Binbin Wang
Shuxin Li
Gengchen Huang
Zhijun Tang
Zihao Ye
Miao Wang
Wei Wei- 1Department of Urology II, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China
- 2Department of Gastrointestinal and Colorectal Surgery, The First Hospital of Jilin University, Changchun, China
Meckel’s diverticulum (MD) is a common congenital gastrointestinal malformation often containing ectopic gastric mucosa. It is prone to ulceration and painless lower gastrointestinal bleeding, predominantly affecting children and adolescents. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), which arise from Cajal interstitial cells, are predominantly mesenchymal tumors that occur predominantly in middle-aged and elderly individuals. Both conditions may occur in the small intestine, presenting gastrointestinal bleeding and exhibiting overlapping imaging features, which pose challenges for clinical differentiation. This report describes a 17-years-old female patient admitted to the First Hospital of Jilin University with intermittent melena, abdominal pain, and anemia. Small bowel CT imaging (CTE) revealed a nodular lesion measuring approximately 0.9 cm × 1.8 cm within the ileal lumen. The lesion exhibited a broad base attached to the intestinal wall and showed marked homogeneous enhancement, strongly suggesting a GIST. Previous gastrointestinal endoscopy had only indicated chronic gastritis and colitis. The patient underwent laparoscopic segmental resection of the ileal mass. Postoperative pathology confirmed an MD with fundic gland-type ectopia. This case highlights the diagnostic challenges of complex MD and underscores the critical role of histopathology. It thereby provides diagnostic and surgical guidance for MD cases that mimic GIST on imaging, thereby reducing misdiagnosis.
1 Introduction
Meckel’s diverticulum (MD) is a common congenital gastrointestinal malformation resulting from incomplete regression of the embryonic vitelline duct (1). Its clinical features are often summarized by the “Rule of 2s”: an incidence of approximately 2%, commonly located on the para mesenteric margin within the proximal 2 feet (approximately 61 cm) of the ileocecal valve, measuring about 2 inches (approximately 5 cm) in length, with a male predominance (approximately 2:1), and symptoms typically presenting before age 2 (1, 2). As a true diverticulum, MD comprises the entire wall thickness of the small intestine, with the inner lining potentially containing ectopic tissue; among these, gastric mucosal ectopia is the most common, observed in approximately half of MD cases (3). This ectopic tissue is closely associated with clinical symptoms, with a detection rate as high as 80% in symptomatic patients. Furthermore, all bleeding patients exhibit gastric mucosal ectopia in the fundus and body regions (4, 5). This occurs because gastric acid secreted by the ectopic mucosa erodes adjacent ileal mucosa, causing ulcers and gastrointestinal bleeding, significantly increasing complication risks (5). However, most MD patients remain asymptomatic throughout life, with only a minority presenting due to complications (6). Preoperative diagnosis rates in symptomatic patients are less than 10% (7). Therefore, young patients with negative upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy findings but bleeding should be evaluated for the possibility of MD (8).
Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare tumors accounting for 1%–2% of gastrointestinal malignancies, yet they represent the most common mesenchymal tumors of the digestive tract, comprising approximately 80% of such tumors (8). They predominantly affect adults and older individuals, with rare cases in children (9). GISTs can involve the entire digestive tract, primarily affecting the stomach and small intestine, while involvement of the colon and esophagus is uncommon (10). GISTs often present with minimal symptoms and are frequently incidentally detected on imaging studies. Some may manifest as abdominal pain or gastrointestinal bleeding (11). They exhibit diverse growth patterns and possess a rich blood supply, often showing marked enhancement during the arterial phase of CT scans (12). Notably, GIST is extremely rare in adolescents, while MD is a common cause of lower gastrointestinal bleeding in this population (13, 14). Hemorrhage, MD’s most frequent complication in adolescents, accounts for 40%–50% of symptomatic cases and almost only occurs with heterotopic gastric mucosa (14). However, overlapping CT features between small MD with ectopic gastric mucosa and small GIST often lead to preoperative misdiagnosis. This report describes a 17-years-old female patient with lower gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to a complex MD. Preoperative small bowel CT suggested a possible GIST, but postoperative pathology confirmed MD with fundic gland ectopia.
