Endoscopic Treatment for Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors in the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract

Exploration of a new method for Photoshop-assisted endoscopic ultrasound to distinguish gastrointestinal stromal tumor and leiomyoma

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) and leiomyomas (GILs) are difficult to be distinguished by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). Photoshop software combined with EUS has limitations in distinguishing GIST and GIL by detecting gray values. Therefore, the research aims to explore the new method by Photoshop in distinguishing the features of GISTs from GILs.

METHODS

Patients who underwent EUS and were confirmed as GIST and GIL pathologically were included. The images of EUS were analyzed by Photoshop software. The mean gray value of tumor (Tmean), muscularis propria (Mmean), submucosa (Smean), water (Wmean) and T_SD that originated from the same image, were calculated one by one. Then the ratio of the mean gray value of tumor to muscularis propria (TMratio), submucosa (TSratio), and water (TWratio) were calculated, respectively.

RESULTS

Four hundred seventy-two patients (239 GILs and 233 GISTs) were enrolled in this study retrospectively. All the tumors were located in the stomach. Tmean and T_SD were significantly higher in GISTs than in the GILs group (63.10 ± 23.29 vs. 57.70 ± 22.67, p = .011; 26.24 ± 8.99 vs. 24.30 ± 8.26, p = .015). TMratio, TSratio, and TWratio were also significantly higher in GISTs group (0.97 ± 0.37 vs. 0.81 ± 0.28, p < .001; 0.42 ± 0.14 vs. 0.38 ± 0.12, p < .001; 2.65 ± 1.36 vs. 2.16 ± 1.02, p < .001). The AUC of Tmean was 0.952 (95% CI 0.897-1.000), which can better distinguish GIST from GIL; the sensitivity was 0.900, the specificity was 0.975, and the Youden Index was 0.875, and the cutoff was 79.64. The AUCs of TMratio, TSratio, and TWratio were 0.917 (95% CI 0.844-0.991), 0.897 (95% CI 0.812-0.981), and 0.929 (95% CI 0.8870-0.987), respectively. The aforementioned data was verified in the clinical cases of known results, including 40 GISTs and 40 GILs. The sensitivity of Tmean, TMratio, TSratio, and TWratio for diagnosis of GIL was 97.5%, 82.5%, 95%, and 97.5%, respectively. And they were 62.5%, 95%, 80%, and 92.5% for GIST.

CONCLUSION

The application of Photoshop combined with EUS to detect the gray value and standard deviation has a specific value in distinguishing GIST from GIL, but with some deviation. Applying the gray value ratio also has great discrimination significance and can avoid the differences in operation from different instrument and equipment personnel. Therefore, it is worthy of clinical promotion in the future.

On the Track of New Endoscopic Alternatives for the Treatment of Selected Gastric GISTs-A Pilot Study

Background and Objectives: GISTs (Gastrointestinal stromal tumors) are the most common mesenchymal gastrointestinal tract tumours and are mainly located in the stomach. Their malignant potential depends on size, location, and type. Endoscopic techniques are a less invasive modality for patients not eligible for surgery. ESD (endoscopic submucosal dissection) is mainly used for the removal of smaller GISTs, with intraluminal growth and a more superficial location. Thus, R0 resection capability in some cases may be not sufficient, limited by tumour size, location in the gastric wall, and its connection level with the muscularis propria. In such cases, an endoscopic full-thickness resection can become a new alternative. In this retrospective pilot study, we evaluated ESD and hybrid resection techniques in terms of safety, efficacy, and disease recurrence for selected types of gastric GISTs. Materials and Methods: A retrospective comparison was conducted in a group of patients who underwent ESD or a hybrid technique combining endoscopic resection with endoscopic suturing using the OverStitch system (HT) for type II or III gastric GISTs. A total of 21 patients aged 70 ± 8 years underwent endoscopic resection. Seventeen lesions were treated with ESD and four with the HT. Results: R0 resection was achieved in all patients treated using HT (type III lesions) and in 53% of those treated with ESD (p = 0.08). None of the type III lesions treated with ESD were excised with R0. Lesions treated with R0 ESD resections were significantly smaller (1.76 ± 0.35 cm) than those with R1 ESD resections (2.39 ± 0.40 cm) (p < 0.01). The mean lesion size treated with the HT was 2.88 ± 0.85 cm. Conclusions: HT may be a new resection modality for large gastric GISTs with high muscularis propria connection grades. Further studies are required to evaluate its safety and efficacy and to form precise inclusion criteria for endoscopic resection techniques.