Feasibility of Non-Exposure Simple Suturing Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection in Comparison with Laparoscopic Endoscopic Cooperative Surgery for Gastric Subepithelial Tumors: Results of Two Independent Prospective Trials

Endoscopic Treatment for Gastric Subepithelial Tumor

Most gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs) are asymptomatic and are often incidentally discovered during endoscopic procedures conducted for unrelated reasons. Although surveillance is sufficient for the majority of gastric SETs, certain cases necessitate proactive management. Laparoscopic wedge resection, although a viable treatment option, has its limitations, particularly in cases where SETs (especially those with intraluminal growth) are not visualized on the peritoneal side. Recent advances in endoscopic instruments and technology have paved the way for the feasibility of endoscopic resection of SETs. Several promising endoscopic techniques have emerged for gastric SET resection, including submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection, endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR), laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS), and non-exposure EFTR (non-exposed endoscopic wall-inversion surgery and non-exposure simple suturing EFTR). This study aimed to discuss the indications, methods, and outcomes of endoscopic therapy for gastric SETs. In addition, a simplified diagram of the category of SETs according to the therapeutic indications and an algorithm for the endoscopic management of SET is suggested.

Perforation-free removal of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Endoscopic inversion and strangulation of muscle layer and resection (EISMR)

Endoscopic resection for GIST has become more widespread in recent years because it is less invasive than surgery. However, when endoscopic resection is performed, a full-layer resection of the gastric wall is often necessary, and extensive suturing is required if perforation occurs, which is a technically challenging procedure. Recently, we reported a new method called endoscopic inversion and strangulation of the muscle layer and resection (EISMR), which consists of endoscopically inverting the muscle layer into the gastric lumen and strangulating the muscle layer with a detachable snare, followed by resection. The study comprised five consecutive patients with gastric GIST ≤50 mm in diameter who underwent EISMR procedures. The main outcomes of the study were en bloc resection rate, R0 resection rate, procedure time, and complications. The results showed that all five patients successfully underwent complete resection without perforation, and the en bloc resection and R0 resection rates were 100%. The median procedure time was 93 min (range, 58-120 min), and there were no major complications. We concluded that EISMR would be a safe and effective technique for endoscopic resection of gastric GISTs and may be an alternative to surgery or endoscopic submucosal dissection.

Pure endoscopic resection versus laparoscopic assisted procedure for upper gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Perspective from a surgical endoscopist

Management of upper gastrointestinal (UGI) tract gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) has evolved significantly over the past two decades. For GIST size smaller than 5 cm, laparoscopic resection has become the current standard. To avoid postoperative gastric deformity and preserve gastric function, laparoscopic endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) was developed and various modifications have been reported and utilized successfully. Pure endoscopic resection techniques have also been reported at a similar period of time, which further push the boundary of incisionless surgery in managing these lesions. Both tunneling and nontunneling exposed type endoscopic full thickness resection are well described procedures for resection of small UGI GIST. In this review, a summary of these procedures is provided, and the pros and cons of each technique from the perspective of a surgical endoscopist are discussed in detail. LECS and endoscopic resection are complementary to each other. The choice of technique should be tailored to the location, morphology, and size of the target lesions, taking into account the experience of the laparoscopic surgeons and endoscopists.

Excellent oncological outcomes besides short-term safety of laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor

Background and study aims  Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) for gastric submucosal tumor was developed as a type of minimal local resection and is now widely used in Asian countries. However, the oncological safety of LECS for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) remains unclear. LECS has potential oncology-related problems that may influence survival outcomes. Furthermore, the feasibility and safety of LECS have not yet been fully established. Patients and methods  Patients who were intended to undergo LECS for gastric GIST from 2006 to 2020 were retrospectively selected. The indication for LECS was determined according to the guidelines. The completion of LECS, complications, and survival outcomes of the patients were analyzed. Results  Two hundred fifty-nine patients were eligible in this study. According to intraoperative findings, 44 patients underwent local resection without luminal endoscopic procedures. Of the remaining 215 patients, 213 completely underwent LECS, which corresponds to a completion rate of 99.1 %. Six patients (2.8 %) had postoperative complications of Clavien-Dindo classification grade II or higher. Delayed gastric emptying was most commonly found in four patients (1.9 %). Old age ( P  = 0.0349), female sex ( P  = 0.0095), tumor located in the lesser curvature ( P  = 0.0015), and large tumor diameter ( P  = 0.0232) were significantly more common in patients with complications. The 3-year overall and disease-specific survival rates were 99 % and 100 %, respectively, in 215 patients who were intended to undergo LECS. Conclusions  Despite several oncological concerns, LECS for gastric GIST is oncologically safe besides a feasible and safe procedure in the short-term.

Endoscopic Full Thickness Resection: A Systematic Review

Background Endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) is an emerging therapeutic option for resecting subepithelial lesions (SELs) and epithelial neoplasms. We aimed to systematically review the techniques, applications, outcomes, and complications of EFTR.

Methods A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed. All relevant original research articles involving EFTR were included for the review along with case report/series describing novel/rare techniques from 2001 to February 2022.

