Clinical Control Study of Endoscopic Full-thickness Resection and Laparoscopic Surgery in the Treatment of Gastric Tumors Arising from the Muscularis Propria

Current Status of Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection for Gastric Subepithelial Tumors: A Literature Review Over Two Decades

BACKGROUND

With the development of endoscopic technology and devices, endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) has been challengingly introduced for gastric subepithelial tumors (SETs). The resection and closure strategies are under investigation. This systematic review was performed to assess the current status and limitations of EFTR for gastric SETs.

SUMMARY

MEDLINE was searched using the keywords "endoscopic full-thickness resection" or "gastric endoscopic full-thickness closure" AND "gastric" or "stomach" from January 2001 to July 2022. The outcome variables were the complete resection rate, major adverse event (AE) rate including delayed bleeding and delayed perforation, and closure-associated outcomes. Among 288 studies, 27 eligible studies involving 1,234 patients were included in this review. The complete resection rate was 99.7% (1,231/1,234). The major AE rate was 1.13% (14/1,234), with delayed bleeding in two (0.16%) patients, delayed perforation in one (0.08%), panperitonitis or abdominal abscess in three (0.24%), and other AEs in eight (0.64%). Surgical interventions were required intraoperatively or postoperatively in 7 patients (0.56%). Three patients underwent intraoperative conversion to surgery, due to intraoperative massive bleeding, technical difficulty of closure, and retrieval of falling tumor in the peritoneal cavity. Postoperative surgical rescues for AEs were required in four (0.32%). Subgroup analysis of AE outcomes showed no significant differences among closure techniques consisting of endoclips, purse-string suturing, and over-the-scope clips.

KEY MESSAGES

This systematic review demonstrated acceptable outcomes of EFTR and closure for gastric SETs, indicating that EFTR is a promising forthcoming procedure.

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.

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.

Comparable long-term survival of patients with colorectal or gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors treated with endoscopic vs. surgical resection

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

With the development of endoscopic technology, endoscopic treatment has been widely used in Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). However, population-based studies comparing the long-term results of patients who received endoscopic treatment vs. Surgery are lacking. We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to analyze the long-term survival of colorectal or gastric GISTs who underwent primary tumor resection (endoscopic therapy or surgery) in the USA.

METHODS

Patients with colorectal or gastric GISTs were selected from the SEER database between 2010 and 2015. Kaplan-Meier analyses and log-rank tests were used to evaluate the difference in the long-term survival between the endoscopic therapy group and the surgery group. We examined the association between different treatments and survival after using the multivariate cox proportional hazards model to adjust the relevant covariates. Besides, we used Propensity score matching (PSM) to overcome the different distributions of covariates between the two groups and then further compare the survival difference.

RESULTS

In total, 2355 patients were enrolled in our study, of which 1999 (84.9%) received surgical treatment and 356 (15.1%) received endoscopic treatment. There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between the two groups before PSM. The median OS (73.5 months vs. 72.2 months) and 5-year OS rate (85.7% vs. 81.5%) of endoscopic therapy were similar to surgical patients (P = 0.34). The median Cancer-specific survival (CSS) and 5-year CSS rate in the endoscopic treatment group were higher than the surgical group before PSM, with 81.3 months, 97.1% versus 78.8 months, 92.7% (P = 0.011). After adjusting for other clinical factors and PSM, the long-term OS and CSS did not significantly differ between those treated surgically and treated endoscopically.

CONCLUSION

Based on the American population, we preliminarily found that the long-term OS and CSS did not differ between patients undergoing endoscopic therapy and surgery.

Exposed endoscopic full-thickness resection without laparoscopic assistance for gastric submucosal tumors: A systematic review and pooled analysis

BACKGROUND

Exposed endoscopic full-thickness resection (Eo-EFTR) is emerging as a promising minimally invasive alternative to surgery for the treatment of deep gastric submucosal tumors (G-SMTs). However, literature concerning this subject is heterogeneous and data mostly come from relatively small retrospective studies.

