Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) compared to submucosal tunnel endoscopic resection (STER) for treatment of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors
Publication in refereed journal
CUHK Authors
Full Text
View Full-text in CUHK Digital Object Identifier (DOI) View Full-text in Publisher Website  |
Altmetrics Information
.
Other information
AbstractBackground and study aims Submucosal tunnel endoscopic resection (STER) is being increasingly performed for treatment of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), while STER has been limited by close dissection within tunnel and risking breach of tumor capsule. Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) allows resection of GIST with margins to prevent recurrence. This study aimed to compare EFTR against STER for treatment of gastric GIST.
Patients and methods We retrospectively reviewed clinical outcomes of patients with gastric GIST who received either STER or EFTR. Patients with gastric GISTs < than 4 cm were included. Clinical outcomes including baseline demographics, perioperative and oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups.
Results From 2013 to 2019, 46 patients with gastric GISTs were treated with endoscopic resection, 26 received EFTR and 20 received STER. Most of the GISTs were in the proximal stomach. There was no difference in operative time (94.9 vs 84.9 mins; P = 0.401), while endoscopic suturing was applied more for closure after EFTR (P < 0.0001). Patients after STER had earlier resumption of diet and shorter hospital stay while there was no difference in adverse event rate between two groups. The en-bloc resection rate for EFTR was significantly higher than for STER (100 % vs 80 %; P = 0.029), while there was no difference in the local recurrence.
Conclusions This study demonstrated that although patients who received EFTR had longer hospital stays and slower resumption of diet compared to those who underwent STER, EFTR achieved a significantly higher rate of en-bloc resection compared to STER for treatment of gastric GIST.
Patients and methods We retrospectively reviewed clinical outcomes of patients with gastric GIST who received either STER or EFTR. Patients with gastric GISTs < than 4 cm were included. Clinical outcomes including baseline demographics, perioperative and oncological outcomes were compared between the two groups.
Results From 2013 to 2019, 46 patients with gastric GISTs were treated with endoscopic resection, 26 received EFTR and 20 received STER. Most of the GISTs were in the proximal stomach. There was no difference in operative time (94.9 vs 84.9 mins; P = 0.401), while endoscopic suturing was applied more for closure after EFTR (P < 0.0001). Patients after STER had earlier resumption of diet and shorter hospital stay while there was no difference in adverse event rate between two groups. The en-bloc resection rate for EFTR was significantly higher than for STER (100 % vs 80 %; P = 0.029), while there was no difference in the local recurrence.
Conclusions This study demonstrated that although patients who received EFTR had longer hospital stays and slower resumption of diet compared to those who underwent STER, EFTR achieved a significantly higher rate of en-bloc resection compared to STER for treatment of gastric GIST.
All Author(s) ListPhilip Wai Yan Chiu, Hon Chi Yip, Shannon Melissa Chan, Stephen Ka Kei Ng, Anthony Yuen Bun Teoh, Enders Kwok Wai Ng
Journal nameEndoscopy International Open
Year2023
Month2
Volume Number11
Issue Number2
PagesE179 - E186
ISSN2364-3722
eISSN2196-9736
LanguagesEnglish-United Kingdom