Results After screening 7,739 citations, finally 141 references were included. Non-exposed EFTR has lower probability of peritoneal contamination or tumor seeding compared with exposed EFTR. Among exposed EFTR, tunneled variety is associated with lower risk of peritoneal seeding or contamination compared with non-tunneled approach. Closure techniques involve though the scope (TTS) clips, loop and clips, over the scope clips (OTSC), full thickness resection device (FTRD), and endoscopic suturing/plicating/stapling devices. The indications of EFTR range from esophagus to rectum and include SELs arising from muscularis propria (MP), non-lifting adenoma, recurrent adenoma, and even early gastric cancer (EGC) or superficial colorectal carcinoma. Other indications include difficult locations (involving appendicular orifice or diverticulum) and full thickness biopsy for motility disorders. The main limitation of FTRD is feasibility in smaller lesions (<20–25 mm), which can be circumvented by hybrid EFTR techniques. Oncologic resection with lymphadencetomy for superficial GI malignancy can be accomplished by hybrid natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) combining EFTR and NOTES. Bleeding, perforation, appendicitis, enterocolonic fistula, FTRD malfunction, peritoneal tumor seeding, and contamination are among various adverse events. Post OTSC artifacts need to be differentiated from recurrent/residual lesions to avoid re-FTRD/surgery.

Conclusion EFTR is safe and effective therapeutic option for SELs, recurrent and non-lifting adenomas, tumors in difficult locations and selected cases of superficial GI carcinoma.

Laparoscopic-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection of a large gastric schwannoma: A case report

BACKGROUND

Schwannomas, also known as neurinomas, are benign tumors derived from Schwann cells. Gastrointestinal schwannomas are rare and are most frequently reported in the stomach. They are usually asymptomatic and are difficult to diagnose preoperatively; however, endoscopy and imaging modalities can provide beneficial preliminary diagnostic data. There are various surgical options for management. Here, we present a case of a large gastric schwannoma (GS) managed by combined laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery.

CASE SUMMARY

A 28-year-old woman presented with a 2-mo history of epigastric discomfort and a feeling of abdominal fullness. On upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and endoscopic ultrasonography, a hypoechogenic submucosal mass was detected in the gastric antrum: It emerged from the muscularis propria and projected intraluminally. Computed tomography showed a nodular lesion (4 cm × 3.5 cm), which exhibited uniform enhancement, on the gastric antrum wall. Based on these findings, a preliminary diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumor was established, with schwannoma as a differential. Considering the large tumor size, we planned to perform endoscopic resection and to convert to laparoscopic treatment, if necessary. Eventually, the patient underwent combined laparoscopic and gastroscopic surgery. Immunohistochemically, the resected specimen showed positivity for S-100 and negativity for desmin, DOG-1, α-smooth muscle actin, CD34, CD117, and p53. The Ki-67 index was 3%, and a final diagnosis of GS was established.

CONCLUSION

Combined laparoscopic and endoscopic surgery is a minimally invasive and effective treatment option for large GSs.

Surgical Resection Is Still Better Than Endoscopic Resection for Patients With 2-5 cm Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Background

The management of 2-5 cm gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) is still debated between surgeons and endoscopists. We aimed to investigate short-term and long-term outcomes between surgical resection (SR) and endoscopic resection (ER).

Methods

This study included 67 and 215 patients between 2010 and 2020 who underwent ER and SR, respectively. After propensity score matching, the clinical outcomes were compared. Individual patient information that requires special instructions is also summarized.

Results

After matching, the operation time (P=0.005) and postoperative hospital stay (P=0.005) were significantly longer in the SR group than in the ER group. However, there were no significant differences in blood loss (P=0.741), resection margin (P=1.000) or time to liquid diet (P=0.055). Statistical differences were also seen in en bloc resection (P<0.001) and adverse events (P=0.027). The recurrence rate did not differ significantly between the two techniques, and the mitotic index and ulceration were identified as independent prognostic factors of progression-free survival.

Conclusions

ER might be comparable to SR for the treatment of 2-3 cm gastric GISTs. SR is still considered the standard treatment for 3-5 cm gastric GISTs, while the intraoperative and postoperative information of ER should be recorded in detail and closely evaluated. Surgical resection is recommended if the tumour has a high mitotic index or mucosal ulceration.

The Value of Endoscopic Ultrasonography in the Endoscopic Resection of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors

Objective

This study aimed to explore the clinical value of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in the endoscopic resection of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs).

Methods

A retrospective study of 92 patients who were confirmed to have GISTs by endoscopic resection after EUS examination was conducted. The preoperative features of the EUS examination, ultrasound diagnosis, endoscopic resection methods, surgical procedures, complications, and complete degree of lesion resection were recorded. And 16 patients who were diagnosed by endoscopy and EUS and confirmed by surgical operation were included and analyzed in the subsequent part of the investigation (gastroscopy and EUS image analysis, EUS image and risk classification).

Results

The preoperative diagnosis rate of EUS and postoperative pathological diagnosis of GISTs was 78.7% (85/108), and the presence of a non-homogeneous echo and liquid anechoic zone in GISTs often indicated higher risk (P < 0.05). There was a positive correlation between tumor size and risk (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The endoscopic resection of GISTs is feasible and safe. EUS is of great significance for the diagnosis and risk assessment of GISTs and can assist in the endoscopic resection of GISTs.