In general, schwannoma is a benign and slow-glowing neoplasm that rarely occurs in the gastrointestinal tract as a submucosal tumor (SMT), with the most common site being the stomach. As gastric schwannoma (GS) is a rare tumor, there is limited data in the literature about its clinical features. The diagnosis of schwannoma can only be made by pathological examination with positive staining for S-100 protein. It is necessary to obtain an accurate diagnosis to introduce optimal treatment options preoperatively. However, a precise diagnosis of GS is difficult, even with modern imaging techniques. On the other hand, a complete resection with a negative surgical margin (R0) of GS is considered the best treatment, with an excellent prognosis. We present a case of a 66-year-old female patient who underwent laparoscopic-assisted wedge gastrectomy for gastric SMT, pathologically diagnosed as GS, with positive staining for S-100 protein and negative for c-kit and CD34. At 12-month follow-up after surgery, there was no recurrence or metastasis of GS. Our treatment is appropriate and effective in case of GS exceeding 50 mm.

In general, schwannoma is a benign neurogenic tumor originating from Schwann cells. It is slow growing and enfolds the axons of the peripheral nerves. Theoretically, schwannoma can develop anywhere along the peripheral course of the nerve. However, it commonly occurs in the head or neck, and rarely in the gastrointestinal tract, where the most common site is the stomach.

Gastric schwannoma (GS) accounts for less than 1% of all gastric tumors [1, 2]. GS arises from the nerve sheath of Auerbach’s or Meissner’s plexus and is observed endoscopically as a submucosal tumor (SMT) [3, 4]. Although GS is a benign neoplasm with an excellent prognosis after complete surgical resection, the clinical or imaging features have not been sufficiently specific to enable a precise preoperative diagnosis, because gastric SMTs are similar in their gross and imaging findings, and the diagnosis by biopsy does not have a high accuracy rate. At present, only a pathological examination can distinguish a schwannoma from other SMTs, with positive staining for S-100 protein, and negative for c-kit, CD34, desmin, or smooth muscle actin [1, 4, 5].

Herein, we present a case of GS located at the greater curvature of the stomach. The surgical procedure we chose is considered simple and appropriate with several perspectives in case of GS exceeding 50 mm.

A 66-year-old female had a history of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. She visited our hospital due to an abnormal upper gastrointestinal X-ray at the medical checkup (Fig. 1a). An upper endoscopy revealed an elevated submucosal gastric mass on the greater curvature, and a normal overlying mucosa without ulceration (Fig. 1b). A contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) showed the tumor measuring 52 mm on the axial section (Fig. 1c), with extramural growth on the coronal section in the stomach (Fig. 1d). The serum carcinoembryonic antigen level was within the normal range. Laparoscopic-assisted wedge gastrectomy was performed and a complete resection with negative surgical margin (R0) was obtained (Fig. 2a, b). Pathological examination with hematoxylin and eosin staining of the specimen revealed a solid tumor which was highly cellular and consisted of spindle cells (Fig. 3a), surrounded by a peripheral lymphoid cuff (Fig. 3b). Mitosis was scattered, with 0–5 mitoses per 50 high-power field. Immunohistochemistry revealed that the tumor cell was strongly positive for S-100 protein (Fig. 3c) and negative for CD34 and c-kit (Fig. 3d, e). In addition, the MIB-1 max labeling index was 5% (Fig. 3f). These pathological results had confirmed the diagnosis as GS.

Fig. 1.

Preoperative imaging inspection findings. a The shadow defect with bridging fold, about 40 mm in diameter, was pointed in the middle of the gastric body in the upper gastrointestinal X-ray. b Upper endoscopy revealed an elevated submucosal mass, about 40 mm in diameter, in the gastric body at the greater curvature. c A contrast-enhanced CT in the axial section showed the tumor measuring 52 mm in the stomach. d A contrast-enhanced CT in the coronal section showed the tumor with extramural growth in the stomach.

Fig. 1.

Preoperative imaging inspection findings. a The shadow defect with bridging fold, about 40 mm in diameter, was pointed in the middle of the gastric body in the upper gastrointestinal X-ray. b Upper endoscopy revealed an elevated submucosal mass, about 40 mm in diameter, in the gastric body at the greater curvature. c A contrast-enhanced CT in the axial section showed the tumor measuring 52 mm in the stomach. d A contrast-enhanced CT in the coronal section showed the tumor with extramural growth in the stomach.

Close modal
Fig. 2.

