Abstract
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends conservative follow-up for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) less than 2 cm. We have previously reported that the mitotic index of 22.22% of small gastric GISTs exceeded 5 per 50 high-power fields and recommended that all small gastric GISTs should be resected once diagnosed. The aim of the present study is to compare the safety and outcomes of endoscopic and open resection of small gastric GISTs. From May 2010 to March 2014, a total of 90 small gastric GIST patients were enrolled in the present study, including 40 patients who underwent surgical resection and 50 patients who underwent endoscopic resection. The clinicopathological characteristics, resection-related factors, and clinical outcomes were recorded and analyzed. The clinicopathological characteristics were comparable between the two groups except for tumor location and DOG-1 expression. Compared with the surgical resection group, the operation time was shorter (P = .000), blood loss was less (P = .000), pain intensity was lower (P < .05), duration of first flatus and defecation was shorter (P < .05), and medical cost of hospitalization was lower (P = .027) in the endoscopic resection group. The complications and postoperative hospital stay were comparable between the two groups. No in situ recurrence or liver metastasis was observed during follow-up. Endoscopic resection of small gastric GISTs is safe and feasible compared with surgical resection, although perforation could not be totally avoided during and after resection. The clinical outcome of endoscopic resection is also favorable.
Introduction
Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumor of the gastrointestinal tract [1] and are believed to originate from the interstitial cells of Cajal, the pacemaker cells of the gastrointestinal tract [2]. GISTs can occur anywhere throughout the gastrointestinal tract; the most common locations are the stomach, small intestine, duodenum, and colorectum. Rare cases have been reported out of the gastrointestinal tract [3].
According to the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline [4], gastric GISTs less than 2 cm and with a mitotic index less than 5 per 50 high-power fields (HPF) are considered as very low risk, and conservative follow-up is suggested for small gastric GISTs [5]. However, it is believed that small gastric GISTs also have malignant potential, and we have previously reported that the mitotic index of 14 out of 63 small gastric GISTs (22.22%) exceeded 5 per 50 HPF [6]. Moreover, it was reported that the size of small gastric GISTs increased significantly during follow-up [7], and one case of small gastric GIST showed rapid growth and early metastasis to the liver [8].
Given this situation, we proposed that small gastric GISTs should be resected immediately once diagnosed. However, little is known about the safety and clinical outcomes between endoscopic resection and surgical resection for small gastric GISTs. Thus, the present study was carried out to investigate the safety and clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection in comparison to surgical resection for small gastric GISTs.
Materials and Methods
Patients
This study was performed in the Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases affiliated to the Fourth Military Medical University. From May 2010 to March 2014, a total of 90 patients were enrolled in the present study, including 40 small gastric GIST patients who underwent surgical resection and 50 small gastric GIST patients who underwent endoscopic resection. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Xijing Hospital, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients before surgical or endoscopic resection.
Resection Procedures
For the surgical resection group, all patients received general anesthesia with tracheal intubation. The procedure started with a traditional left side transrectus upper abdominal incision. The incisal margin was 2 cm beyond the tumor margin, and frozen slices of the incisal margin were performed during surgery. The detailed operation method depended on the location of tumor. For the endoscopic resection group, all patients received intravenous anesthesia. Marking dots were made with hook knife 3 mm outside the tumor margin. A 10% glycerin solution containing epinephrine (0.005 mg/ml) was injected into the submucosal layer. The tumor was completely separated from the surrounding normal tissue using a needle knife, and squeezed out of the gastric wall without rupture. Clips were used to close the incision to avoid bleeding and perforation. All the endoscopic resections and surgical resections were performed by skilled doctors (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
Endoscopic and surgical resection of small gastric GISTs. (A) Endoscopic view of small gastric GIST with intragastric type pattern. (B) Endoscopic resection of small gastric GIST. (C) Gastric perforation occurred during endoscopic resection. (D) Perforation was closed with clips after endoscopic resection. (E and F) Surgical resection of small gastric GISTs.
Pathology
All the specimens after surgical or endoscopic resection were treated routinely for histologic examination in the Pathology Department in the Xijing Hospital of digestive diseases. Histological type and mitotic index were detected by hematoxylin and eosin stain. Immunohistochemistry was performed on 3-μm sections according to the manufacturer's instructions and the following antibodies: CD117, CD34, DOG-1, and Ki67.
Follow-Up
The patients after resection were followed up through endoscopic ultrasound and computed tomography every 6 months to evaluate tumor recurrence and distant metastasis.
