Objective To investigate clinical and pathological features of gastrointestinal stromal tumors,the frequency and type of mutation of c-kit and platelet-derived growth factor receptor α (PDGFRA)genes.Methods 340 patients underwent surgical resection and diagnosed as gastrointestinal stromal tumors by postoperative pathology from Junuary 2012 to December 2014 were enrolled,and their tumor tissues were collected.The direct sequencing method was applied to detect the mutation status of c-kit gene (exon 9,11,13 and 17) and PDGFRA gene (exon12 and 18).Results There were 138 males and 192 females,and their median age was 58 years old (37-81 years old).There were 178 patients (52.4 ％) with gastric stromal tumors,21 cases (6.2 ％) with duodenal stromal tumors,82 cases (24.1％) with small intestinal stromal tumor,10 cases (2.9 ％) with colon stromal tumor,15 cases (4.4 ％) with rectal stromal tumors,30 cases (8.8 ％) with parenteral stromal tumor (from the peritoneum,mesentery,retroperitoneum or attachment),4 cases (1.2 ％) of liver tissues (gene detection tissues from the liver biopsy or surgical resection specimens).In the mutation analysis of all 340 patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor,the total mutation rate was 89.4 ％ (304/340),including 81.2 ％ (276 cases) of c-kit,8.2 ％ (28 cases) of PDGFR and 10.6 ％ (36 cases) of wild type.Among 125 cases underwent the detection of the gene mutation sequences,there were 49 cases of exon11 deletion mutation,4 cases of exon11 insertion mutation,12 cases of exon 11 missense mutation,8 cases of exon9 insertion mutation,1 case of 3xon13 missense mutation,1 case of exon17 missense mutation,24 cases of exon12 synonymous mutation and 20 cases of exon18 synonymous mutation.Conclusions Gene detection is becoming more and more obvious in predicting the therapeutic effect of molecular targeted therapy,the mechanism of drag resistance and the clinical treatment,c-kit exon11 mutation is one of the most common gene mutation types related to the choice of targeted medicine.

Objective To analyze the clinicopathological features of gastric stromal tumor with primary gastrointestinal carcinoma.Methods 469 cases of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) from January 2011 to December 2014 admitted to PLA General Hospital were retrospectively analyzed.Gastric stromal tumor patients with primary gastrointestinal carcinoma were screened.The concomitant gastrointestinal cancer site,stromal tumor size,mitotic activity,immunohistochemistry were also detected.Results The gastric stromal tumor with primary gastrointestinal carcinoma accounted for 14.7 ％ (69/469) of all the GIST,in which the small gastric stromal tumor accounted for 65.2 ％ (45/69) of the total and 9.59 ％ (45/469) of all the GIST.The diameter of all tumors was ＜ 5 cm,and the mitotic was ＜ 5/50 HPF.The positive rates of CD117,CD34,DOG-1 were 92.8 ％ (64/69),92.8 ％ (64/69),94.1％ (65/69).The Fletcher was classified as low-risk and extreme low-risk.Conclusions Gastric stromal tumor with primary gastrointestinal carcinoma has no specific clinical features and pathological immunohistochemical markers.Its malgnant degree is lower than GIST.Its prognosis is associated with primary gastrointestinal cancer staging.

Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy of radiofrequency ablation and liver resection in the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumor liver metastasis.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted, collecting medical records of 46 patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor liver metastasis treated at the First Medical Center of the Chinese People′s Liberation Army General Hospital from January 2018 to December 2022. Patients were divided into radiofrequency ablation group ( n=20) and liver resection group ( n=26) based on the treatment method. Short-term efficacy and long-term prognosis between the two groups were compared. Short-term efficacy was evaluated based on intraoperative bleeding volume, operative time, hospital stay, hospitalization costs, while long-term efficacy was assessed by progression-free survival and overall survival. Normally distributed measurement data were expressed as mean±standard deviation ( ± s) and compared using the t-test. Non-normally distributed measurement data were expressed as M( Q1, Q3) and compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Count data were expressed as frequency (%) and compared using the chi-square test. The long-term prognosis of patients in both groups was compared using the Kaplan-Meier curve. Results:The intraoperative blood loss, operative time, postoperative hospital stay, and hospitalization costs for the radiofrequency ablation group were 5 (3, 5) mL, 60 (55, 60) min, 4.0 (3.0, 4.0) d, and 4.6 (3.8, 5.3) ten thousand yuan, respectively; for the liver resection group, these were 100 (50, 275) mL, 180 (155, 215) min, 7.0 (4.5, 9.5) d, and 8.6 (6.1, 10.8) ten thousand yuan, respectively, with statistically significant differences between the two groups( P<0.05). The median progression-free survival for the liver resection group was 37 months, with 1 and 3-year progression-free survival rates of 96% and 50%, respectively. For the radiofrequency ablation group, the median progression-free survival was 20.5 months, with 1 and 3-year progression-free survival rates of 65% and 20%, respectively, showing statistically significant differences between the two groups ( P<0.05). The 1, 3, and 5-year overall survival rates for the liver resection group were 100%, 100%, and 78.3%, respectively, while for the radiofrequency ablation group, they were 100%, 100%, and 82.2%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference ( P>0.05). Conclusions:Both liver resection and radiofrequency ablation can be considered as treatment options for gastrointestinal stromal tumor liver metastasis, with comparable long-term efficacy. Liver resection has a clear advantage in terms of local tumor control compared to radiofrequency ablation, which has the advantages of fewer complications, faster recovery, and shorter hospital stay.

Objective:To compare the efficacy between laparoscopy and open surgery for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) larger than 2 cm.Methods:A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed. Inclusion criteria: long diameter of primary gastric GIST > 2 cm; undergoing laparoscopy or open surgery; diagnosis confirmed by postoperative pathology without distant metastasis; without preoperative targeted therapy. Clinicopathological data of 857 gastric GIST patients, including 320 in PLA General Hospital, 284 in Shanghai Renji Hospital, 175 in Wuhan Union Hospital and 78 in Tianjin Cancer Hospital, from January 2010 to May 2017 were retrospectively collected. There were 418 males and 439 females, mainly aged between 50 and 70 years old. Among 857 patients, 413 were in the laparoscopy group and 444 in the open group. The nearest neighbor matching of propensity score matching method was conducted with 1:1 matching based on tumor location and size between laparoscopy and open group to obtain samples of covariate equilibrium, and the caliper value was 0.04. The t test, χ 2 test and Wilcoxon rank test were used to compare short-term efficacy, and the Kaplan-Meier curve and log rank test were applied to compare long-term outcomes between the two groups. Results:After propensity score matching, laparoscopy group and open group both enrolled 293 cases. The baseline data, including age, gender, tumor location, tumor long diameter, NIH classification, etc. were not significantly different between the two groups (all P>0.05). Compared with the open group, the laparoscopy group had less intraoperative blood loss [<100 ml: 2.9% (155/293) vs. 36.2% (106/293), Z=-12.857, P<0.001], shorter time to postoperative feeding [(4.0±0.2) days vs. (5.3±0.9) days, t=1.505, P=0.003] and to the removal of drainage tube [(4.8±1.0) days vs. (6.5±1.0) days, t=1.847, P=0.008], and shorter postoperative hospital stay [(8.6±0.3) days vs. (10.5±0.3) days, t=4.235, P<0.001]. Subgroups analysis according to anatomical location: (1) Gastric cardia and pylorus: there were no statistically significant differences in perioperative parameters between the two groups (all P>0.05). (2) Stomach base: feeding time after surgery [(4.0±0.2) days vs. (4.5±0.2) days, t=0.512, P=0.038], drainage tube removal time [(5.1±0.4) days vs. (6.4±0.6) days, t=0.517, P=0.044], postoperative hospital stay [(8.0±0.5) days vs. (11.1±0.9) days, t=0.500, P=0.002] were all significantly shorter in the laparoscopy group as compared to the open group, while the differences in other perioperative parameters were not statistically significant (all P>0.05). (3) Lesser curvature of the stomach: the laparoscopy group had less intraoperative blood loss [<100 ml ratio: 58.1% (43/74) vs. 33.7% (25/74), Z=7.632, P=0.034], shorter gastric tube removal time [(2.7±0.2) days vs. (3.2±0.3) days, t=0.503, P=0.007], earlier postoperative passage of gas [(2.8±0.1) days vs. (3.4±0.2) days, t=0.532, P=0.030], earlier postoperative feeding [(3.6±0.2) days vs. (4.3±0.2) days, t=0.508, P=0.020], shorter drainage tube removal time [(4.2±0.4) days vs. (5.7±0.5) days, t=0.508, P=0.020] and postoperative hospital stay [(8.3±0.6) days vs. (10.7±0.3) days, t=0.502, P=0.006] as compared to the open group. (4) Great curvature of the stomach: the laparoscopy group presented less intraoperative blood loss [<100 ml ratio: 52.7% (39/74) vs. 36.5% (27/74), Z=7.681, P=0.032], earlier gastric tube removal [(2.6±0.2) days vs. (3.6±0.2) days, t=0.501, P=0.001], earlier postoperative passage of gas [(2.7±0.2) days vs. (3.4±0.2) days, t=0.501, P=0.016], earlier postoperative feeding [(3.6±0.2) days vs. (4.7±0.2) days, t=0.500, P=0.001], shorter drainage tube removal time [(4.0±0.5) days to (5.9±0.4) days, t=0.508, P=0.002] and postoperative hospital stay [(7.5±0.3) days to (9.5±0.1) days, t=0.500, P=0.001] than the open group. Subgroup analysis according to tumor size: (1) Tumor long diameter 2.0-5.0 cm: the laparoscopy group had earlier passage of gas [(2.9±0.1) days vs. (3.5±0.1) days, t=0.500, P=0.001], earlier postoperative feeding [(4.5±0.1) days vs. (5.0±0.2) days, t=0.501, P=0.013], shorter drainage tube removal time [(4.8±0.3) days vs. (6.0±0.3) days, t=0.511, P=0.008] and postoperative hospital stay [(8.1±0.4) days to (10.1±0.3) days, t=0.513, P=0.001] than the open group. (2) Tumor long diameter 5.1-10.0 cm: in the laparoscopic group, postoperative feeding time [(4.0±0.2) days vs. (4.7±0.2) days, t=0.506, P=0.015], drainage tube removal time [(4.6±0.4) days vs. (6.4±0.5)) days, t=0.501, P=0.004], postoperative hospital stay [(8.2±0.3) days vs. (10.9±0.6) days, t=0.500, P=0.001] were all shorter than those in the open group. No intraoperative and postoperative complications were observed in each group. The 5-year recurrence-free survival rates of the laparoscopy group and the open group were 95.4% and 91.6%, respectively ( P=0.734), and the 5-year overall survival rates were 93.8% and 90.8% ( P=0.691), respectively, and the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions:In experienced medical centers, laparoscopic surgery for gastric GIST larger than 2 cm is safe and feasible, and can achieve comparable efficacy with open surgery. For gastric GISTs which do not locate in the greater curvature and the anterior wall of the stomach, and whose long diameter is ≤5 cm, laparoscopic surgery does not increase the risk of recurrence and metastasis, and can accelerate postoperative recovery.

Objective:To compare the efficacy between laparoscopy and open surgery for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) larger than 2 cm.Methods:A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed. Inclusion criteria: long diameter of primary gastric GIST > 2 cm; undergoing laparoscopy or open surgery; diagnosis confirmed by postoperative pathology without distant metastasis; without preoperative targeted therapy. Clinicopathological data of 857 gastric GIST patients, including 320 in PLA General Hospital, 284 in Shanghai Renji Hospital, 175 in Wuhan Union Hospital and 78 in Tianjin Cancer Hospital, from January 2010 to May 2017 were retrospectively collected. There were 418 males and 439 females, mainly aged between 50 and 70 years old. Among 857 patients, 413 were in the laparoscopy group and 444 in the open group. The nearest neighbor matching of