Intraoperative findings. a The great omentum was dissected by laparoscopic surgery to expose the tumor. The tumor was then pulled just below the port of the laparoscope. b The part of the stomach with the tumor was removed from the body. Wedge gastrectomy was performed.

Fig. 2.

Intraoperative findings. a The great omentum was dissected by laparoscopic surgery to expose the tumor. The tumor was then pulled just below the port of the laparoscope. b The part of the stomach with the tumor was removed from the body. Wedge gastrectomy was performed.

Close modal
Fig. 3.

The results of HE staining and immunostaining. a The tumor shows the lesion, composed of spindle cells with nuclei, arranged in a palisade. b There is lymphocytic cuffing at the peripheral part of the tumor. c The tumor cells are positive for S-100 protein. d The tumor cells are negative for CD34. e The tumor cells are negative for the c-kit. f The MIB-1 labeling index is 5%.

Fig. 3.

The results of HE staining and immunostaining. a The tumor shows the lesion, composed of spindle cells with nuclei, arranged in a palisade. b There is lymphocytic cuffing at the peripheral part of the tumor. c The tumor cells are positive for S-100 protein. d The tumor cells are negative for CD34. e The tumor cells are negative for the c-kit. f The MIB-1 labeling index is 5%.

Close modal

She displayed no complications and was discharged on day 8 after surgery. At the 12-month follow-up after surgery, there has been no recurrence or metastasis of GS on CT and upper endoscopy.

Schwannoma is generally a slow-growing and benign neoplasm that rarely occurs in the gastrointestinal tract. Gastrointestinal schwannoma was first reported by Daimaru et al. [1], who identified schwannoma as a primary gastrointestinal tumor based on the positive S-100 protein immunostaining. GS, which is the most common gastrointestinal schwannoma, accounts for only 0.2% of all gastric tumors and, principally, involves the submucosa and muscularis propria [1, 2]. Although GS is mostly benign, the differential diagnosis is gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). On account of the typical presentation as SMT with spindle cell histology, GS and GIST are grossly similar. In the diagnosis of such an SMT, an endoscopic biopsy can lead to false-negative results and is thus ineffective. On the other hand, endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) could possibly aid in the diagnosis [4, 6-8]. However, there is no consensus on the accuracy rate; additionally, routine EUS-FNA is not recommended for primary resectable GIST by The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, due to the risk of tumor rupture and spread, which is associated with poorer prognosis [4, 6-9].

The precise preoperative diagnosis to distinguish between GS and another SMT remains difficult, even with modern imaging modalities such as CT or 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) [2, 4, 10]. For example, GS displays as round and the pattern of contrast enhancement is classified as either homogeneous or heterogeneous on CT; furthermore, FDG-PET does not help in evaluating whether tumors are benign or malignant [2, 4]. Thus, none of these modalities has shown the diagnostic features specific to GS. However, a complete resection with a negative surgical margin is the curative treatment for GS, as with GIST or other SMTs [3-5, 7, 9]. Recently, laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (LECS) has been increasingly applied for gastric SMTs [11]. The conventional LECS procedure runs the potential risk of gastric content or tumor cell spilling into the abdominal cavity. Kikuchi et al. [12] developed a modified LECS procedure named “closed LECS” to avoid this problem. They concluded that “closed LECS” is indicated for gastric SMTs, 30 mm or less in diameter. In addition, LECS requires highly sophisticated laparoscopic and endoscopic techniques or equipment with high medical costs. Therefore, in the treatment of such SMTs, any approach in which complete surgical resection is performed safely would be acceptable.

The possibility of malignancy could not be ruled out in our case, because a case of malignant tumor exceeding 50 mm in diameter has been reported [13]. In order to prevent its rupture, the gastric tumor was removed from the abdominal cavity under laparoscopic guidance. A wedge gastrectomy was performed, with the tumor removed out of the body. We did not carry out a preoperative diagnosis with useful modern examinations, such as EUS-FNA or FDG-PET, and did not employ the latest surgical methods, including LECS. However, in view of medical costs, minimal invasiveness and safety of the patient, and oncological aspects, the treatment we chose is beneficial enough for GS exceeding 50 mm, and there is no disadvantage to the patient.

GS is a benign neoplasm with no recurrence irrespective of its size [14]. Nevertheless, we believe that regular follow-up is necessary for GS because of the report of such a malignant case.

The authors would like to thank the patient for allowing us to report her clinical information and data. We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient.

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, or publication of this article.