Data Collection
We recorded the preoperative data including age, gender, tumor location, tumor ulceration, tumor bleeding, tumor margin, growth type, and tumor size. The pathological characteristics including histological type, intratumoral bleeding, intratumoral necrosis, mitotic index, Ki-67, CD117, CD34, and DOG-1 were also recorded. The surgical and endoscopic resection–related data including operation time, blood loss, first flatus, first defecation, pain intensity, postoperative hospital stay, medical cost of hospitalization, and postoperative complications were also recorded. Pain intensity was evaluated from postoperative day (POD) 1 to POD 3 using a visual analog scale.
Statistical Analysis
Data were processed using SPSS 16.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Numerical variables were expressed as the mean ± SD unless otherwise stated. Discrete variables were analyzed using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test. The P values were considered to be statistically significant at the 5% level.
Results
The clinical and pathological characteristics were comparable between the two groups except for tumor location and DOG-1 expression (Table 1). Compared with the surgical resection group, the operation time was shorter (113.60 ± 14.02 vs 50.00 ± 4.96 minutes, P = .000), blood loss was less (56.67 ± 9.77 vs 2.96 ± 0.48 ml, P = .000), and medical cost of hospitalization was lower (32,600.39 ± 2267.51¥ vs 27,210.46 ± 869.62¥, P = .027) in the endoscopic resection group. The patients in the endoscopic resection group also showed significantly accelerated recovery of gastrointestinal function in terms of time to first flatus and first defecation (P < .05).The postoperative hospital stay was comparable between the two groups (Table 2). Visual analog scale analysis showed that pain intensity of patients in the endoscopic resection group was significantly lower than that of patients in the surgical resection group on POD 1 to 3 (P < .05) (Table 3).
Table 1.
Comparison of Clinicopathological Characteristics between Two Groups
| Characteristics | Surgical Resection | Endoscopic Resection | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | |||
| ≤ 60 | 18 | 28 | .300 |
| > 60 | 22 | 22 | |
| Gender | |||
| Male | 25 | 24 | .170 |
| Female | 15 | 26 | |
| Tumor location | |||
| Cardia | 4 | 4 | .018 |
| Fundus | 9 | 27 | |
| Body | 23 | 17 | |
| Antrum | 4 | 2 | |
| Tumor ulceration | |||
| Yes | 8 | 2 | .021 |
| No | 32 | 48 | |
| Tumor bleeding | |||
| Yes | 2 | 0 | .195 |
| No | 38 | 50 | |
| Tumor margin | |||
| Regular/smooth | 37 | 48 | .652 |
| Irregular | 3 | 2 | |
| Growth type | |||
| Intracavity | 38 | 50 | .195 |
| Extracavity | 2 | 0 | |
| Histological type | |||
| Spindle | 40 | 50 | – |
| Epithelioid | 0 | 0 | |
| Mixed | 0 | 0 | |
| Intratumoral bleeding | |||
| Yes | 1 | 0 | .444 |
| No | 39 | 50 | |
| Intratumoral necrosis | |||
| Yes | 1 | 0 | .444 |
| No | 39 | 50 | |
| Mitotic index | |||
| ≤ 5 | 31 | 41 | .596 |
| > 5 | 9 | 9 | |
| Ki-67 | |||
| ≤ 5 | 37 | 46 | 1.000 |
| > 5 | 3 | 4 | |
| CD117 | |||
| Positive | 38 | 50 | .195 |
| Negative | 2 | 0 | |
| CD34 | |||
| Positive | 38 | 50 | .195 |
| Negative | 2 | 0 | |
| DOG-1 | |||
| Positive | 34 | 50 | .006 |
| Negative | 6 | 0 |
Table 2.
Comparison of Perioperative Characteristics between Two Groups.
| Characteristics | Surgical Resection | Endoscopic Resection | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Operation time (min) | 113.60 ± 14.02 | 50.00 ± 4.96 | .000 |
| Blood loss (ml) | 56.67 ± 9.77 | 2.96 ± 0.48 | .000 |
| First flatus | 62.43 ± 7.67 | 42.29 ± 5.27 | .034 |
| First defecation | 78.37 ± 9.48 | 53.06 ± 6.28 | .029 |
| Postoperative hospital stay (day) | 5.87 ± 0.29 | 5.80 ± 0.30 | .883 |
| Medical cost of hospitalization (RMB) | 32600.39 ± 2267.51 | 27210.46 ± 869.62 | .027 |
Table 3.
