Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Wu H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8479163 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEndoscopic 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.MethodsPubMed, 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.ResultsFifteen 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.ConclusionESR 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.

Project description:BackgroundDespite 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.MethodsThe 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionsIn 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.