ArticleJournal of the American College of Surgeons2012
Microscopically positive margins for primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors: analysis of risk factors and tumor recurrence.
Article in Journal of the American College of Surgeons, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
90 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 171 citations in OpenAlex.
- English version of Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines 2022 for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) issued by the Japan Society of Clinical Oncology.International journal of clinical oncology · 2024Guideline
- SEOM-GEIS clinical guideline for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (2022).Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2023Guideline
- Comparison of Prognosis Between Microscopically Positive and Negative Surgical Margins for Primary Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Ki67 is a biological marker of malignant risk of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Prognostic role of microscopically positive margins for primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2016Pooled it
- Optimizing surgical and imatinib therapy for the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2013Pooled it
- Quality of Surgery and Outcome in Localized Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors Treated Within an International Intergroup Randomized Clinical Trial of Adjuvant Imatinib.JAMA surgery · 2020Trial
- Phase II study of neoadjuvant imatinib in large gastrointestinal stromal tumours of the stomach.British journal of cancer · 2017Trial
- Endoscopic Full-thickness Resection for Gastric Submucosal Tumor: A Technical Analysis Study (With Video).DEN open · 2026Article
- Nationwide Multicenter Study of Advanced Endoscopic Resection and Malignant Risk Model for Gastric Myogenic Tumors (GASTRO Trial).Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Beyond Laparotomy: Multimodal Strategies and Emerging Evidence in Minimally Invasive Management of Gastric Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.BioMed research international · 2026Review
- Advancements in Endoscopic Treatment for Gastric Subepithelial Tumors.Gut and liver · 2025Review
- Endoscopic treatment outcome of oesophageal gastrointestinal stromal tumours.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Overall survival and margin status in resected gastric stromal tumors.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2025Article
- Endoscopic resection for esophageal granular cell tumors: report of 62 cases.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Transvaginal removal of rectal stromal tumor with Martius flap interposition: a feasible option for a large tumor at the anterior wall of the rectum.Annals of coloproctology · 2024Article
- Clinical outcomes of endoscopic resection for the treatment of intermediate- or high-risk gastric small gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a multicenter retrospective study.Surgical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Endoscopic resection of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor using clip-and-cut endoscopic full-thickness resection: a single-center, retrospective cohort in Korea.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Comparable long‑term survival outcomes of endoscopic treatment versus surgical treatment for gastrointestinal stromal tumors with a diameter of 5-10 cm.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Impact of tumour rupture risk on the oncological rationale for the surgical treatment choice of gastrointestinal stromal tumours.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2023Review
30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 10 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about the outcomes of patients with microscopically positive (R1) resections for primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) because existing retrospective series contain small numbers of patients. The objective of this study was to analyze factors associated with R1 resection and assess the risk of recurrence with and without imatinib. STUDY
designWe reviewed operative and pathology reports for 819 patients undergoing resection of primary GIST from the North American branch of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z9000 and Z9001 clinical trials at 230 institutions testing adjuvant imatinib after resection of primary GIST. Patient, tumor, operative characteristics, factors associated with R1 resections, and disease status were analyzed.
resultsSeventy-two (8.8%) patients had an R1 resection and were followed for a median of 49 months. Factors associated with R1 resection included tumor size (≥ 10 cm), location (rectum), and tumor rupture. The risk of disease recurrence in R1 patients was driven largely by the presence of tumor rupture. There was no significant difference in recurrence-free survival for patients undergoing an R1 vs R0 resection of GIST with (hazard ratio [HR] 1.095, 95% CI 0.66, 1.82, p = 0.73) or without (HR 1.51, 95% CI 0.76, 2.99, p = 0.24) adjuvant imatinib.
conclusionsApproximately 9% of 819 GIST patients had an R1 resection. Significant factors associated with R1 resection include tumor size ≥ 10 cm, location, and rupture. The difference in recurrence-free survival with or without imatinib therapy in those undergoing an R1 vs R0 resection was not statistically significant at a median follow-up of 4 years.
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.