 29.4%, and 85.7% in the EVC, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed and validated a preoperative DSS for ER of gGISTs based on tumor size, location, invasion depth, and endoscopists' experience. This DSS can be used to grade the technical difficulty before surgery.

Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) compared to submucosal tunnel endoscopic resection (STER) for treatment of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Background and study aims  Submucosal tunnel endoscopic resection (STER) is being increasingly performed for treatment of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), while STER has been limited by close dissection within tunnel and risking breach of tumor capsule. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) allows resection of GIST with margins to prevent recurrence. This study aimed to compare EFTR against STER for treatment of gastric GIST. Patients and methods  We retrospectively reviewed clinical outcomes of patients with gastric GIST who received either STER or EFTR. Patients with gastric GISTs < than 4 cm were included. Clinical outcomes including baseline demographics, perioperative and oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results  From 2013 to 2019, 46 patients with gastric GISTs were treated with endoscopic resection, 26 received EFTR and 20 received STER. Most of the GISTs were in the proximal stomach. There was no difference in operative time (94.9 vs 84.9 mins; P  = 0.401), while endoscopic suturing was applied more for closure after EFTR ( P  < 0.0001). Patients after STER had earlier resumption of diet and shorter hospital stay while there was no difference in adverse event rate between two groups. The en-bloc resection rate for EFTR was significantly higher than for STER (100 % vs 80 %; P  = 0.029), while there was no difference in the local recurrence. Conclusions  This study demonstrated that although patients who received EFTR had longer hospital stays and slower resumption of diet compared to those who underwent STER, EFTR achieved a significantly higher rate of en-bloc resection compared to STER for treatment of gastric GIST.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic "calabash" ligation and resection for small gastric stromal tumors originating from the muscularis propria

AIM

We compared endoscopic "calabash" ligation and resection (ECLR) and endoscopic submucosal excision (ESE) in treating endophytic gastric stromal tumors (GSTs) ≤15 mm in diameter originating from the muscularis propria.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study and included patients who visited our hospital for removal of small endophytic GSTs (diameter ≤ 15 mm) confirmed by postoperative pathological reports between February 2019 and December 2020. Patients were assigned to the study (received ECLR) or control (accepted ESE) groups, and their medical records were reviewed. Age, sex, GST size, resection outcomes, procedure measurements, lengths of hospital stays, medical expenses, intraoperative and postoperative complications, and follow-up outcomes were documented and compared between the two groups. Propensity score matching was used to avoid retrospective biases.

RESULTS

A total of 277 patients were included in the analysis, with 135 in the study group and 142 in the control group. After propensity score matching, 119 cases in each group were finally included in the study. Compared to the control group, the study group had significantly shorter procedure durations and lengths of hospital stays, as well as reduced medical expenses. Compared to the control group, the study group also had significantly lower incidence rates of intraoperative stomach perforation, postoperative intraperitoneal infection, and postoperative electrocoagulation syndrome, as well as a lower intensity of postoperative pain. There were no significant differences in the other measurements between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

ECLR is an effective and safe procedure for treating patients with endophytic GSTs ≤15 mm in diameter originating from the muscularis propria.

Therapeutic Effects of 4 Surgical Approaches for Small Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Network Meta-analysis

This study aims to systematically evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic resection (ER), laparoscopic resection (LR), laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS), and open surgery (OpS) for gastrointestinal stromal tumors with small diameters (≤5 cm). Relevant studies were collected through Pubmed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. Operative time, hospital stays, time to liquid diet, intraoperative bleeding, and complications were used as outcome indicators for meta-analysis. Twenty-four retrospective cohort studies with 2406 participants were analyzed. LR and OpS groups had longer operating time than the ER group. ER, LECS, and LR groups had decreased lengths of hospital stay than the OpS group. Moreover, patients in LR and LECS groups had fewer complications than those in the OpS group. Endoscopic operation for small gastrointestinal stromal tumors contributes to shortened lengths of surgery and hospital stay. This reduces intraoperative blood loss and promotes gastroenteric functional recovery without increasing the risk of complications or tumor recurrence.