Comparison of Postoperative Pain Intensity between Two Groups
| Time | Surgical Resection | Endoscopic Resection | P Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| POD1 | 3.154 ± 0.154 | 0.551 ± 0.131 | < .001 |
| POD2 | 1.941 ± 0.135 | 0.184 ± 0.063 | < .001 |
| POD3 | 1.231 ± 0.122 | 0.102 ± 0.044 | < .001 |
The overall complication rate in the surgical resection group was 5.00% compared with 12% in the endoscopic resection group (P = .292). In the surgical resection group, two patients (5.00%) suffered from pneumonia. In the endoscopic resection group, three patients (6.00%) experienced perforation and suffered from fever after resection; the fever of two patients was controlled by antibiotics, and the remaining patient underwent reoperation because of abdominal infection. One patient (2.00%) in the endoscopic resection group experienced tardive postoperative hemorrhage 1 month after resection, and the hemorrhage was controlled by conservative treatment (Table 4). All the patients after surgical resection and endoscopic resection were followed up using endoscopic ultrasound and abdominal computed tomographic examination. The median follow-up time was 32 months (range from 12 to 65 months), and no in situ recurrence or liver metastasis was observed during follow-up.
Table 4.
Comparison of Postoperative Complications between Two Groups
| Surgical Resection | Endoscopic Resection | P Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total cases | 2 | 6 | .292 |
| Pneumonia | 2 | 0 | .195 |
| Abdominal infection | 0 | 1 | 1.000 |
| Gastric retention | 0 | 0 | |
| Perforation and fever | 0 | 3 | .251 |
| Postoperative hemorrhage | 0 | 1 | 1.000 |
| Deep-vein thrombosis | 0 | 0 | |
| Ileus | 0 | 0 | |
| R1 resection | 0 | 0 | |
| Reoperation | 0 | 1 | 1.000 |
| Mortality | 0 | 0 |
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the safety and clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection of small gastric GISTs in comparison with conventional surgical resection. The data of the present study showed that the endoscopic resection group had shorter operation time, less intraoperative blood loss, shorter time to first flatus and defecation, lower postoperative pain intensity, and lower cost of hospitalization. The complications in the two groups are comparable, and no recurrence and distant metastasis were observed in the endoscopic resection group.
The National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends that small gastric GISTs less than 2 cm can be conservatively followed up [9]. However, every GIST is now regarded as potentially malignant, including small gastric GISTs. It was reported that the tumor size of small gastric GISTs could increase significantly during follow-up [10], and our previous study showed that the mitotic index of approximately 22.22% of small gastric GISTs exceed 5 mitotic figures per 50 HPF [6]. This highlights the fact that even if the gastric GIST is small, the tumor could show rapid growth, potential for metastasis, and poor prognosis. Thus, resection of small gastric GIST should be taken into consideration once diagnosed.
Up to now, surgery is the main treatment of GISTs, and complete surgical resection with an adequate margin and without rupture and spillage remains the definitive treatment for gastric GISTs [11]. As lymphatic metastasis is rare in gastric GISTs and with the rapid advances in the development of minimally invasive technology and endoscopic skill, there are more choices for treatment of local GISTs, including laparoscopic resection [12], endoscopic resection [13], and combination of laparoscopic and endoscopic resection [14]. Previously, it was thought that endoscopic resection was not appropriate for GIST considering that GIST originated from the muscular layer. However, endoscopic resection of GIST has been accepted for its satisfied safety and outcome [15]. Compared with surgical resection, endoscopic resection has many advantages, such as an intact stomach after resection, a relatively short postoperative hospital stay, a relatively low cost of hospitalization, and fewer human resources required [16]. Moreover, endoscopic resection has more advantages for elderly patients and patients who could not tolerate surgical resection or patients with small size tumors. In our present study, the endoscopic resection group had shorter operation time, less blood loss, earlier flatus and defecation, lower pain intensity, and lower medical cost. However, endoscopic resection remains controversial because of major complications including perforation and bleeding. Furthermore, the risk of tumor rupture and spillage and positive margins is also a huge concern [17].
Perforation is a common and important complication in endoscopic resection [18]. The direction of tumor growth is one of the reasons that result in perforation. It was reported that the perforation rate was 73.68% in extracavity growth type and 18% in intracavity growth type [19]. The location of the gastric GISTs is another factor that contributed to perforation. It was reported that the rate of perforation was higher for the fundus than for other location [20]. In our present study, intraoperative perforation occurred in 17 patients, which was closed well using titanium clips with no conversion to open surgery. Only 3 of 17 patients suffered from fever after endoscopic resection due to application of antibiotics. Unfortunately, one patient suffered from tardive perforation and abdominal infection 1 month after endoscopic resection and finally received open surgery for perforation repair. Perforation is usually accompanied by pseudocapsule injury, which increases the possibility of peritoneal seeding, and peritoneal seeding is accompanied by a high recurrence rate. Waterman et al. reported a case of a patient who underwent endoscopic resection of small gastric GIST resulting in incomplete excision and gastric perforation, and the patient had tumor recurrence in the pelvis 3 years later [21]. However, to date, no comparative data with surgical resection about long-term follow-up exist.