AIMS

We aimed to perform a pooled analysis of published data with regard to gastric Eo-EFTR, providing a pooled estimate of technical and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

The protocol was registered in PROSPERO. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for studies published from 1998 to 2020. The primary outcomes were complete resection and surgical conversion rates. The secondary outcomes were overall and selected major adverse events rates. The Forest plots on primary and secondary endpoints were produced based on fixed and random effect models.

RESULTS

Nineteen studies including 952 Eo-EFTR-treated G-SMTs were included. The pooled estimate of the complete resection rate and surgical conversion rates was 99.3% and 0.09%, respectively. The pooled estimate of overall major adverse events, delayed bleeding, delayed perforation and peritonitis, abdominal abscess and/or abdominal infection was 0.29%, 0.14%, 0.14%, and 0.12%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Gastric Eo-EFTR has a high rate of complete resection with a low surgical conversion rate. It appears to be relatively safe and might represent a non-inferior minimally invasive alternative to surgery in selected cases.

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.

Closure techniques in exposed endoscopic full-thickness resection: Overview and future perspectives in the endoscopic suturing era

Exposed endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) without laparoscopic assistance is a minimally invasive natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery technique that is emerging as a promising effective and safe alternative to surgery for the treatment of muscularis propria-originating gastric submucosal tumors. To date, various techniques have been used for the closure of the transmural post-EFTR defect, mainly consisting in clip- and endoloop-assisted closure methods. However, the recent advent of dedicated tools capable of providing full-thickness defect suture could further improve the efficacy and safety of the exposed EFTR procedure. The aim of our review was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the different closure methods adopted in gastric-exposed EFTR without laparoscopic assistance, also considering the recent advent of flexible endoscopic suturing.

A Review of Endoscopic Full-thickness Resection, Submucosal Tunneling Endoscopic Resection, and Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Resection of Subepithelial Lesions

Gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors (SETs) are often found while performing routine endoscopy. Recently, there has been the development of new endoscopic techniques such as endoscopic submucosal dissection, submucosal tunnel endoscopic resection, and endoscopic full-thickness resection, all minimally invasive approaches which have made it possible to resect SETs that were previously resected with surgery. This review discusses the endoscopic treatment of patients with SETs, outcomes for endoscopic treatment, procedure-related complications, and advantages and disadvantages of these endoscopic techniques.

Gastrointestinal exposed endoscopic full-thickness resection in the era of endoscopic suturing: a retrospective single-center case series

Introduction

Exposed endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) is a minimally invasive technique that has shown promising efficacy and safety in the removal of both gastrointestinal (GI) submucosal tumors (SMTs) arising from the muscularis propria (MP) and select epithelial tumors (ETs) unsuitable for conventional resection techniques. Given the chance of realizing endosurgical full-thickness suturing, the Endoscopic Suturing System (ESS) can be used to close wall defects in this setting. However, data concerning its use in EFTR are still limited.

Aim

This study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of exposed EFTR with defect closure using the ESS for the removal of both GI SMTs and select ETs unsuitable for conventional resection techniques.

Material and methods

This was a retrospective, single-center, observational cohort study of patients who underwent GI exposed EFTR.

Results

Seven patients (M : F 6 : 1) with a mean age of 56 ±14.5 years were identified. The indications were MP-originating SMTs of the stomach (n = 2) and duodenum (n = 2), and from submucosa of the rectum (n = 1), and 2 ETs of the rectum. Exposed EFTR and defect closure were successfully performed in 6/7 patients. One case was converted to laparoscopic gastric wedge resection due to technical unfeasibility. We performed an R0 resection in all cases, with the exception of 1 case of rectal EFTR. No macroscopic recurrence was detected at 6-month endoscopic follow-up.

Conclusions

GI exposed EFTR with defect closure by the ESS appears to be feasible, effective, and safe in referral centers. Further studies are necessary to clarify the role of the ESS for post-EFTR wall defect closure.

