SynthesisPloS one2013
Practical role of mutation analysis for imatinib treatment in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 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
- Pooled it
- Clinicopathological significance of c-KIT mutation in gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2015Pooled it
- REGISTRI: Regorafenib in first-line of KIT/PDGFRA wild type metastatic GIST: a collaborative Spanish (GEIS), Italian (ISG) and French Sarcoma Group (FSG) phase II trial.Molecular cancer · 2023Trial
- Genome-Wide DNA Methylation and Copy Number Alterations in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.Genes, chromosomes & cancer · 2025Article
- Exploring nanotechnology solutions for improved outcomes in gastrointestinal stromal tumors.Heliyon · 2024Review
- Gastrointestinal Malignancy: Genetic Implications to Clinical Applications.Cancer treatment and research · 2024Review
- Ki67 for evaluating the prognosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Oncology letters · 2022Article
- Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor in Monozygotic Twins Shows Distinct Mutational Status: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2021Article
- Therapeutic Potential of PI3K/AKT/mTOR Pathway in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: Rationale and Progress.Cancers · 2020Review
- Molecular biomarkers for prognosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumor.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2019Review
- Clinical targeting of mutated and wild-type protein tyrosine kinases in cancer.Molecular and cellular biology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImatinib has become the standard first line treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) in the advanced phase and adjuvant setting. We carried out an up-to-date meta-analysis to determine the practical role of mutation analysis for imatinib treatment in patients with advanced GIST.
methodsEligible studies were limited to imatinib treatment for patients with advanced GIST and reported on mutation analysis. Statistical analyses were conducted to calculate the odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using fixed-effects and random-effects models.
resultsA total of 2834 patients from 3 randomized controlled trials and 12 cohort studies were included. The ORs of response rates in KIT exon 11-mutant GISTs were 3.504 (95% CI 2.549-4.816, p<0.001) and 3.521 (95% CI 1.731-7.165, p=0.001) compared with KIT exon 9-mutant and wild type GISTs, respectively. The HRs of progression-free survival in KIT exon 11-mutant GISTs were 0.365 (95% CI 0.301-0.444, p<0.001) and 0.375 (95% CI 0.270-0.519, p<0.001) compared with KIT exon 9-mutant and wild type GISTs. The HRs of overall survival in KIT exon 11-mutant GISTs were 0.388 (95% CI 0.293-0.515, p<0.001) and 0.400 (95% CI 0.297-0.538, p<0.001) compared with KIT exon 9-mutant and wild type GISTs. No statistical significant differences were found between KIT exon 9-mutant and wild type. The overall response rate in KIT-exon 11-mutant GISTs were 70.5% (65%-75.9%) compared with 57.1% (51%-63.2%) in KIT-positive GISTs. No evidence of publication bias was observed.
conclusionPatients with advanced GIST harboring a KIT exon 11 mutation have the best response rate and long-term survival with imatinib treatment. Mutation analysis would be more helpful than KIT expression analysis to decide appropriate therapy for a specific patient.
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.