Comparison of endoscopic full-thickness resection and cap-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection in the treatment of small (≤1.5 cm) gastric GI stromal tumors,Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

当前位置： X-MOL 学术 › Gastrointest. Endosc. › 论文详情

Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)

Comparison of endoscopic full-thickness resection and cap-assisted endoscopic full-thickness resection in the treatment of small (≤1.5 cm) gastric GI stromal tumors
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ( IF 7.7 ) Pub Date : 2021-11-01 , DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.10.026
Jinping Yang ₁ , Muhan Ni ₂ , Jingwei Jiang ₂ , Ximei Ren ₂ , Tingting Zhu ₂ , Shouli Cao ₃ , Shahzeb Hassan ₄ , Ying Lv ₂ , Xiaoqi Zhang ₂ , Yongyue Wei ₅ , Lei Wang ₂ , Guifang Xu ₆

Affiliation

Background and Aims

With the increasing incidence of small GI stromal tumors (GISTs), endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) and cap-assisted EFTR (EFTR-C) have been suggested as 2 effective resection methods. We aimed to compare the outcomes of EFTR and EFTR-C for the treatment of small (≤1.5 cm) gastric GISTs.

Methods

This retrospective study included 67 patients who underwent EFTR and 46 patients who underwent EFTR-C at Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital. Clinicopathologic features, adverse events (AEs), and outcomes were compared between the 2 groups. Univariate and multivariate linear and logistic regressions were used to analyze the effects of the procedure on the therapeutic outcomes of patients and adjusted for covariates in the multivariate analysis.

Results

The tumor size in the EFTR group tended to be larger (P = .005). The resection time in the EFTR-C group was shorter than that in the EFTR group (38.3 ± 20.7 minutes vs 15.0 ± 11.8 minutes, P < .001), which retained statistical significance with adjustment for the covariates (adjusted mean difference, 22.2; 95% confidence interval, 15.0-29.4; P < .001). The R0 resection rate of the EFTR group was 94.0% and of the EFTR-C group 97.8% (P = .355). The EFTR-C group was superior to the EFTR group in terms of perioperative therapeutic outcomes, AEs, and postoperative recovery. No recurrence occurred in the EFTR and EFTR-C groups.

Conclusions

EFTR-C was found to be the preferable technique for small (≤1.5 cm) gastric GISTs with shorter operation times, lower AEs, faster postoperative recovery, and shorter hospitalization times as compared with EFTR.

中文翻译：

内镜下全层切除与帽辅助内镜下全层切除治疗小（≤1.5 cm）胃胃肠间质瘤的比较

背景和目标

随着小 GI 间质瘤 (GIST) 发病率的增加，内镜全层切除术 (EFTR) 和帽辅助 EFTR (EFTR-C) 已被建议作为 2 种有效的切除方法。我们旨在比较 EFTR 和 EFTR-C 治疗小（≤1.5 cm）胃 GIST 的结果。

方法

这项回顾性研究包括在南京鼓楼医院接受 EFTR-C 的 67 例患者和 46 例接受 EFTR-C 的患者。比较两组的临床病理学特征、不良事件（AE）和结局。单变量和多变量线性和逻辑回归用于分析程序对患者治疗结果的影响，并在多变量分析中调整协变量。

结果

EFTR 组的肿瘤大小往往更大（P = .005）。EFTR-C 组的切除时间短于 EFTR 组（38.3 ± 20.7 分钟 vs 15.0 ± 11.8 分钟，P < .001），在调整协变量（调整均数差，22.2； 95% 置信区间，15.0-29.4；P < .001）。EFTR 组的 R0 切除率为 94.0%，EFTR-C 组为 97.8% ( P = .355)。EFTR-C 组在围手术期治疗结果、AE 和术后恢复方面优于 EFTR 组。EFTR 和 EFTR-C 组没有复发。