Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours (GIST) of the Rectum: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) have many treatment options, but uncertainty remains regarding the best treatment regimen for this rare pathology. The aim of this review is to assess the optimal management approach including timing of chemotherapy. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant articles comparing the impact of radical vs. local excision, and neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant therapy had on outcomes in the management of rectal GISTs. We specifically evaluated the influence that the aforementioned factors had on margins, recurrence, overall survival, 5-year disease-free survival, and hospital length of stay. Results: Twenty-eight studies met our predefined criteria and were included in our study, twelve of which were included in the quantitative synthesis. When comparing neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy, our meta-analysis noted no significance in terms of margin negativity (R0) (odds ratio [OR] 2.01, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7−5.79, p = 0.20) or recurrence rates (OR 0.22, 95% CI, 0.02−1.91, p = 0.17). However, there was a difference in overall 5-year survival in favour of neoadjuvant therapy (OR 3.19, 95% CI, 1.37−7.40, * p = 0.007). Comparing local excision versus radical excision, our meta-analysis observed no significance in terms of overall 5-year survival (OR1.31, 95% CI, 0.81−2.12, p = 0.26), recurrence (OR 0.67, 95% CI, 0.40−1.13, p = 0.12), or 5-year disease-free survival (OR 1.10, 95% CI, 0.55−2.19, p = 0.80). There was a difference in length of hospital stay with a reduced mean length of stay in local excision group (mean difference [MD] 6.74 days less in the LE group; 95% CI, −6.92−−6.56, * p =< 0.00001) as well as a difference in R0 rates in favour of radical resection (OR 0.68, 95% CI, 0.47−0.99, * p = 0.05). Conclusion: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved overall 5-year survival, while local excision is associated with reduced mean length of hospital stay. Further large-volume, prospective studies are required to further define the optimal treatment regimen in this complex pathology.

Trans-anal surgery with the taTME technique for rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

Rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) surgery is often challenging owing to the anatomical constraints of the narrow pelvis and tumor hugeness. Despite the increasing number of patients undergoing trans-anal total mesorectal excision (taTME) globally, the feasibility of trans-anal surgery with the taTME technique for rectal GISTs remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of trans-anal surgery with the taTME technique for rectal GISTs.

METHODS

Using a prospectively collected database, we retrospectively analyzed the clinical findings, surgical outcomes, pathological outcomes, urinary and anal functions, and prognoses of patients who underwent trans-anal surgery with the taTME technique for primary rectal GISTs at the National Cancer Center Hospital East from September 2014 to March 2020.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients with primary rectal GISTs were included in this study. The median distance from the anal verge to the lower edge of the tumor was 40 mm (range, 15-60 mm), and the median tumor size was 59 mm (range, 11-175 mm). Moreover, seven and 14 patients underwent one-team and two-team surgeries, respectively, with curative intent. Nineteen patients (90.5%) underwent anus-preserving surgery, and the urinary tracts were preserved in all cases. Two-team surgery showed a significantly lower blood loss volume and shorter operation time than one-team surgery (58 vs. 222 mL, P = 0.017; 184 vs 356 min, P = 0.041, respectively). The pathological negative-margin resection rate was 100%. During the follow-up period, no patient developed local GIST recurrence and one (4.8%) developed distant metastasis.

CONCLUSION

Trans-anal surgery with the taTME technique is feasible for rectal GISTs, and two-team surgery may be more advantageous than one-team surgery in terms of operation time and blood loss.