Endoscopic full-thickness resection vs surgical resection for gastric stromal tumors: Efficacy and safety using propensity score matching.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Si-Qiao Zhao, Si-Yao Wang, Nan Ge, Jin-Tao Guo, Xiang Liu, Guo-Xin Wang, Lei Su, Si-Yu Sun, Sheng Wang
{"title":"Endoscopic full-thickness resection <i>vs</i> surgical resection for gastric stromal tumors: Efficacy and safety using propensity score matching.","authors":"Si-Qiao Zhao, Si-Yao Wang, Nan Ge, Jin-Tao Guo, Xiang Liu, Guo-Xin Wang, Lei Su, Si-Yu Sun, Sheng Wang","doi":"10.4240/wjgs.v17.i3.101002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is increasingly used for treating gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) in the stomach.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the efficacy, tolerability, and clinical outcomes of EFTR <i>vs</i> surgical resection (SR) for gastric GISTs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We collected clinical data from patients diagnosed with GISTs who underwent either EFTR or SR at our hospital from October 2011 to July 2024. Patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio based on baseline characteristics and tumor clinical-pathological features using propensity score matching. We analyzed perioperative outcomes and follow-up data. The primary outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 912 patients, 573 met the inclusion criteria. After matching, each group included 95 patients. The EFTR group demonstrated statistically significant advantages over the SR group in average operative time (<i>P</i> < 0.001), length of hospital stay (<i>P</i> < 0.001), time to resume liquid diet (<i>P</i> < 0.001), incidence of adverse events (<i>P</i> = 0.031), and hospitalization costs (<i>P</i> < 0.001). The <i>en bloc</i> resection rate was significantly different, with SR group at 100% and EFTR group at 93.7% (<i>P</i> = 0.038). The median follow-up was 2451.50 days. Recurrence occurred in 3 patients in the EFTR group and 4 patients in the SR group, with no statistically significant difference (<i>P</i> = 1.000). Factors associated with PFS included age, tumor size, high-risk category in the modified National Institutes of Health (NIH) risk score, and resection status. Resection status was identified as an independent prognostic factor for PFS (<i>P</i> = 0.0173, hazard ratios = 0.0179, 95%CI: 0.000655-0.491). Notably, there was no statistically significant difference in PFS between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study is a non-inferiority design. The EFTR group significantly outperformed the SR group in terms of operative time, length of hospital stay, time to resume a liquid diet, incidence of adverse events, and hospitalization costs, demonstrating its higher economic efficiency and better tolerability. Additionally, although the <i>en bloc</i> resection rate was lower in the EFTR group compared to the SR group, there were no significant differences in tumor recurrence rates and progression-free survival between the two groups. This study found no statistical difference in the primary endpoint of postoperative recurrence rates between the two groups. However, due to sample size limitations, this result requires further validation in larger-scale studies. The current results should be viewed as exploratory evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":23759,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","volume":"17 3","pages":"101002"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11948126/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4240/wjgs.v17.i3.101002","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is increasingly used for treating gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) in the stomach.

Aim: To compare the efficacy, tolerability, and clinical outcomes of EFTR vs surgical resection (SR) for gastric GISTs.

Methods: We collected clinical data from patients diagnosed with GISTs who underwent either EFTR or SR at our hospital from October 2011 to July 2024. Patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio based on baseline characteristics and tumor clinical-pathological features using propensity score matching. We analyzed perioperative outcomes and follow-up data. The primary outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS).

Results: Out of 912 patients, 573 met the inclusion criteria. After matching, each group included 95 patients. The EFTR group demonstrated statistically significant advantages over the SR group in average operative time (P < 0.001), length of hospital stay (P < 0.001), time to resume liquid diet (P < 0.001), incidence of adverse events (P = 0.031), and hospitalization costs (P < 0.001). The en bloc resection rate was significantly different, with SR group at 100% and EFTR group at 93.7% (P = 0.038). The median follow-up was 2451.50 days. Recurrence occurred in 3 patients in the EFTR group and 4 patients in the SR group, with no statistically significant difference (P = 1.000). Factors associated with PFS included age, tumor size, high-risk category in the modified National Institutes of Health (NIH) risk score, and resection status. Resection status was identified as an independent prognostic factor for PFS (P = 0.0173, hazard ratios = 0.0179, 95%CI: 0.000655-0.491). Notably, there was no statistically significant difference in PFS between the two groups.

Conclusion: This study is a non-inferiority design. The EFTR group significantly outperformed the SR group in terms of operative time, length of hospital stay, time to resume a liquid diet, incidence of adverse events, and hospitalization costs, demonstrating its higher economic efficiency and better tolerability. Additionally, although the en bloc resection rate was lower in the EFTR group compared to the SR group, there were no significant differences in tumor recurrence rates and progression-free survival between the two groups. This study found no statistical difference in the primary endpoint of postoperative recurrence rates between the two groups. However, due to sample size limitations, this result requires further validation in larger-scale studies. The current results should be viewed as exploratory evidence.

内镜下全层切除与手术切除胃间质瘤:使用倾向评分匹配的疗效和安全性。
背景:内镜下全层切除术(EFTR)越来越多地用于治疗胃胃肠道间质瘤(gist)。目的:比较EFTR与手术切除(SR)治疗胃胃肠道间质瘤的疗效、耐受性和临床结果。方法:收集2011年10月至2024年7月在我院接受EFTR或SR治疗的诊断为gist的患者的临床资料。根据基线特征和肿瘤临床病理特征,采用倾向评分匹配,以1:1的比例匹配患者。我们分析围手术期结果和随访数据。主要结局指标为无进展生存期(PFS)。结果:912例患者中,573例符合纳入标准。配对后,每组95例。EFTR组在平均手术时间(P < 0.001)、住院时间(P < 0.001)、恢复流质饮食时间(P < 0.001)、不良事件发生率(P = 0.031)、住院费用(P < 0.001)等方面均优于SR组,具有统计学意义。整体切除率SR组为100%,EFTR组为93.7%,差异有统计学意义(P = 0.038)。中位随访时间为2451.50天。EFTR组复发3例,SR组复发4例,差异无统计学意义(P = 1.000)。与PFS相关的因素包括年龄、肿瘤大小、美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)风险评分中的高危类别和切除情况。切除情况被确定为PFS的独立预后因素(P = 0.0173,风险比= 0.0179,95%CI: 0.000655-0.491)。值得注意的是,两组患者的PFS无统计学差异。结论:本研究为非劣效性设计。EFTR组在手术时间、住院时间、恢复流质饮食时间、不良事件发生率、住院费用等方面均明显优于SR组,表现出更高的经济效益和更好的耐受性。此外,尽管EFTR组的整体切除率低于SR组,但两组之间的肿瘤复发率和无进展生存期没有显著差异。本研究发现两组术后复发率的主要终点无统计学差异。然而,由于样本量的限制,这一结果需要在更大规模的研究中进一步验证。目前的结果应被视为探索性证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
5.00%
发文量
111
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信