Comparison of safety and short-term outcomes between endoscopic and laparoscopic resections of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors with a diameter of 2-5 cm

Comparable long‑term survival outcomes of endoscopic treatment versus surgical treatment for gastrointestinal stromal tumors with a diameter of 5-10 cm

Currently, endoscopic treatment for small gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) has been widely accepted. However, for tumors larger than 5 cm, endoscopic treatment has not been recognized by national guidelines as the standard therapy due to concerns about safety and adverse tumor outcomes. Therefore, this study compares the long-term survival outcomes of endoscopic treatment and surgical treatment for GIST in the range of 5-10 cm. We selected patients with GIST from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database between 2004 and 2015. Kaplan-Meier analysis and the log-rank test were employed to compare the long-term survival outcomes between endoscopic treatment and surgical treatment. A multivariate Cox proportional hazards model was used for analysis to identify risk factors influencing patient prognosis. To balance baseline data, we performed 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM). A total of 1223 GIST patients were included, with 144 patients (11.8%) received endoscopic treatment and 1079 patients (88.2%) received surgical treatment. Before PSM, there was no significant difference in the long-term survival rates between the two groups [5-year OS (86.5% vs. 83.5%, P = 0.42), 10-year OS (70.4% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.42)]. After adjusting for covariates, we found that the overall survival (HR = 1.26, 95% CI 0.89-1.77, P = 0.19) and cancer-specific survival (HR = 1.69, 95% CI 0.99-2.89, P = 0.053) risks were comparable between the endoscopic treatment group and the surgical treatment group. In the analysis after PSM, there was no significant difference between the endoscopic treatment group and the surgical treatment group. Our study found that for GIST patients with tumor sizes between 5 and 10 cm, the long-term OS and CSS outcomes were similar between the endoscopic treatment group and the surgical treatment group.

Development and validation of a prognostic model to predict the prognosis of patients with colorectal gastrointestinal stromal tumor: A large international population-based cohort study

Background

Colorectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), mesenchymal malignancy, only accounts for about 6% of GISTs, but prognosis is generally poor. Given the rarity of colorectal GISTs, the prognostic values of clinicopathological features in the patients remain unclear. Nomograms can provide a visual interface to help calculate the predicted probability of a patient meeting a specific clinical endpoint and communicate it to the patient.

Methods

We included a total of 448 patients with colorectal GISTs diagnosed between 2000 and 2019 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. For nomogram construction and validation, patients in the SEER database were divided randomly into the training cohort and internal validation cohort at a ratio of 7:3, while 44 patients with colorectal GISTs from our hospital patient data set between 2010 to 2016 served as the external validation cohort. The OS curves were drawn using the Kaplan–Meier method and assessed using the log-rank test. And, Fine and Gray’s competing-risks regression models were conducted to assess CSS. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses to select prognostic factors for survival time and constructed a predictive nomogram based on the results of the multivariate analysis.

Results

Through univariate and multivariate analyses, it is found that age, primary site, SEER stage, surgery, and tumor size constitute significant risk factors for OS, and age, primary site, histological grade, SEER stage, American Joint Committee for Cancer (AJCC) stage, surgery, and tumor size constitute risk factors for CSS. We found that the nomogram provided a good assessment of OS and CSS at 1-, 3- and 5- year in patients with colorectal GISTs. The calibration plots for the training, internal validation and external validation cohorts at 1-, 3- and 5- year OS and CSS indicated that the predicted survival rates closely correspond to the actual survival rates.

Conclusion

We constructed and validated an unprecedented nomogram to predict OS and CSS in patients with colorectal GISTs. The nomogram had the potential as a clinically predictive tool for colorectal GISTs prognosis, and can be used as a potential, objective and additional tool for clinicians in predicting the prognosis of colorectal GISTs patients worldwide. Clinicians could wield the nomogram to accurately evaluate patients’ OS and CSS, identify high-risk patients, and provide a baseline to optimize treatment plans.

Laparoscopic resection is not superior to endoscopic resection for relative small gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A propensity score-matched study

Background and Aim

Endoscopic resection (ER) and laparoscopic resection (LAP) have been recommended for the treatment of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) less than 2 cm. However, the therapeutic approach for gastric GISTs between 2 and 5 cm in diameter is still under debate. In this retrospective study, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of ER for gastric GISTs (2–5 cm) compared with LAP.

Methods

From January, 2011 to January, 2018, 197 patients with GISTs at our institution with tumor diameter between 2 and 5 cm were included in our study. Clinical baseline characteristics, histopathological results, and perioperative outcomes were collected and compared in all the patients. Propensity score matching (PSM) methods were used to balance baseline characteristics.

Results

There was no significant difference in age (p = 0.246), gender (p = 0.572), tumor location (p = 0.333), pathological risk classification (p = 0.543), Ki-67 index (p = 0.212), and follow-up time (p = 0.831) in the ER and LAP groups. However, significance difference was found in times to liquid diet intake (4.45 ± 1.2 vs. 5.40 ± 1.5 days, p = 0.013) and hospital stays (7.72 ± 1.1 vs. 10.01 ± 1.3 days, p < 0.001). During the follow-up period, there was one recurrence in the ER group vs. two recurrences in the LAP group. After PSM, the tumor size was balanced between the two groups with 49 patients in each group. The times to liquid diet intake (4.18 ± 1.3 vs. 5.16 ± 1.6 days, p = 0.042) and hospital stay days (7.12 ± 1.1 vs. 9.94 ± 1.3, p < 0.0001) were still short in the ER group.

Conclusions

ER is more associated with a quick postoperative recovery than LAP. ER could be an alternative approach for gastric GISTs (2–5 cm). However, the long-term follow-up outcomes are still unclear and random control trials are needed.