2 Case presentation
A 17-years-old female patient presented to the First Hospital of Jilin University with intermittent melena lasting over 10 days. Upon admission, vital signs were stable. Ten days prior, she developed intermittent epigastric pain without apparent cause, followed by passage of loose, tarry black stools. Key laboratory findings were as follows: Complete blood count (CBC) showed red blood cells (RBC) 2.70 × 1012/L (reference range, RR 4.1–5.3 × 1012/L), hemoglobin (HGB) 71 g/L (RR 114–154 g/L), Hematocrit (HCT) 0.231 L/L (RR 0.36–0.47 L/L), Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration (MCHC) 307 g/L (RR 310–355 g/L), Platelet count (PLT) 343 × 109/L (RR 150–407 × 109/L); high-sensitivity C-reactive protein 1.22 mg/L (RR 0–1.0 mg/L); D-dimer 0.87 mg/L FEU (RR 0.00–0.50 mg/L FEU). No significant abnormalities noted in the coagulation panel. Previous endoscopic studies at a local hospital (1 year prior) revealed chronic non-atrophic gastritis on painless electronic gastroscopy and proctitis on painless electronic colonoscopy. Whole-abdominal multi-slice CT scan showed slightly increased density within the small bowel lumen in the pelvic region (Figure 1). One week before admission, painless electronic gastroscopy at this hospital demonstrated chronic non-atrophic gastritis; Painless colonoscopy revealed chronic colitis; small bowel multi-detector CT imaging showed a nodular hyperdense lesion visible within the intestinal lumen extending from the small bowel to the level of both hip joints, attached to the intestinal wall with a broad base and protruding into the lumen, measuring approximately 0.9 cm × 1.8 cm, with a CT value of roughly 36 Hounsfield units (HU). It demonstrated marked and uniform enhancement on contrast-enhanced scanning with relatively straightforward margins, highly suggestive of a stromal tumor (Figure 2). Based on the above findings, laparoscopic segmental resection of the ileal mass was planned to determine the nature of the lesion and achieve precise excision.
Figure 1. Non-contrast multi-slice CT images of the patient’s entire abdomen. A slightly increased density within the small bowel lumen in the pelvic region is visible, indicated by the white arrow.
Figure 2. Multi-slice CT imaging of the small intestine. (A,B) Axial views show a single nodular hyperdense lesion with relatively well-defined borders, indicated by white arrows. (C) The coronal view demonstrates the corresponding hyperdense lesion, indicated by a white arrow.
Treatment course: The patient underwent laparoscopic segmental resection of an ileal mass. During surgery, a lesion was identified in the small intestine approximately 60 cm from the ileocecal junction. A linear mechanical stapler was used to perform segmental resection, with the specimen sent for pathological examination. No abdominal drainage tubes were placed intraoperatively, and no surgical complications occurred. The postoperative pathological diagnosis was small bowel diverticulum with fundic gland ectopia (Figure 3). The patient recovered well postoperatively and was discharged on the third postoperative day. During a telephone follow-up 6 months postoperatively, the patient reported good recovery with no abdominal pain, melena, or other discomfort.
Figure 3. Postoperative pathological diagnosis report of the patient. Light microscopy image (HE staining, 100× magnification). The pathological diagnosis is a small bowel diverticulum with fundic gland ectopia.
3 Discussion
Meckel’s diverticulum is the most common congenital anomaly of the small intestine. Most patients remain asymptomatic throughout their lives, with only 4%–9% requiring clinical intervention due to complications such as intestinal obstruction, bleeding, or diverticulitis (15). As a true diverticulum formed by incomplete closure of the yolk sac during the embryonic period (gestational weeks 5–7), its typical anatomical location is approximately 60 cm proximal to the ileocecal valve on the contralateral margin of the mesentery (16). However, mesenteric MD variants have also been reported (2). This variant, due to its atypical location, is more prone to confusion with neoplastic lesions such as GIST, increasing the risk of preoperative misdiagnosis. In stark contrast, GIST, the most common mesenchymal tumor of the gastrointestinal tract, arises from Cajal interstitial cells and characteristically harbors KIT or PDGFRA mutations (17). They predominantly affect middle-aged and elderly individuals, with rare cases in adolescents, whereas MD primarily affects children and adolescents. This age discrepancy serves as a crucial preliminary diagnostic clue.
