ArticleSurgical endoscopy2025
Development and validation of an intraoperative perforation prediction scoring system for endoscopic resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a risk prediction model for piecemeal resection during endoscopic resection of gastric GISTs.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- A novel risk-scoring system based on endoscopic ultrasound and clinical characteristics for the preoperative diagnosis of small gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic resection (ER) is a minimally invasive treatment for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (gGISTs), but intraoperative perforation risk remains a significant concern. Currently, no validated tools exist to preoperatively identify high-risk patients. This study aimed to develop and validate a practical scoring system for predicting intraoperative perforation during ER of gGISTs.
methodsA multi-center retrospective study analyzed 1,124 patients undergoing ER for gGISTs, divided into training (n = 496), internal validation (n = 212), and external validation cohorts (n = 416). Independent risk factors for intraoperative perforation were identified through univariate and multivariate logistic regression and weighted by regression coefficients to construct the scoring system. Model performance was assessed using the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).
resultsIntraoperative perforation occurred in 463 patients (41.2%). Three independent predictors were identified: tumor location (gastric fundus, 2 points), size (≥ 2.0 cm, 2 points), and growth pattern (intraluminal-dominant, 1 point; extraluminal-dominant, 3 points). The scoring system demonstrated strong discrimination, with AUCs of 0.805 (internal validation) and 0.811 (external validation). Accuracy was 0.726 and 0.805, respectively. Risk stratification revealed intraoperative perforation rates of 8.3% (low-risk: 0-1 points), 38.5% (intermediate-risk: 2-3 points), and 80.0% (high-risk: 4-7 points) in the internal validation cohort, and 4.8%, 36.6%, and 85.5% in the external validation cohort.
conclusionThis novel scoring system, incorporating tumor location, size, and growth pattern, reliably stratifies intraoperative perforation risk prior to ER for gGISTs. It offers clinicians a practical tool to optimize patient selection and procedural planning, potentially improving safety outcomes. Further prospective studies are warranted to validate its clinical utility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.