Advances in endoscopic resection techniques of small gastric tumors originating from the muscularis propria

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors are common gastrointestinal tumors typically originating from the muscularis propria layer of the stomach. Small gastric stromal tumors are usually detected incidentally during routine endoscopic examination. Although they may have malignant potentially, controversies remain regarding the need for endoscopic resection of small gastric stromal tumors originating from the muscularis propria. According to the guidelines of the European Society of Medical Oncology, all gastrointestinal stromal tumors >2 cm in size should be resected with endoscopic surveillance recommended for tumors <2 cm. Endoscopic resection including endoscopic mucosal dissection (EMD), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection and snare assisted endoscopic resection. However, EMD and ESD procedures may be accompanied with serious complications including perforation, bleeding, and abdominal infection. Snare-assisted endoscopic resection is an alternative approach and has the advantages of a shorter procedure time and a low rate of perforation or bleeding. This study summarizes the safety and feasibility of a novel snare-assisted endoscopic resection technique and highlights the pros and cons of the different endoscopic approaches currently used for subepithelia small gastric tumors.

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.

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.

Comparison Among Endoscopic, Laparoscopic, and Open Resection for Relatively Small Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (<5 cm): A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

Background

Endoscopic resection (ESR) is a novel minimally invasive procedure for superficial tumors. Its safety, efficiency, and outcome for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (gGISTs) less than 5 cm remains unclear compared to laparoscopic resection (LAR) and open resection (ONR). The current network meta-analysis aimed to review and analyze the available evidence of this question.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched to identify eligible studies published up to July 6, 2020. The perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes among ESR, LAR, and ONR for gGIST (<5 cm) were estimated through the Bayesian network meta-analysis with a random-effect model.

Results

Fifteen studies with 1,631 patients were included. ESR was associated with a shorter operative time [mean difference, MD: -36; 95% confidence interval, CI (-55, -16)], a higher rate of positive margin [odds ratio, OR: 5.1 × 10¹⁰, 95% CI (33, 2.5 × 10³²)], and less costs [MD: -1 × 10⁴, 95% CI (-1.6 × 10⁴, -4.4 × 10³)] but similar time to resume flatus [MD: 0.52, 95% CI (-0.16, 1.1)] and diet [MD: -3.5, 95% CI (-5.6, -1.6)] compared to LAR. A higher rate of total complications [OR: 11, 95% CI (1.2, 140)] was observed in patients who received ESR compared to patients who received LAR. After excluding perforation from the total complication category, the difference of complication between ESR and LAR disappeared [OR: 0.87, 95% CI (0.22, 2.3)]. The recurrence rate [OR: 1.3, 95% CI (0.40, 4.5)] and disease-free survival [hazard ratio: 1.26, 95% CI (0.60, 2.63)] showed no significant difference between ESR and LAR. ESR was associated with better or equivalent perioperative and long-term outcomes compared to ONR, except for positive margin. A subgroup analysis (<2 and 2–5 cm) showed no significantly different results among these three procedures either.

Conclusion

ESR was shown to be a safe and efficient alternative procedure to both LAR and ONR for gGISTs less than 2 cm and within 2–5 cm, respectively, without worsening the oncologic outcomes. However, preoperative assessment of tumor site is of importance for the determination of procedures regarding the increased incidence of a positive margin related to ESR.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection in treatment of small gastric stromal tumors: A state-of-the-art review