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.

Association of right breast cancer and ileal gastrointestinal stromal tumor in a patient with type I neurofibromatosis: Case report and review of the literature

•

The association of breast cancer and ileal GIST in Neurofibromatosis type 1 is extremely rare.

•

Laparoscopy is associated with better perioperative outcomes and shorter hospital stay.

•

Laparoscopic resection of small bowel GIST has shown in some studies to have oncological outcomes comparable to laparotomy.

Introduction

The Neurofibromatosis type I (NF1) is an autosomal dominant syndrome that affects 1/3000–1/4000 individuals. Patients with this condition are predisposed to different tumors, like neurofibromas, optic nerve gliomas, gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) and breast cancers.

Presentation of case

A 78-year-old female patient affected by NF1 in May 2018 during follow-up for a carcinoma of the right breast had persistent anemia requiring regular blood transfusions. She presented with NF 1 with disseminated cutaneous neurofibromas, asthma, hypothyroidism, arterial hypertension and uterine prolapse.

She had performed gastroscopy and colonoscopy both negative for neoplastic lesions. She was subjected to chest and abdomen CT which revealed the presence of an ileal lesion of 6.5 × 4 cm suspected of GIST.

The patient underwent laparoscopic ileal resection in 120 min and was discharged on the sixth postoperative day.

Discussion

NF1 is caused by biallelic loss of a tumor suppressor gene. Most GISTs are localized in the stomach and small intestine. Surgery is the first line of treatment for localized disease. The main goal of surgery is complete excision with negative margins. The association between breast cancer and intestinal GIST in NF1 is reported only from two previous studies.

Conclusion

It is a rare case of association of breast cancer and ileal GIST in NF1. Laparoscopic resection of intestinal GIST has shown in some studies to have oncological outcomes comparable to laparotomy. Furthermore, laparoscopy is associated with better perioperative outcomes and shorter hospital stays. Further studies with a higher level of evidence are needed.

Efficacy and safety of gastric exposed endoscopic full-thickness resection without laparoscopic assistance: a systematic review

Background and study aims  Exposed endoscopic full-thickness resection (Eo-EFTR) without laparoscopic assistance is a minimally invasive natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) technique that has shown promising efficacy and safety in resection of gastric submucosal tumors (G-SMTs) arising from muscularis propria (MP). However, data on the efficacy and safety of gastric Eo-EFTR mostly come from relatively small retrospective studies and concern regarding its use still exists. The aim of our systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of gastric Eo-EFTR without laparoscopic assistance. Methods  A detailed MEDLINE and EMBASE search was performed for papers published from January 1998 to November 2019 and reporting on gastric Eo-EFTR without laparoscopic assistance. The search strategy used the terms "endoscopic full thickness resection" and "gastric" or "stomach". The primary outcomes were complete resection and surgical conversion rates. The secondary outcomes were overall major adverse events, delayed bleeding, delayed perforation, peritonitis, abdominal abscess and/or abdominal infection and successful Eo-EFTR. Results  Fifteen Asian studies were included in our final review, providing data on 750 Eo-EFTR-treated G-SMTs. The per-lesion rate of complete resection and surgical conversion were 98.8 %\0.8 %, respectively. The per-lesion rate of major adverse events, delayed bleeding, delayed perforation and peritonitis, abdominal abscess and/or abdominal infection was 1.6 %\0.5 %\0.1 %\0.9 %, respectively. The per-lesion rate of successful Eo-EFTR (i. e. complete tumor resection and effective endoscopic defect closure) was 98.3 %. Conclusions  Eo-EFTR without laparoscopic assistance appears to be highly effective and safe NOTES for removing deep G-SMTs, particularly those arising from MP layer.

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.