propensity score matching method was conducted with 1:1 matching based on tumor location and size between laparoscopy and open group to obtain samples of covariate equilibrium, and the caliper value was 0.04. The t test, χ 2 test and Wilcoxon rank test were used to compare short-term efficacy, and the Kaplan-Meier curve and log rank test were applied to compare long-term outcomes between the two groups. Results:After propensity score matching, laparoscopy group and open group both enrolled 293 cases. The baseline data, including age, gender, tumor location, tumor long diameter, NIH classification, etc. were not significantly different between the two groups (all P>0.05). Compared with the open group, the laparoscopy group had less intraoperative blood loss [<100 ml: 2.9% (155/293) vs. 36.2% (106/293), Z=-12.857, P<0.001], shorter time to postoperative feeding [(4.0±0.2) days vs. (5.3±0.9) days, t=1.505, P=0.003] and to the removal of drainage tube [(4.8±1.0) days vs. (6.5±1.0) days, t=1.847, P=0.008], and shorter postoperative hospital stay [(8.6±0.3) days vs. (10.5±0.3) days, t=4.235, P<0.001]. Subgroups analysis according to anatomical location: (1) Gastric cardia and pylorus: there were no statistically significant differences in perioperative parameters between the two groups (all P>0.05). (2) Stomach base: feeding time after surgery [(4.0±0.2) days vs. (4.5±0.2) days, t=0.512, P=0.038], drainage tube removal time [(5.1±0.4) days vs. (6.4±0.6) days, t=0.517, P=0.044], postoperative hospital stay [(8.0±0.5) days vs. (11.1±0.9) days, t=0.500, P=0.002] were all significantly shorter in the laparoscopy group as compared to the open group, while the differences in other perioperative parameters were not statistically significant (all P>0.05). (3) Lesser curvature of the stomach: the laparoscopy group had less intraoperative blood loss [<100 ml ratio: 58.1% (43/74) vs. 33.7% (25/74), Z=7.632, P=0.034], shorter gastric tube removal time [(2.7±0.2) days vs. (3.2±0.3) days, t=0.503, P=0.007], earlier postoperative passage of gas [(2.8±0.1) days vs. (3.4±0.2) days, t=0.532, P=0.030], earlier postoperative feeding [(3.6±0.2) days vs. (4.3±0.2) days, t=0.508, P=0.020], shorter drainage tube removal time [(4.2±0.4) days vs. (5.7±0.5) days, t=0.508, P=0.020] and postoperative hospital stay [(8.3±0.6) days vs. (10.7±0.3) days, t=0.502, P=0.006] as compared to the open group. (4) Great curvature of the stomach: the laparoscopy group presented less intraoperative blood loss [<100 ml ratio: 52.7% (39/74) vs. 36.5% (27/74), Z=7.681, P=0.032], earlier gastric tube removal [(2.6±0.2) days vs. (3.6±0.2) days, t=0.501, P=0.001], earlier postoperative passage of gas [(2.7±0.2) days vs. (3.4±0.2) days, t=0.501, P=0.016], earlier postoperative feeding [(3.6±0.2) days vs. (4.7±0.2) days, t=0.500, P=0.001], shorter drainage tube removal time [(4.0±0.5) days to (5.9±0.4) days, t=0.508, P=0.002] and postoperative hospital stay [(7.5±0.3) days to (9.5±0.1) days, t=0.500, P=0.001] than the open group. Subgroup analysis according to tumor size: (1) Tumor long diameter 2.0-5.0 cm: the laparoscopy group had earlier passage of gas [(2.9±0.1) days vs. (3.5±0.1) days, t=0.500, P=0.001], earlier postoperative feeding [(4.5±0.1) days vs. (5.0±0.2) days, t=0.501, P=0.013], shorter drainage tube removal time [(4.8±0.3) days vs. (6.0±0.3) days, t=0.511, P=0.008] and postoperative hospital stay [(8.1±0.4) days to (10.1±0.3) days, t=0.513, P=0.001] than the open group. (2) Tumor long diameter 5.1-10.0 cm: in the laparoscopic group, postoperative feeding time [(4.0±0.2) days vs. (4.7±0.2) days, t=0.506, P=0.015], drainage tube removal time [(4.6±0.4) days vs. (6.4±0.5)) days, t=0.501, P=0.004], postoperative hospital stay [(8.2±0.3) days vs. (10.9±0.6) days, t=0.500, P=0.001] were all shorter than those in the open group. No intraoperative and postoperative complications were observed in each group. The 5-year recurrence-free survival rates of the laparoscopy group and the open group were 95.4% and 91.6%, respectively ( P=0.734), and the 5-year overall survival rates were 93.8% and 90.8% ( P=0.691), respectively, and the differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions:In experienced medical centers, laparoscopic surgery for gastric GIST larger than 2 cm is safe and feasible, and can achieve comparable efficacy with open surgery. For gastric GISTs which do not locate in the greater curvature and the anterior wall of the stomach, and whose long diameter is ≤5 cm, laparoscopic surgery does not increase the risk of recurrence and metastasis, and can accelerate postoperative recovery.