ArticleLangenbeck's archives of surgery2014
Prognostic factors for primary gastrointestinal stromal tumours: are they the same in the multidisciplinary treatment era?
Article in Langenbeck's archives of surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Neoadjuvant Imatinib in Recurrent/Metastatic Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Proportions.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Prognostic role of microscopically positive margins for primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2016Pooled it
- Endoscopic resection for esophageal granular cell tumors: report of 62 cases.BMC gastroenterology · 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
- Monitoring Circulating Tumor DNA During Surgical Treatment in Patients with Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.Molecular cancer therapeutics · 2021Article
- Microscopic positive tumor margin does not increase the rate of recurrence in endoscopic resected gastric mesenchymal tumors compared to negative tumor margin.Surgical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A multidisciplinary challenge.World journal of gastroenterology · 2018Review
- Predictive features of CT for risk stratifications in patients with primary gastrointestinal stromal tumour.European radiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeGastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumour of the gastrointestinal tract. The introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) has lead to increasing use of combination of medical and surgical therapy. The aim of this study was to look at outcomes from a series of surgically treated GISTs and determine prognostic factors in the context of multimodal therapy.
methodsWe analysed 104 single surgeon's patients with GIST. End points of the study were disease-specific survival (DSS), disease-free survival (DFS) and post-operative complications.
resultsThree- and 5-year DSS rates were 96.7 and 94.6 %. On univariate analysis, clear resection margins were predictive of DSS. Patients with R2 resection had a worse prognosis (3-year DSS rate of 83.3 %; 5-year DSS rate of 62.5 %) compared to patients with R0 (3-year DSS rate of 98 %; 5-year DSS rate of 98 %) or R1 resection (3-year DSS rate of 100 %; 5-year DSS rate of 100 %) (R0 vs R1 vs. R2 p = 0.001). Pre-operative factors associated with R2 resection were clinical metastatic disease (p < 0.001), non-gastric tumour site (p = 0.002) and large tumour diameter (p = 0.031). Three- and 5-year DFS rates were 65.5 and 59.8 %. Serosal perforation (p = 0.013) and mitotic rate (p = 0.05) were found to be independently predictive of increased DFS. The presence of serosal perforation was associated with tumour site (p = 0.018), mitotic rate (p = 0.035), tumour diameter (p < 0.001), growth pattern (p = 0.007) and age (p = 0.040).
conclusionsIn the multidisciplinary management of GIST, serosal perforation may represent an additional predictor of recurrence along with mitotic rate. Complete macroscopic surgical resection is the most reliable prognostic factor, and an aggressive surgical approach should be advocated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24413830What 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.