Endoscopic submucosal excavation and endoscopic full-thickness resection for gastric schwannoma: five-year experience from a large tertiary center in China

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic resection (ER) is an effective and safe method for gastric submucosal tumors, mostly composed of gastrointestinal stromal tumors and leiomyomas. The role of ER in gastric schwannoma (GS) has rarely been described. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ER for GS.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study in consecutive patients who underwent ER for GS from March 2013 to October 2018 at our center. Clinicopathological, endoscopic, and follow-up data were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 16 consecutive patients (9 females, 56.3%) were included, with a mean age of 50.4 years (range 25-75 years). The mean tumor size was 22.9 ± 15.1 mm (range 10-55 mm). Thirteen tumors (81.3%) were located in the middle third of the stomach and 12 tumors (75%) grew with intraluminal pattern. Endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE) was performed in 7 patients while endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) was done in 9 patients. R0 resection was achieved in 14 patients (87.5%). The mean operative time was 91.6 ± 52.8 min (range 36-203 min) and the mean postoperative length of hospital stays was 8.3 ± 2.7 days (range 6-13 days). No adverse events were encountered except for fevers in 2 patients. No patients required surgical resection or intervention. During long-term follow-up of mean 21.8 months (range 6-62 months), no residue, recurrence, or metastasis was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

ER is effective and safe for patients with GS with favorable long-term outcomes.

Comparison between laparoscopic and endoscopic resections for gastric submucosal tumors

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Open resection/laparoscopic resection (LR) is the traditional treatment of gastric submucosal tumor (G-SMT). The endoscopic resection (ER) technology provides good results for G-SMT treatment but lacks sufficient evidence-based evidence. This retrospective study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of ER [endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE), and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFR)] and LR [laparoscopic wedge resection (LWR) and laparoscopic subtotal gastrectomy (LSG)] for G-SMT.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From January 2013 to January 2017, data of patients with G-SMT with tumor diameter <5 cm were collected from the database of The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University and classified based on surgical methods. Demographics, tumor characteristics, surgical outcomes, complications and tumor recurrence were recorded and compared.

RESULTS

Overall, 275 patients with G-SMT were enrolled: 152 underwent ER (ESD, n = 65; ESE, n = 23; EFR, n = 61) and 123 underwent LR (LWR, n = 93; LSG, n = 30). Age, sex, R0 resection rate, tumor location, type, recurrence and complications were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). The ER group had a significantly higher percentage of intraluminal tumor (94.1% vs 62.4%) and smaller tumor size (1.8 ± 0.8 vs 3.4 ± 1.2 cm) than the LR group. The ER group had less muscular tumors than the LR group (54.6% vs 70.7%). The ER group had no serosal tumor. The ER group had shorter hospitalization time, postoperative hospital stay and diet recovery time. The LR group had shorter operation time, less cost and less blood loss.

CONCLUSION

ER and LR are safe and effective treatments for SMT. For small intraluminally growing SMT, ER is better than LR.

Comparison of two methods for endoscopic full-thickness resection of gastrointestinal lesions using OTSC

Background and aims: The aim of this study was to compare and analyze the feasibility and safety of two methods of endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) for the management of challenging epithelial and subepithelial neoplasms that are not amenable to resection techniques.Material and methods: This was a retrospective case series study of patients who underwent one of two methods of EFTR, resection using ESD knives and post-resection closure with OTSC (Group 1), or closure with OTSC and secondary EFTR with snare (Group 2).Results: Of 11 patients, six were in Group 1 and five in Group 2. The mean time of the EFTR procedure was 76.83 ± 34.97 min in Group 1 which is significantly longer than that of Group 2 (p = .0128). The mean time of OSTC closure and length of hospital stay of Group 1 were also longer compared to Group 2, but the difference was not significant. Complete resection (R0) and technical success rates of Group 1 and Group 2 were 83.3% and 100% (p = .338), respectively. VAS scores of Group 1 immediately after the operation and after 24 h are significantly higher than those of Group 2 (p = .047 and p = .009, respectively). In Group 1, one patient had delayed perforation which led to fever and pneumoperitoneum, and one patient developed abdominal pain. No complications associated with the endoscopic procedure were observed in Group 2.Conclusion: EFTR of pre-resection closure are potentially faster compared with the concept of applying closure after EFTR. Larger prospective controlled studies comparing these two techniques are warranted in the future.