Bleeding is also a common complication after endoscopic resection, and severe postoperative bleeding sometimes needs reoperation. In our present study, one patient after endoscopic resection experienced tardive postoperative hemorrhage 1 month after resection, and the hemorrhage was controlled by conservative treatment. R1 resection is another important issue which should be paid enough attention to. There have been no data showing whether or not there was remnant GIST tissue at dissection surface when R1 resection was confirmed through pathological examination [22]. Although there is no evidence that patients who have positive microscopic margin require further resection [23] and several studies have shown that a microscopically positive margin was not a significant adverse factor [24], one of the latest studies reported that a 5.8% local recurrence was observed even though R0 resection was achieved [16]. In our present study with limited follow-up, no in situ recurrence was observed in patients who received endoscopic resection.
Small GISTs normally do not recur after surgical removal of tumor, and the prognosis of small GISTs is generally good [25]. According to expert consensus, most of the small gastric GISTs are extremely low risk or low risk based on National Institutes of Health risk factor classification; therefore, imatinib was unnecessary after resection [26]. Thus, none of the patients in our study were administered with imatinib after resection, and no in situ recurrence or liver metastasis was observed with the median follow-up of 32 months. However, Shen et al. reported that one patient of small gastric GIST after surgical resection and one patient after endoscopic resection experienced recurrence or liver metastasis at 23 and 31 months [27]. It should also be noticed that the exact duration of follow-up is uncertain because of the limited existing experience on the endoscopic resection of small gastric GSITs. A 5-year follow-up may be appropriate according to surgery follow-up duration.
There are some limitations in the present study. First, it was a retrospective analysis, and the sample size was not big enough. A randomized controlled trial should be carried out to evaluate the safety and prognosis of small gastric GIST patients who underwent endoscopic resection. Second, the duration of follow-up was not long enough to evaluate in situ recurrence and liver metastasis. Third, no patients received adjuvant therapy with imatinib after resection. The necessity of adjuvant therapy with imatinib after resection of small gastric GISTs needed further investigation.
In summary, endoscopic resection of small gastric GISTs is safe and feasible compared with surgical resection, although perforation could not be totally avoided during and after resection. The clinical outcome of endoscopic resection is also favorable.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks are extended to the participating patients and to Guangchun Ge for the polish of the article.
Footnotes
This study was supported in part by grants from the National Natural Scientific Foundation of China (31100643, 31570907, 81572306, 81502403 and XJZT12Z03).
Conflict of interest: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
References
- 1.Mikami T, Nemoto Y, Numata Y, Hana K, Nakada N, Ichinoe M, Murakumo Y, Okayasu I. Small gastrointestinal stromal tumor in the stomach: identification of precursor for clinical gastrointestinal stromal tumor using c-kit and alpha-smooth muscle actin expression. Hum Pathol. 2013;44:2628–2635. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2013.07.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Rubin BP. Gastrointestinal stromal tumours: an update. Histopathology. 2006;48:83–96. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2005.02291.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Patil DT, Rubin BP. Gastrointestinal stromal tumor: advances in diagnosis and management. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135:1298–1310. doi: 10.5858/arpa.2011-0022-RA. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.von Mehren M, Benjamin RS, Bui MM, Casper ES, Conrad EU, 3rd, DeLaney TF, Ganjoo KN, George S, Gonzalez R, Heslin MJ. Soft tissue sarcoma, version 2.2012: featured updates to the NCCN guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2012;10:951–960. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2012.0099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Casali PG, Jost L, Reichardt P, Schlemmer M, Blay JY. Gastrointestinal stromal tumours: ESMO clinical recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2009;20(Suppl. 4):64–67. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdp131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Yang JJ, Feng F, Li MB, Sun L, Hong L, Cai L, Wang WZ, Xu GH, Zhang HW. Surgical resection should be taken into consideration for the treatment of small gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors. World J Surg Oncol. 2013;11:273. doi: 10.1186/1477-7819-11-273. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Fang YJ, Cheng TY, Sun MS, Yang CS, Chen JH, Liao WC, Wang HP. Suggested cutoff tumor size for management of small EUS-suspected gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Formos Med Assoc. 2012;111:88–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jfma.2011.01.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Tanaka J, Oshima T, Hori K, Tomita T, Kim Y, Watari J, Oh K, Hirota S, Matsumoto T, Miwa H. Small gastrointestinal stromal tumor of the stomach showing rapid growth and early metastasis to the liver. Dig Endosc. 2010;22:354–356. doi: 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2010.01032.