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors can occur in any part of the gastrointestinal tract, but gastric stromal tumors (GSTs) are the most common. All GSTs have the potential to become malignant, and these can be divided into four different grades by risk from low to high: Very low risk, low risk, medium risk, and high risk. Current guidelines all recommend early complete excision of GSTs larger than 2 cm in diameter. However, it is not clear whether small GSTs (sGSTs, i.e., those smaller than 2 cm in diameter) should be treated as early as possible. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends that endoscopic ultrasonography-guided (EUS-guided) fine-needle aspiration biopsy and imaging (computed tomography or magnetic-resonance imaging) be used to assess cancer risk for sGSTs detected by gastroscopy to determine treatment. When EUS indicates a higher risk of tumor, surgical resection is recommended. There are some questions on whether sGSTs also require early treatment. Many studies have shown that endoscopic treatment of GSTs with diameters of 2-5 cm is very effective. We here address whether endoscopic therapy is also suitable for sGSTs. In this paper, we try to explain three questions: (1) Does sGST require treatment? (2) Is digestive endoscopy a safe and effective means of treating sGST? and (3) When sGSTs are at different sites and depths, which endoscopic treatment method is more suitable?

Retrospective Comparison of Endoscopic Full-Thickness Versus Laparoscopic or Surgical Resection of Small (≤ 5 cm) Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors

AIM AND BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety between endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFR) and laparoscopic or surgical resection methods for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) in size of 5.0 cm or less. Gastric GISTs are common, and resection is the most effective treatment.

METHOD

We retrospectively reviewed 216 resections of gastric GISTs in size of up to 5.0 cm at our center from 2009 to 2017.Eligible resection cases were divided into EFR (n = 85), laparoscopic(n = 64), and surgical (n = 67) groups. The clinical records, patient demographic, symptoms, perioperative data, pathological findings, and long-term follow-up outcomes were collected and compared statistically.

RESULTS

No tumor rupture or recurrence occurred in the three groups. The prevalence of complications was significantly lower in EFR (5.9%) than both laparoscopic (7.8%) and surgical group (16.4%) (P < 0.01). In EFR group, the R0 resection rate (95.3%) was significantly lower than in the laparoscopic group and surgical group (100%) (P < 0.001). The hospital cost (OR = 62.79, CI: 12.954-304.363, P < 0.0001) were significantly lower in the EFR than in the laparoscopic group. The hospital cost (OR = 39.032, CI: 8.045-189.371, P < 0.0001) and post-operative diet time (OR = 2.779, CI: 1.225-6.304, P < 0.05) were also significantly lower in the EFR than in the surgical group.

CONCLUSION

EFR was a feasible treatment for gastric GISTs of size of ≤ 5.0 cm with an acceptable complete resection rate. In addition, EFR had significantly fewer postoperative complications, shorter length of hospital stay, and lower cost.

Endoscopic or laparoscopic resection for small gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a cumulative meta-analysis

Background

Despite the recent large number of studies comparing endoscopic and laparoscopic resection for small gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) (diameter ≤ 5 cm), the results remain conflicting. The objective of this work was to perform a cumulative meta-analysis to assess the advantages and disadvantages of endoscopic resection vs. laparoscopic resection.

Methods

The meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We searched medical databases up to January 2020. Meta-analytical random or fixed effects models were used in pooled analyses. Meta-regression, cumulative meta-analyses, and subgroup analyses were performed to improve the accuracy of the conclusion. Sensitivity analyses were applied to assess the robustness of the results.

Results

A total of 12 cohort studies with 1383 participants comparing endoscopic resection and laparoscopic resection were identified, while three cohort studies with 167 participants comparing endoscopic resection and laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery were found. We found that endoscopic resection had shorter operation times (weighted mean difference [WMD] = –27.1 min, 95% confidence interval [CI]: –40.8 min to –13.4 min) and lengths of hospital stay (WMD = –1.43 d, 95% CI: –2.31 d to –0.56 d) than did laparoscopic resection. The results were stable and reliable. There were no significant differences in terms of blood loss, hospitalization costs, incidence of complications or recurrence rates. For tumor sizes 2 – 5 cm, endoscopic resection increased the risk of positive margins (relative risk [RR] = 5.78, 95% CI: 1.31 – 25.46). Although operation times for endoscopic resection were shorter than those of laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (WMD = –41.03 min, 95% CI: –59.53 min to –22.54 min), there was a higher incidence of complications (RR = 4.03, 95% CI: 1.57 – 10.34).