S.Y. made a substantial contribution toward the concept and design of the study and in data acquisition and interpretation. K.K., H.T., S.K., Y.T., and K.S. were involved in drafting the manuscript and critical revision for intellectual content. S.Y. approved the final version of the manuscript submitted for publication. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

1.
Daimaru
Y
,
Kido
H
,
Hashimoto
H
,
Enjoji
M
.
Benign schwannoma of the gastrointestinal tract: a clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study
.
Hum Pathol
.
1988 Mar
;
19
(
3
):
257
64
.
2.
Hong
HS
,
Ha
HK
,
Won
HJ
,
Byun
JH
,
Shin
YM
,
Kim
AY
, et al.
Gastric schwannomas: radiological features with endoscopic and pathological correlation
.
Clin Radiol
.
2008 May
;
63
(
5
):
536
42
.
3.
Fujiwara
S
,
Nakajima
K
,
Nishida
T
,
Takahashi
T
,
Kurokawa
Y
,
Yamasaki
M
, et al.
Gastric schwannomas revisited: has precise preoperative diagnosis become feasible?
Gastric Cancer
.
2013 Jul
;
16
(
3
):
318
23
.
4.
Tao
K
,
Chang
W
,
Zhao
E
,
Deng
R
,
Gao
J
,
Cai
K
, et al.
Clinicopathologic features of gastric schwannoma: 8-year experience at a single institution in China
.
Medicine (Baltimore)
.
2015 Nov
;
94
(
45
):
e1970
.
5.
Mekras
A
,
Krenn
V
,
Perakis
A
,
Croner
RS
,
Kalles
V
,
Atamer
C
, et al.
Gastrointestinal schwannomas: a rare but important differential diagnosis of mesenchymal tumors of gastrointestinal tract
.
BMC Surg
.
2018 Jul 25
;
18
(
1
):
47
.
6.
Mekky
MA
,
Yamao
K
,
Sawaki
A
,
Mizuno
N
,
Hara
K
,
Nafeh
MA
, et al.
Diagnostic utility of EUS-guided FNA in patients with gastric submucosal tumors
.
Gastrointest Endosc
.
2010 May
;
71
(
6
):
913
9
.
7.
Hu
J
,
Liu
X
,
Ge
N
,
Wang
S
,
Guo
J
,
Wang
G
, et al.
Role of endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic resection for the treatment of gastric schwannoma
.
Medicine (Baltimore)
.
2017 Jun
;
96
(
25
):
e7175
.
8.
Nishida
T
,
Blay
JY
,
Hirota
S
,
Kitagawa
Y
,
Kang
YK
.
The standard diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of gastrointestinal stromal tumors based on guidelines
.
Gastric Cancer
.
2016 Jan
;
19
(
1
):
3
14
.
Epub 2015 Aug 15
.
9.
Demetri
GD
,
Benjamin
RS
,
Blanke
CD
,
Blay
JY
,
Casali
P
,
Choi
H
, et al.
NCCN Task Force report: management of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST)-update of the NCCN clinical practice guidelines
.
J Natl Compr Canc Netw
.
2007 Jul
;
5
(
Suppl 2
):
S1
29
.
10.
Wang
W
,
Cao
K
,
Han
Y
,
Zhu
X
,
Ding
J
,
Peng
W
.
Computed tomographic characteristics of gastric schwannoma
.
J Int Med Res
.
2019 May
;
47
(
5
):
1975
86
.
11.
Niimi
K
,
Ishibashi
R
,
Mitsui
T
,
Aikou
S
,
Kodashima
S
,
Yamashita
H
, et al.
Laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery for gastrointestinal tumor
.
Ann Transl Med
.
2017 Apr
;
5
(
8
):
187
.
12.
Kikuchi
S
,
Nishizaki
M
,
Kuroda
S
,
Tanabe
S
,
Noma
K
,
Kagawa
S
, et al.
Nonexposure laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery (closed laparoscopic and endoscopic cooperative surgery) for gastric submucosal tumor
.
Gastric Cancer
.
2017 May
;
20
(
3
):
553
7
.
13.
Takemura
M
,
Yoshida
K
,
Takii
M
,
Sakurai
K
,
Kanazawa
A
.
Gastric malignant schwannoma presenting with upper gastrointestinal bleeding: a case report
.
J Med Case Rep
.
2012 Jan 25
;
6
:
37
.
14.
Hong
X
,
Wu
W
,
Wang
M
,
Liao
Q
,
Zhao
Y
.
Benign gastric schwannoma: how long should we follow up to monitor the recurrence? A case report and comprehensive review of literature of 137 cases
.
Int Surg
.
2015 Apr
;
100
(
4
):
744
7
.
Open Access License / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC). Usage and distribution for commercial purposes requires written permission. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.