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Demetri GD, von Mehren M, Antonescu CR, DeMatteo RP, Ganjoo KN, Maki RG, Pisters PW, Raut CP, Riedel RF, Schuetze S. NCCN Task Force report: update on the management of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2010;8(Suppl. 2):S1–S44. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2010.0116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Sekine M, Imaoka H, Mizuno N, Hara K, Hijioka S, Niwa Y, Tajika M, Tanaka T, Ishihara M, Ito S. Clinical course of gastrointestinal stromal tumor diagnosed by endoscopic ultrasound–guided fine-needle aspiration. Dig Endosc. 2015;27:44–52. doi: 10.1111/den.12333. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Iwahashi M, Takifuji K, Ojima T, Nakamura M, Nakamori M, Nakatani Y, Ueda K, Ishida K, Naka T, Ono K. Surgical management of small gastrointestinal stromal tumors of the stomach. World J Surg. 2006;30:28–35. doi: 10.1007/s00268-005-7944-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ohtani H, Maeda K, Noda E, Nagahara H, Shibutani M, Ohira M, Muguruma K, Tanaka H, Kubo N, Toyokawa T. Meta-analysis of laparoscopic and open surgery for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Anticancer Res. 2013;33:5031–5041. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Serrano C, George S. Recent advances in the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2014;6:115–127. doi: 10.1177/1758834014522491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Vecchio R, Marchese S, Spataro L, Ferla F, Intagliata E. Combined laparoscopic and endoscopic excision of a gastric gist. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:3501–3502. doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-2983-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Bai J, Wang Y, Guo H, Zhang P, Ling X, Zhao X. Endoscopic resection of small gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Dig Dis Sci. 2010;55:1950–1954. doi: 10.1007/s10620-010-1168-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Kim HH. Endoscopic treatment for gastrointestinal stromal tumor: advantages and hurdles. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;7:192–205. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i3.192. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Davila RE, Faigel DO. GI stromal tumors. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:80–88. doi: 10.1067/mge.2003.317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Jeong IH, Kim JH, Lee SR, Kim JH, Hwang JC, Shin SJ, Lee KM, Hur H, Han SU. Minimally invasive treatment of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: laparoscopic and endoscopic approach. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2012;22:244–250. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0b013e31825078f2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Zhang JS, Ye LP, Wang CY, Lin MH. Endoscopic submucosal enucleation of small gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors with cross-shaped incision: report of sixty-nine cases. Hepatogastroenterology. 2012;59:440–443. doi: 10.5754/hge11783. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Jeong ID, Jung SW, Bang SJ, Shin JW, Park NH, Kim DH. Endoscopic enucleation for gastric subepithelial tumors originating in the muscularis propria layer. Surg Endosc. 2011;25:468–474. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1195-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Waterman AL, Grobmyer SR, Cance WG, Hochwald SN. Is endoscopic resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors safe? Am Surg. 2008;74:1186–1189. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Ye LP, Zhang Y, Mao XL, Zhu LH, Zhou X, Chen JY. Submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection for small upper gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors originating from the muscularis propria layer. Surg Endosc. 2014;28:524–530. doi: 10.1007/s00464-013-3197-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Demetri GD, Benjamin RS, Blanke CD, Blay JY, Casali P, Choi H, Corless CL, Debiec-Rychter M, DeMatteo RP, Ettinger DS. NCCN Task Force report: management of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST)—update of the NCCN clinical practice guidelines. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2007;5:S1–S30. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Sullivan MC, Sue G, Bucholz E, Yeo H, Bell RH, Jr, Roman SA, Sosa JA. Microscopically positive margins for primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors: analysis of risk factors and tumor recurrence. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;215:53–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2012.05.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Huang WH, Feng CL, Lai HC, Yu CJ, Chou JW, Peng CY, Yang MD, Chiang IP. Endoscopic ligation and resection for the treatment of small EUS-suspected gastric GI stromal tumors. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:1076–1081. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.12.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Huang Z, Li Y, Zhao H, Zhao JJ, Cai JQ. Prognositic factors and clinicopathologic characteristics of small gastrointestinal stromal tumor of the stomach: a retrospective analysis of 31 cases in one center. Cancer Biol Med. 2013;10:165–168. doi: 10.7497/j.issn.2095-3941.2013.03.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Shen C, Chen H, Yin Y, Chen J, Han L, Zhang B, Chen Z, Chen J. Endoscopic versus open resection for small gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: safety and outcomes. Medicine (Baltimore) 2015;94:e376. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000376. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]