Observational studyMedicine2015
Treatment and Prognoses in Patients With Primary Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors ≥10 cm: A Single-Institution Experience in China.
Observational study in Medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data on treatments and specific outcomes of primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) ≥10 cm are limited. We here report the treatments and survival outcomes concerning a subgroup of primary giant GISTs. Data of 83 consecutive patients with primary GISTs ≥10 cm in a single institution were retrospectively collected. Fifty-eight patients underwent surgery before imatinib mesylate (IM) treatment (Group A), 10 underwent surgical resection following IM therapy (Group B), whereas 15 patients took IM as drug therapy alone (Group C). The baseline clinical characteristics were similar among the 3 groups. However, a lower proportion in Group A had metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis or surgery compared with Groups B and C (8.6% vs 40.0% vs 40.0%, P < 0.05). The median follow-up duration was 21.5 months. No statistically significant differences were observed on progression-free survival (PFS) among the groups. However, patients in Group B showed significantly better overall survival (OS) compared with those in Group C (P = 0.044). Multivariate analysis showed that patients treated with adjuvant IM were associated with better PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 3.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-7.97; P = 0.027) and OS (HR 29.11; 95% CI 3.32-125.36; P = 0.004). The subgroup with mitotic count >10/50 high-power fields (HPF) showed worse PFS (HR 3.50; 95% CI 1.19-10.25; P = 0.022) and OS (HR 20.04; 95% CI 1.67-143.79; P = 0.018) than that of mitotic count ≤5/50 HPF. Clinical treatment patterns for primary giant GISTs are different, and the outcomes of different interventions vary. The optimal treatments for these subgroup of patients still require further long-term investigation. Moreover, mitotic count and adjuvant IM are closely associated with PFS and OS in giant GISTs.
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.