| Literature DB >> 19343179 |
Ulrich Ronellenfitsch1, Wilko Staiger, Georg Kähler, Philipp Ströbel, Matthias Schwarzbach, Peter Hohenberger.
Abstract
Background. Surgery remains the only curative treatment for gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST). Resection needs to ensure tumour-free margins while lymphadenectomy is not required. Thus, partial gastric resection is the treatment of choice for small gastric GISTs. Evidence on whether performing resection laparoscopically compromises outcome is limited. Methods. We compiled patients undergoing laparoscopic resection of suspected gastric GIST between 2003 and 2007. Follow-up was performed to obtain information on tumour recurrence. Results. Laparoscopic resection with free margins was performed in 21/22 patients. Histology confirmed GIST in 17 cases, 4 tumours were benign neoplasms. Median operation time and postoperative stay for GIST patients were 130 (range 80-201) mins and 7 (range 5-95) days. Two patients experienced stapler line leakage necessitating surgical revision. After median follow-up of 18 (range 1-53) months, no recurrence occurred. Conclusions. Laparoscopic resection of gastric GISTs yields good perioperative outcomes. Oncologic outcome needs to be assessed with longer follow-up. For posterior lesions, special precaution is needed. Laparoscopic resection could become standard for circumscribed gastric GISTs if necessary precautions for oncological procedures are observed.Entities:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19343179 PMCID: PMC2662319 DOI: 10.1155/2009/286138
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagn Ther Endosc ISSN: 1026-714X
Classification of aggressive behaviour of GISTs proposed by Fletcher et al. [4].
| Tumour size (largest diameter) | Mitotic count per 50 high power fields | |
|---|---|---|
| Very low risk | <2 cm | <5 |
|
| ||
| Low risk | 2–5 cm | <5 |
|
| ||
| Intermediate risk | <5 cm | 6–10 |
| 5–10 cm | <5 | |
|
| ||
| High risk | >10 cm | any number |
| any size | >10 | |
| >5 cm | >5 | |
Figure 1Endoscopic ink staining of tumour margins.
Perioperative and tumour characteristics of the patients.
| Patient | Sex | Age | Tumour localisation | Histology | Max. tumour diameter (cm) | Mitotic figures/50 HPF | Risk classification§ | Duration of surgery (minutes) | Postop. hospital stay | Postoperative morbidity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | m | 45 | fundus | GIST | 5 | <5 | low | 165 | 5 | none |
| 2 | m | 79 | fundus | GIST | 4 | 2 | low | 94 | 7 | none |
| 3* | f | 43 | anterior corpus | GIST | 0.8 | <5 | very low | 89 | 5 | none |
| 4 | f | 56 | greater curvature/ant. corpus | GIST | 1.7 | 5 | very low | 175 | 6 | none |
| 5 | f | 55 | lesser curvature | GIST | 5.4 | 2 | intermediate | 113 | 6 | none |
| 6 | m | 59 | posterior antrum | GIST | 3.5 | 3 | low | 161 | 95 | late stapler line leakage resulting in B-II-gastrectomy |
| 7 | f | 74 | lesser curvature | GIST | 2.1 | <5 | low | 130 | 7 | none |
| 8 | m | 45 | anterior antrum | GIST | 2.5 | 1 | low | 173 | 6 | none |
| 9 | f | 72 | greater curvature/post. corpus | GIST | 5.1 | <5 | intermediate | 333 | 12 | early stapler line leakage resulting in resuturing through laparotomy |
| 10 | f | 52 | anterior corpus | GIST | 2 | <2 | low | 125 | 6 | none |
| 11 | f | 46 | greater curvature/ant. corpus | GIST | 2.1 | 3 | low | 80 | 7 | none |
| 12 | f | 66 | antrum | GIST | 2.9 | 2 | low | 112 | 9 | none |
| 13 | m | 82 | lesser curvature | GIST | 10 | <5 | intermediate | 185 | 14 | none |
| 14 | m | 62 | posterior corpus | GIST | 2 | <2 | very low | 201 | 8 | none |
| 15 | m | 64 | anterior antrum | GIST | 6 | <5 | intermediate | 105 | 6 | none |
| 16* | f | 67 | lesser curvature | GIST | 1.8 | <5 | very low | 184 | 10 | none |
| 17$ | m | 66 | anterior corpus | GIST | 4 | n/a | n/a | 143 | 8 | none |
|
| ||||||||||
| median | n/a | 56 | n/a | n/a | 2.9 | n/a | n/a | 130 | 7 | n/a |
n/a: not applicable. *Additional cholecystectomy for cholecystolithiasis. Additional liver cyst deroofing. $Due to preoperative imatinib treatment classification of aggressive behaviour not possible. §see Table 1.
Results of the follow-up of operated patients.
| Patient | Sex | Age | Classification of aggressive behaviour§ | Follow-up (months) | Tumour recurrence, metastases or death at end of follow-up? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | m | 45 | low | 44 | no |
| 2 | m | 79 | low | 40 | no |
| 3 | f | 43 | very low | 18 | no |
| 4 | f | 56 | very low | 27 | no |
| 5 | f | 55 | intermediate | 23 | no |
| 6 | m | 59 | low | 14 | no |
| 7 | f | 74 | low | 9 | no |
| 8 | m | 45 | low | 6 | no |
| 9 | f | 72 | intermediate | 6 | no |
| 10 | f | 52 | low | 53 | no |
| 11 | f | 46 | low | 10 | no |
| 12 | f | 66 | low | 12 | no |
| 13 | m | 82 | intermediate | 46 | no |
| 14 | m | 62 | very low | 47 | no |
| 15 | m | 64 | intermediate | 18 | no |
| 16 | f | 67 | very low | 1 | no |
| 17$ | m | 66 | intermediate/high | 5 | no |
|
| |||||
| median | n/a | 59 | n/a | 18 | n/a |
n/a: not applicable; §see Table 1; $received preoperative imatinib treatment. Aggressive behaviour classified based on pre-treatment staging.