Laparoscopic versus open resection for gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Table 2 Summary of the available data about recurrence patterns and survival outcomes

Case	Group	Risk	Recurrence	Survival	Case	Group	Risk	Recurrence	Survival	Case	Group	Risk	Recurrence	Survival
[21]	LAP	High	NR	Dead	[26]	OPEN	NR	NR	Dead	[31]	OPEN	High	6 m Liver	52 m Alive^a
[21]	OPEN	High	NR	14 m Dead	[27]	OPEN	High	Local	Dead^b	[31]	OPEN	High	9 m Liver	75 m Alive^a
[22]	LAP	High	Liver	32 m Dead	[27]	OPEN	High	Local	Alive^a	[31]	OPEN	High	21 m Liver	16y Dead^a
[22]	OPEN	High	Liver	9 m Dead	[27]	OPEN	High	Liver	Alive^a	[36]	OPEN	High	52 m Peritoneal	Dead^a
[22]	LAP	Low	Local	Alive	[27]	OPEN	High	Multiple	Alive^a	[36]	OPEN	High	60 m Liver	Alive
[24]	LAP	Low	33 m Local	Alive	[29]	LAP	High	Peritoneal	4 y Alive	[36]	OPEN	High	6 m Colon	Dead^a
[24]	OPEN	High	7 m Peritoneal	Alive	[29]	OPEN	Moderate	Liver	10 y Alive	[36]	LAP	High	31 m Stomach	Alive
[24]	OPEN	High	53 m Local	Alive	[31]	OPEN	High	4 m Liver	28 m Dead^a	[36]	OPEN	High	15 Peritoneal	Dead^a
[24]	OPEN	High	37 m Liver	Alive	[31]	OPEN	High	10 m Liver	Alive^a	[39]	OPEN	High	11 m Liver	59 m Alive
[24]	OPEN	High	15 m Multiple^d	Alive	[31]	OPEN	High	42 m Liver	46 m Dead^a,c

LAP, laparoscopic surgery; m: month; NR, not reported; OPEN, open surgery; y: year.
^atreated with imatinib; ^bdue to cardiac insufficiency; ^cdue to lung cancer; ^dincluded liver and local recurrence.

ISSN: 1477-7819