Overlapping imaging features constitute the primary cause of misdiagnosis between MD and GIST, as both may present as focal, protruding, mass-like lesions within the intestinal wall (18, 19). GISTs exhibit wide size variability, ranging from less than 1 cm to over 20 cm in diameter (20). Smaller GISTs (<5 cm) typically display well-defined margins and homogeneous enhancement after contrast administration (21), which is also the characteristic CT feature of small (<5 cm) small bowel GISTs (22). However, MDs containing ectopic gastric mucosa may also exhibit similar homogeneous enhancement due to their rich mucosal vascularity. When MDs develop secondary inflammation or edema, the imaging features of intestinal wall thickening and increased surrounding soft tissue density can further confound the local mass appearance of GISTs (19). Particularly in this case, the small size (0.9 cm × 1.8 cm) and homogeneous enhancement of the lesion increased the likelihood of CT misdiagnosis. However, key distinctions remain: typical MDs often evolve into thin-walled, smooth-surfaced cystic structures communicating with the intestinal lumen (containing fluid or gas) as the lesion progresses (23), whereas larger GISTs typically present as solid masses, frequently accompanied by central necrosis or ulceration, and demonstrate heterogeneous enhancement post-contrast (24). Considering the patient’s age (17 years old–adolescent GIST is extremely rare) and lesion location (close to the typical metastatic distribution area), integrating age, anatomical location, and imaging features for comprehensive preoperative analysis can reduce the probability of misdiagnosis.
This case further highlights the value of specialized examinations in differentiating MD from GIST. Among adolescents with unexplained gastrointestinal bleeding, 50% are associated with MD (25). Technetium-99m pertechnetate scanning, serving as the gold standard for detecting ectopic gastric mucosa, achieves a diagnostic accuracy of 90% in adolescent patients (26). Its typical imaging features include focal tracer accumulation in the right lower abdomen, synchronous gastric mucosal uptake in the early phase, and persistent delayed-phase enhancement (27). They can precisely identify ectopic gastric mucosa of varying sizes and locations (28). However, false-positive results may occur due to physiological uterine uptake during menstruation in females (29). Capsule endoscopy allows direct visualization of active bleeding, intussusception, or the double-lumen sign, but its clinical application remains limited (30, 31). Therefore, for young bleeding patients with atypical CT findings, prioritizing the specialized examinations can effectively improve preoperative diagnostic accuracy and prevent misdiagnosis or inappropriate treatment. Furthermore, clinical management requires clear differentiation between asymptomatic MD and incidental MD: the former refers to MD without associated clinical symptoms such as bleeding, abdominal pain, or intestinal obstruction; the latter denotes explicitly MDs incidentally detected during abdominal surgery for other conditions like appendicitis or intestinal obstruction, or during gastrointestinal imaging studies such as ultrasound, CT, or small bowel contrast studies. Such MDs are predominantly categorized as asymptomatic (14, 32, 33). For symptomatic MD, surgical resection remains the only curative approach. Standard procedures include diverticulectomy, wedge resection, and segmental bowel resection. Laparoscopic surgery, with its lower complication rate, has become the clinical preference (34). Regarding treatment strategies for asymptomatic MD and incidental MD, controversy persists with no unified consensus. Clinical decisions require careful balancing of surgical risks against potential benefits from preventing complications (35, 36). Most experts advocate against routine resection, primarily because the overall complication rate of MD is low. The risks associated with routine surgery–such as infection, postoperative intestinal obstruction, and anastomotic leakage–often outweigh the potential benefits of prophylactic resection (14). However, some studies suggest that prophylactic resection may be considered for asymptomatic MD in pediatric patients to reduce the risk of long-term complications or malignant transformation (37). If a patient has undergone an exploratory laparotomy for another condition, incidental MD can be proactively resected during the same procedure to avoid future reoperation for complications (14). Therefore, MD management should adhere to patient-centered, individualized principles, incorporating factors such as age, presence of ectopic gastric mucosa, and surgical context to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach (38).
