Open versus minimally invasive management of gastric GIST: An international multi-institutional analysis of short- and long-term outcomes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
85 Background: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) are the most common mesenchymal tumors of the GI tract. Overall surgical experience with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has increased, however, published reports on MIS resection of GIST are currently limited to small, single institution experiences. Methods: 397 patients who underwent surgical resection of a gastric GIST between 1998 and 2012 were identified from an international, multi-center database. The impact of the MIS approach on recurrence and survival was analyzed by the use of propensity-score matching by comparing clinicopathologic factors between patients who underwent open vs MIS resection. Results: Median patient age was 65 years and 50% were female. Median tumor size was 4.3cm (IQR 3.0-7.6cm). A minority of patients received neoadjuvant therapy (6%). Overall, 186 (47%) patients had a MIS approach: laparoscopic (89%), laparoscopic hand assist (4%), combined laparo-endoscopic (3%) and robotic (4%). There were 19 (10%) conversions to open; the most common reasons for conversion were tumor more extensive than anticipated (26%) and unclear anatomy (16%). Patients who underwent MIS resections had smaller tumors (MIS: 3.5cm vs open: 5.8cm; p<0.01). MIS resections were associated with minimal blood loss (MIS: 50 cc vs open: 225 cc) and shorter operative time (MIS: 160 min vs open: 201 min) (both p<0.01). There was no difference in rates of tumor rupture (MIS: 1.1% vs open: 0.9%; p=0.81). An R0 resection was achieved in the majority of patients (MIS: 98% vs open: 92%; p=0.07). MIS patients had a lower incidence of grade 3 or 4 complications (MIS: 3% vs open: 10%; p=0.01) and a shorter length of stay (MIS: 3d vs open: 8d; p<0.01). After propensity score matching for age, sex, tumor size, mitotic rate and tumor rupture, there was no difference in risk of recurrence or overall survival for the MIS treated group vs. the open group (HR 0.65 & HR 0.76, respectively; both p>0.05). Conclusions: An MIS approach for gastric GIST is associated with a low incidence of complications and a comparable R0 resection rate. The long-term oncological outcome following MIS is excellent and therefore the MIS approach should be considered preferable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".