Clinical evaluation of endoscopic resection for treatment of large gastric stromal tumors

BACKGROUND

Gastric stromal tumor is a digestive tract mesenchymal tumor with malignant potential, and endoscopic techniques have been widely used in the treatment of gastric stromal tumors, but there is still controversy over their use for large gastric stromal tumors (≥ 3 cm).

AIM

To evaluate the clinical long-term efficacy and safety of endoscopic resection for large (≥ 3 cm) gastric stromal tumors.

METHODS

All patients who underwent endoscopic resection or surgery at our hospital from 2012 to 2017 for pathologically confirmed gastric stromal tumor with a maximum diameter of ≥ 3 cm were collected. The clinical data, histopathologic characteristics of the tumors, and long-term outcomes were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 261 patients were included, including 37 patients in the endoscopy group and 224 patients in the surgical group. In the endoscopy group, the maximum tumor diameter was 3-8 cm; the male: Female ratio was 21/16; 34 cases had low-risk tumors, 3 had intermediate-risk, and 0 had high-risk; the mean follow-up time was 30.29 ± 19.67 mo, no patient was lost to follow-up, and no patient received chemotherapy after operation; two patients with recurrence had low-risk stromal tumors, and neither had complete resection under endoscopy. In the surgical group, the maximum tumor diameter was 3-22 cm; the male: Female ratio was 121/103; 103 cases had low-risk tumors, 75 had intermediate-risk, and 46 had high-risk; the average follow-up time was 38.83 ± 21.50 mo, 53 patients were lost to follow-up, and 8 patients had recurrence after operation (6 cases had high-risk tumors, 1 had intermediate-risk, and 1 had low-risk). The average tumor volume of the endoscopy group was 26.67 ± 26.22 cm³ (3.75-120), all of which were less than 125 cm³. The average volume of the surgical group was 273.03 ± 609.74 cm³ (7-4114). Among all patients with a tumor volume < 125 cm³, 7 with high-risk stromal tumors in the surgical group (37.625 cm³ to 115.2 cm³) accounted for 3.8% (7/183); of those with a tumor volume < 125 cm³, high-risk patients accounted for 50% (39/78). We found that 57.1% (12/22) of patients with high-risk stromal tumors also had endoscopic surface ulcer bleeding and tumor liquefaction on ultrasound or abdominal computed tomography; the ratio of tumors positive for both in high-risk stromal tumors with a volume < 125 cm³ was 60% (3/5).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic treatment is safe for 95.5% of patients with gastric stromal tumors with a tumor diameter ≥ 3 cm and a volume of < 125 cm³ without endoscopic surface ulcer bleeding or CT liquefaction.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Resection of Small Bowel Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic resection (LAP) for small bowel gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) is not as common as for stomach. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LAP for small bowel GISTs with systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

The Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed databases before December 2016 were comprehensively searched to retrieve comparative trials of LAP and conventional open resection (OPEN) for GISTs of small bowel with a relevance of review object. These researches reported intraoperative and postoperative clinical course (operation time, blood loss, time to first flatus and oral intake, hospital stay, morbidity, and mortality), oncologic outcomes, and long-term survival status.