In this case, the patient’s prolonged intermittent abdominal pain and fatigue stemmed from chronic ulcer bleeding caused by ectopic gastric mucosa secreting gastric acid, manifesting as chronic anemia. Such early symptoms of slow blood loss are often subtle and easily overlooked clinically. Additionally, the discrepancy between preoperative CT findings and postoperative pathology underscores CT’s limitations in distinguishing MD from GIST. It is crucial to recognize that misdiagnosis between these two conditions can have severe consequences: misidentifying MD as GIST may lead to excessive surgical resection, while misidentifying GIST as MD may delay targeted therapy, potentially causing high-risk patients to miss the optimal treatment window (39, 40).
In summary, preoperative differentiation between MD and GIST requires integrating multidimensional evidence from age, location, and specialized imaging. Additionally, it is essential to clarify the definition distinctions between asymptomatic and incidentally detected MD, and to formulate individualized treatment strategies based on the latest clinical evidence. This case highlights that when adolescents present with small bowel masses and bleeding, comprehensive evaluation is imperative - imaging - specialized testing. It is also crucial to clarify the defining differences between asymptomatic and incidentally detected MDs, and to formulate individualized treatment strategies based on the latest clinical evidence. This case highlights that when encountering adolescents with small bowel masses accompanied by bleeding, clinicians should prioritize the reference value of age characteristics and anatomical location. When necessary, incorporating specialized testing can enhance diagnostic accuracy, which is significant for optimizing the diagnostic and therapeutic process and improving patient outcomes.
4 Conclusion
This case highlights the diagnostic challenge of distinguishing Meckel’s diverticulum from gastrointestinal stromal tumor in young patients, given overlapping imaging features. An accurate preoperative diagnosis relies on integrating key clinical clues, particularly patient age and lesion location. The selective use of targeted investigations is crucial to avoid misdiagnosis. Ultimately, a multidimensional approach is essential for guiding appropriate, individualized management.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in this study are included in this article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
Written informed consent was obtained from the minor(s)’ legal guardian/next of kin for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article. Written informed consent was obtained from the participant/patient(s) for the publication of this case report.
Author contributions
BW: Writing – original draft. SL: Writing – review & editing. GH: Writing – review & editing. ZT: Writing – review & editing. ZY: Writing – review & editing. MW: Writing – review & editing. WW: Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This research was supported by the Wu Jieping Medical Foundation (No. 3D4240299428).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Keese D, Rolle U, Gfroerer S, Fiegel H. Symptomatic Meckel’s diverticulum in pediatric patients-case reports and systematic review of the literature. Front Pediatr. (2019) 7:267. doi: 10.3389/fped.2019.00267
2. Yagnik V, Dawka S. Mesenteric Meckel’s diverticulum: an intra-abdominal surprise. ANZ J Surg. (2019) 89:1516–8. doi: 10.1111/ans.14951
3. McDonald J, Horst K, Thacker P, Thomas K, Klinkner D, Kolbe A. Meckel diverticulum in the pediatric population: patient presentation and performance of imaging in prospective diagnosis. Clin Imaging. (2022) 91:37–44. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2022.07.008
4. Hernández J, Valencia G, Girón F, García Sierra A, Núñez-Rocha R, Rodríguez L, et al. Meckel’s diverticulum: analysis of 27 cases in an adult population. Front Surg. (2023) 10:1327545. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1327545