Conclusions

In general, endoscopic resection is an alternative method for gastric GISTs ≤ 5 cm. Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery may work well in combination. Further randomized controlled trials are recommended to validate or update these results.

Comparison of endoscopic versus laparoscopic resection for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A preliminary meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

For localized disease, complete surgical resection is regarded as the "gold standard" therapeutic modality. With the rapid development of endoscopic techniques, endoscopic resection (ESR) has been confirmed as an efficient and safe alternative for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) in the stomach. Nevertheless, the management of gastric GISTs remains poorly defined. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the security and effectiveness of ESR with laparoscopic resection (LAR) for gastric GISTs.

METHODS

A literature search of online databases was conducted to identify relevant comparative studies of ESR and LAR procedures for gastric GISTs published before April 10, 2020. The cumulative data analysis was also performed utilizing the software STATA.

RESULTS

In total, 10 studies involving 1165 patients met the inclusion criteria for analysis (651 for ESR and 514 for LAR). From the results of meta-analysis, patients who underwent ESR experienced decreased operative time (P = 0.000), less intraoperative blood loss (P = 0.002), earlier time to diet (P = 0.000), shorter hospital stay (P = 0.000), and lower total charges (P = 0.000) compared with LAR. Moreover, there were no significant differences between these two approaches concerning tumor rupture, conversion rate to other procedure, complete resection rate, postoperative complication rate, recurrence rate, and disease-free survival.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic resection, as an effective alternative treatment strategy with satisfactory outcomes, is acceptable for selective patients with gastric GISTs compared with LAR. Further well-designed randomized controlled trials with large samples are warranted to corroborate our observations.

Endoscopic or Surgical Resection for Patients with 2-5cm Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Single-Center 12-Year Experience from China

Purpose

The surgical or endoscopic resection is the current treatment modality for 2–5 cm gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). However, evidence is lacking as to which treatment modality is better. Our objective is to provide a new reference for the standardization of the treatment of 2–5 cm gastric GISTs.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective study was conducted on 177 patients who underwent resection for 2–5cm gastric GISTs between January 2007 and July 2019 at Xiangya Hospital of Central South University. The cases were divided into surgical group (n=118) and endoscopic group (n=59). The clinical data, pathological and genetic characteristics, short- and long-term outcomes were compared.

Results

Symptoms showed more obvious in the surgical group including abdominal pain and bleeding. In the endoscopic group, tumor size was smaller (p<0.001), and risk classification was lower (p<0.001). Patients in the endoscopic group had shorter anal exhaust time (p<0.001) and lesser hospital cost (p<0.001). However, the incidence rate of complications (25.42 vs 4.20%; p<0.001) and reoperation (22.03 vs 0.00%; p<0.001) in the endoscopic group was relatively higher than these in the surgical group. There was no significant difference in recurrence-free survival or overall survival between two groups.

Conclusion

Gastric GISTs of 2–5cm may be suitable to select laparoscopic surgery.

Treatment of a Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor (GIST) Adherent to the Spleen and the Tail of the Pancreas: A Case Report

Patient: Male, 62-year-old

Final Diagnosis: Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) adherent to the spleen and the tail of the pancreas

Symptoms: Melena

Medication:—

Clinical Procedure: En bloc sphenoid gastrectomy • splenectomy • caudal pancreatectomy

Specialty: Surgery

Safety and efficiency of endoscopic resection versus laparoscopic resection in gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumours: A systematic review and meta-analysis