RESULTS

Six studies involving 391 patients were identified. Compared to OPEN, LAP had associated with a shorter operation time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -27.97 min, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -49.40--6.54, P < 0.01); less intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -0.72 ml; 95% CI: -1.30--0.13, P = 0.02); earlier time to flatus (WMD = -0.83 day; 95% CI: -1.44--0.22, P < 0.01); earlier time to restart oral intake (WMD = -1.95 days; 95% CI: -3.31--0.60, P < 0.01); shorter hospital stay (WMD = -3.00 days; 95% CI: -4.87--1.13, P < 0.01); and a decrease in overall complications (risk ratio = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.33-0.97, P = 0.04). In addition, the tumor recurrence and long-term survival rate showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

LAP for small bowel GISTs is a safe and feasible procedure with shorter operation time, less blood loss, less overall complications, and quicker recovery. Besides, tumor recurrence and the long-term survival rate are similar to open approach. Because of the limitations of this study, methodologically high-quality studies are needed for certain appraisal.

Endoscopic resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumors in the gastrointestinal tract, and about 60% of them are found in the stomach. With the widespread application of endoscopy and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), more and more gastric GISTs are being found in an early stage (with a relative small diameter and no metastasis), giving the chance of complete resection. Endoscopic resection such as endoscopic band ligation (EBL), endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD), endoscopic submucosal excavation (ESE), endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) and submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection (STER), is a minimally invasive method compared with the conventional surgical approaches (open or laparoscopic), and has been demonstrated to be safe and effective for treating gastric GISTs. This review summarizes the recent advances on endoscopic resection of gastric GISTs, aiming to provide a rational management strategy for gastric GISTs.

Endoscopic full thickness resection for gastric tumors originating from muscularis propria

AIM: To do systematic review of current literature for endoscopic full thickness resection (EFTR) technique for gastric tumors originating from muscularis propria.

METHODS: An extensive English literature search was done till December 2015; using PubMed and Google scholar to identify the peer reviewed original and review articles using keywords-EFTR, gastric tumor, muscularis propria. Human only studies were included. The references of pertinent studies were manually searched to identify additional relevant studies. The indications, procedural details, success rates, clinical outcomes, complications and limitations were considered. For the purpose of review, data from individual studies was combined to calculate mean. No other statistical test was applied.

RESULTS: A total of 9 original articles were identified. Four articles were from same institute and the time frames of these studies were overlapping. To avoid duplication of data, only the study with patients over the longest time interval was included and other three were excluded. In total six studies were included in the final review. In our systematic review, the mean success rate for EFTR of gastric tumors originating from muscularis propria was 96.8%. The mean procedure time varied from a minimum of 37 min to a maximum of 105 min. There was no reported mortality from the technique itself. The most common histological diagnosis was gastrointestinal stromal tumors and leiomyoma. Gastric wall defect closure by either metallic clips or over the scope clip (OTSC) had similar outcomes although experience with OTSC was limited to smaller lesions (< 3 cm).

CONCLUSION: EFTR is a minimally invasive technique to resect gastric submucosal tumors originating from muscularis propria with a high success rate and low complication rate.

Efficiency and safety of endoscopic resection in the management of subepithelial lesions of the stomach

BACKGROUND

Gastric subepithelial tumors represent a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge, given their histologic heterogeneity and potential malignant behavior.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this article is to evaluate the interest, efficiency and safety of endoscopic resection for subepithelial gastric lesions of size <20 mm.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center retrospective study in a tertiary care center.

RESULTS

A total of 33 lesions (10 malignant/23 benign lesions) were studied. Mean histological size was 14.5 mm. Nine EMR, 18 ESD and six hybrid resections were performed. A total of 93.9% lesions were resected in one piece. At six months' follow-up, complete and definitive resection was obtained in 96.7% of cases. A vertical resection was insufficient in four cases. One GIST needed a complementary surgical resection, one neuroendocrine tumor was successfully treated by a new ESD session and two pancreatic rests were not additionally treated given the benign character and the absence of residual tissue in endoscopic control after six months. There was only one severe adverse event (2.9%); one pneumoperitoneum with ESD, three bleeding with one ESD and two EMR, always treated conservatively or endoscopically.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic resection is safe and should be the procedure of choice for both diagnosis and definitive resection of subepithelial gastric lesions of size under 20 mm.