5. Slívová I, Vávrová Z, Tomášková H, Okantey O, Penka I, Ihnát P. Meckel’s diverticulum in children-parameters predicting the presence of gastric heterotopia. World J Surg. (2018) 42:3779–84. doi: 10.1007/s00268-018-4664-0
6. Morris G, Kennedy A, Cochran W. Small bowel congenital anomalies: a review and update. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. (2016) 18:16. doi: 10.1007/s11894-016-0490-4
7. Abizeid G, Aref H. Case report: preoperatively diagnosed perforated Meckel’s diverticulum containing gastric and pancreatic-type mucosa. BMC Surg. (2017) 17:36. doi: 10.1186/s12893-017-0236-8
8. Alawawdeh F, Al-Tkrit A, Aneeb M, Mekaiel A, Mehta A. Gastrointestinal stromal tumor: an uncommon but serious cause of gastrointestinal bleeding. J Med Cases. (2021) 12:74–8. doi: 10.14740/jmc3631
9. Raitio A, Salim A, Mullassery D, Losty P. Current treatment and outcomes of pediatric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST): a systematic review of published studies. Pediatr Surg Int. (2021) 37:1161–5. doi: 10.1007/s00383-021-04931-0
10. Strauss G, George S. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Curr Oncol Rep. (2025) 27:312–21. doi: 10.1007/s11912-025-01636-8
11. Mechahougui H, Michael M, Friedlaender A. Precision oncology in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Curr Oncol. (2023) 30:4648–62. doi: 10.3390/curroncol30050351
12. Inoue A, Ota S, Yamasaki M, Batsaikhan B, Furukawa A, Watanabe Y. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a comprehensive radiological review. Jpn J Radiol. (2022) 40:1105–20. doi: 10.1007/s11604-022-01305-x
13. Correia M, Souza W, Dacoregio J, Ibagy A, de Lima M, Costa T, et al. Complete remission of metastatic GIST in a pediatric patient with high-dose imatinib induction. Pediatrics. (2025) 156:e2025070625. doi: 10.1542/peds.2025-070625
14. Inarejos Clemente E, Navarro O, Navallas Irujo M, Ladera E, Colombo C, Suñol M, et al. Omphalomesenteric duct anomalies in children: a multimodality overview. Radiographics. (2021) 41:2090–110. doi: 10.1148/rg.2021210048
15. Butler K, Peachey T, Sidhu R, Tai F. Demystifying Meckel’s diverticulum - a guide for the gastroenterologist. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. (2025) 41:146–53. doi: 10.1097/MOG.0000000000001085
16. AlShareef B, Khudari O. Perforated mesenteric Meckel’s diverticulum: case report. Int J Surg Case Rep. (2021) 79:271–4. doi: 10.1016/j.ijscr.2021.01.027
17. Sharma A, Kim T, Bauer S, Sicklick J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumor: new insights for a multimodal approach. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. (2022) 31:431–46. doi: 10.1016/j.soc.2022.03.007
18. Vasconcelos R, Dolan S, Barlow J, Wells M, Sheedy S, Fidler J, et al. Impact of CT enterography on the diagnosis of small bowel gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Abdom Radiol. (2017) 42:1365–73. doi: 10.1007/s00261-016-1033-z
19. Singh D, Pulickal G, Lo Z, Peh W. Clinics in diagnostic imaging (162). Meckel’s diverticulum. Singapore Med J. (2015) 56:523–6. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2015138
20. Wang Q, Huang Z, Zhu Y, Fu F, Tian L. Contribution of interstitial cells of cajal to gastrointestinal stromal tumor risk. Med Sci Monit. (2021) 27:e929575. doi: 10.12659/MSM.929575
21. Madhusudhan K, Das P. Mesenchymal tumors of the stomach: radiologic and pathologic correlation. Abdom Radiol. (2022) 47:1988–2003. doi: 10.1007/s00261-022-03498-1
22. Inoue A, Ota S, Nitta N, Murata K, Shimizu T, Sonoda H, et al. Difference of computed tomographic characteristic findings between gastric and intestinal gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Jpn J Radiol. (2020) 38:771–81. doi: 10.1007/s11604-020-00962-0
23. Elsayes K, Menias C, Harvin H, Francis I. Imaging manifestations of Meckel’s diverticulum. AJR Am J Roentgenol. (2007) 189:81–8. doi: 10.2214/AJR.06.1257
24. Vernuccio F, Taibbi A, Picone D, La Grutta L, Midiri M, Lagalla R, et al. Imaging of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: from diagnosis to evaluation of therapeutic response. Anticancer Res. (2016) 36:2639–48. doi: 10.21873/anticanres.10842