The application of endoscopic resection (ER) in gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) is controversial. We carried out a meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficiency of ER with laparoscopic resection (LR) in patients with gastric GISTs. We searched PubMed to identify studies comparing ER with LR in GIST. The outcomes focused on two areas: safety, including operation time, blood loss, length of hospital stay, time to flatus, time to liquid, time to soft diet, and postoperative complications; and efficiency, including positive margin, recurrence, and long-term survival. A total of 1292 patients from 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Patients undergoing ER had a shorter operation time (standardised mean difference [SMD] -1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.18 to -0.78) and shorter time to soft diet (SMD -1.02, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.52) than those undergoing LR. No significant differences were observed between the groups in terms of blood loss, length of hospital stay, time to flatus, time to liquid, and postoperative complications. ER was also associated with greater positive margins compared with LR (relative risk 6.32, 95% CI 1.41-28.26). There were no significant differences between ER and LR for recurrence and 5-year disease-free survival. The limited evidence suggests that ER is a more effective strategy for improving postoperative recovery without increasing the risk of surgery and recurrence in gastric GIST. However, close attention should be paid to margin status after ER.

CLEAN-NET: a modified laparoendoscopic wedge resection of the stomach to minimize the sacrifice of innocent gastric wall

BACKGROUND

To avoid excessive sacrifice of the tissue surrounding the submucosal tumor in gastric wedge resection with a stapling device, we perform a "combined laparoscopic and endoscopic approach for neoplasia with a nonexposure technique" (CLEAN-NET). Herein the operative technique of CLEAN-NET is described and its short-term outcomes in 50 patients are evaluated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between December 2015 and July 2017 CLEAN-NET was performed in 50 patients with gastric submucosal tumors. During the operation, the seromuscular layer above the tumor is dissected, while the mucosa is kept unbroken. When seromuscular layer is dissected all around the tumor, the full layer is lifted, and the mucosa is stretched. The mucosa is then transected with a stapling device to execute full-thickness resection of the specimen. Finally, the seromuscular defect is repaired by hand-sewn suture. The hospital records of the 50 patients were reviewed to assess the outcomes. The margin width was compared with those measured in another group with 19 patients, who underwent conventional wedge resection with a stapling device.

RESULTS

The operation was completed as CLEAN-NET and the tumor was resected en-bloc without rupture in all patients. The average operation time ranged from 50 to 220 min with an average of 105.4 min. The post-operative course was uneventful. Microscopically the surgical margin was tumor-negative (R0 resection) in all cases. The margin width in the CLEAN-NET group was smaller than that in the wedge resection group (5.4 mm ± 2.5 vs. 33.1 mm ± 14.7).

CONCLUSIONS

CLEAN-NET can be performed safely with an acceptable operation time. CLEAN-NET can be a useful option in the laparoscopic surgical treatment of gastric submucosal tumors, when excessive sacrifice of the healthy gastric wall surrounding the endophytic tumor should be avoided.

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic resection for small (≤ 4.0 cm) gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer

AIM

To evaluate the long-term efficacy of endoscopic resection (ER) for small (≤ 4.0 cm) gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) originating from the muscularis propria layer.

METHODS

Between June 2005 and February 2015, we retrospectively analyzed 229 consecutive patients with gastric MP-GISTs who underwent ER with a follow-up at least 36 mo. The main outcome measurements included complete resection rate, complications, and long-term follow-up outcomes.

RESULTS

ER included endoscopic muscularis excavation in 179 cases, endoscopic full-thickness resection in 32 cases, and submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection in 18 cases. The median size of GISTs was 1.90 cm. Of the 229 GISTs, 147 were very low risk, 72 were low risk, 8 were intermediate risk, and 2 were high risk. Short-term outcomes showed the complete resection rate was 96.5%, and 8 patients (3.5%) had complications. Of the 8 patients with complications, only one patient required surgical intervention. Long-term outcomes showed 225 patients were actively followed-up until composition of this manuscript. The remaining 4 patients were lost because of unrelated death. During the follow-up period (median, 57 mo), no residual, recurrent lesions, or distant metastasis were detected in any patients. Binary logistic regression analysis showed tumor size was a risk factor associated with a high mitotic index (≥ 5/50 HPF) of GISTs (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

ER seems to be an effective and safe method for gastric MP-GISTs ≤ 4.0 cm, and, for some intermediate or high risk GISTs, adjuvant therapy and/or additional surgery might be required to reduce the risk of recurrence or metastasis.