25. Rattan K, Singh J, Dalal P, Rattan A. Meckel’s diverticulum in children: our 12-year experience. Afr J Paediatr Surg. (2016) 13:170–4. doi: 10.4103/0189-6725.194671
26. Farrell M, Zimmerman J. Meckel’s diverticulum imaging. J Nucl Med Technol. (2020) 48:210–3. doi: 10.2967/jnmt.120.251918
27. Aboughalia H, Cheeney S, Elojeimy S, Blacklock L, Parisi M. Meckel diverticulum scintigraphy: technique, findings and diagnostic pitfalls. Pediatr Radiol. (2023) 53:493–508. doi: 10.1007/s00247-022-05527-z
28. Aslanabadi S, Badebarin D, Ghavifekr N, Ghasemi B, Shoaran M, Hesari M. Polypoid heterotopic gastric mucosa: in terminal ileum causing extensive lower gastrointestinal bleeding without Meckel’s diverticulum: a case report. J Med Case Rep. (2024) 18:357. doi: 10.1186/s13256-024-04644-7
29. Wang G, Lu X, Wang W, Yang J. Menstruation confounding the correct interpretation of 99m Tc-RBC bleeding scan. Clin Nucl Med. (2024) 49:93–5. doi: 10.1097/RLU.0000000000004874
30. Hansen LØ, Thorndal C, Agache A, Koulaouzidis A. Meckel’s diverticulum discovered by capsule endoscopy: a systematic review of case reports. Scand J Gastroenterol. (2025) 60:414–20. doi: 10.1080/00365521.2025.2487536
31. Kaihlanen K, Phen C, Sengupta A, Diesen D, Fernandes N, Rojas I. Meckel’s diverticulum: a challenging diagnosis. JPGN Rep. (2024) 5:423–32. doi: 10.1002/jpr3.12140
32. Baltes P, Dray X, Riccioni M, Pérez-Cuadrado-Robles E, Fedorov E, Wiedbrauck F, et al. Small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with Meckel’s diverticulum: clinical features, diagnostic workup, and findings. A European multicenter I-CARE study. Gastrointest Endosc. (2023) 97:917–26.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.12.014
33. Kawamoto S, Raman S, Blackford A, Hruban R, Fishman EK. CT detection of symptomatic and asymptomatic meckel diverticulum. AJR Am J Roentgenol. (2015) 205:281–91. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.13898
34. Xie Z, Feng W, Die X, Hou J, Guo Z, Liu W, et al. Single-incision versus conventional multiport laparoscopic-assisted surgery for Meckel’s diverticulum in children: a single-center propensity score analysis. BMC Pediatr. (2025) 25:344. doi: 10.1186/s12887-025-05695-5
35. Krstevski G, Isahi U, Andreevski V. Bleeding Meckel’s diverticulum in a 33-year-old female diagnosed with video capsule endoscopy and a technetium-99 m pertechnetate scan with a favorable response to H2 blocker and PPI. Case Rep Gastrointest Med. (2021) 2021:1381395. doi: 10.1155/2021/1381395
36. Hansen C, Søreide K. Systematic review of epidemiology, presentation, and management of Meckel’s diverticulum in the 21st century. Medicine. (2018) 97:e12154. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012154
37. Rahmat S, Sangle P, Sandhu O, Aftab Z, Khan S. Does an incidental meckel’s diverticulum warrant resection? Cureus. (2020) 12:e10307. doi: 10.7759/cureus.10307
38. Yagnik V, Garg P, Dawka S. Should an incidental meckel diverticulum be resected? A systematic review. Clin Exp Gastroenterol. (2024) 17:147–55. doi: 10.2147/CEG.S460053
39. Penel N, Le Cesne A, Blay J. Adjuvant treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumor: state of the art in 2025. Eur J Cancer. (2025) 222:115473. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2025.115473
Keywords: Meckel’s diverticulum, ectopic gastric mucosa, gastrointestinal stromal tumor, laparoscopic surgery, case report
Citation: Wang B, Li S, Huang G, Tang Z, Ye Z, Wang M and Wei W (2025) A case of Meckel’s diverticulum misdiagnosed as gastrointestinal stromal tumor: case report and literature review. Front. Med. 12:1672019. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1672019
Received: 25 November 2025; Revised: 22 November 2025; Accepted: 25 November 2025;
Published: 19 December 2025.
Edited by:
Fabio Grizzi, Humanitas Research Hospital, ItalyReviewed by:
Vipul Yagnik, Banas Medical College and Research Institute, IndiaRamiro Vargas Aignasse, Universidad Católica de Córdoba, Argentina
Copyright © 2025 Wang, Li, Huang, Tang, Ye, Wang and Wei. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Wei Wei, d2Vpd0BqbHUuZWR1LmNu