Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30868512›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2019

Defining Tumor Rupture in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor.

Toshirou Nishida, Toto Hølmebakk, Chandrajit P Raut, Piotr Rutkowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Updated Asian consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (2025).Gastric cancer : official journal of the International Gastric Cancer Association and the Japanese Gastric Cancer Association · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Approach to Gastric Subepithelial Lesions: From Differential Diagnosis to Histologic Confirmation.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2025
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. [Gastrointestinal stromal tumors : Where do we stand?]Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Toshirou NishidaDepartment of Surgery, National Cancer Center Hospital, Chuoku, Tokyo, Japan. tnishida@ncc.go.jp.
Toto HølmebakkDepartment of Abdominal and Pediatric Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, The Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Chandrajit P RautDivision of Surgical Oncology, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Center for Sarcoma and Bone Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Piotr RutkowskiDepartment of Soft Tissue/Bone Sarcoma and Melanoma, Maria Sklodowska-Curie Institute - Oncology Center, Warsaw, Poland.

Funding

National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund 28-A-16
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tumor rupture is an important risk factor predictive of recurrence after macroscopically complete resection of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), and an indication for defined interval or even lifelong adjuvant therapy with imatinib according to guidelines. However, there is no consensus or universally accepted definition of the term 'tumor rupture', and, consequently, its incidence varies greatly across reported series. Without predefined criteria, the clinical significance of rupture has also been difficult to assess on multivariate analysis of retrospective data. We reviewed the relevant literature and international guidelines, and, based on the Oslo criteria, proposed the following six definitions for 'tumor rupture': (1) tumor fracture or spillage; (2) blood-stained ascites; (3) gastrointestinal perforation at the tumor site; (4) microscopic infiltration of an adjacent organ; (5) intralesional dissection or piecemeal resection; or (6) incisional biopsy. Not all minor defects of tumor integrity should not be classified as rupture, i.e. mucosal defects or spillage contained within the gastrointestinal lumen, microscopic tumor penetration of the peritoneum or iatrogenic damage only to the peritoneal lining, uncomplicated transperitoneal needle biopsy, and R1 resection. This broad definition identifies GIST patients at particularly high risk of recurrence in population-based cohorts; however, its applicability in other sarcomas has not been investigated. As the proposed definition of tumor rupture in GIST has limited evidence based on the small number of patients with rupture in each retrospective study, we recommend validating the proposed definition of tumor rupture in GIST in prospective studies and considering it in clinical practice.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal NeoplasmsGastrointestinal Stromal TumorsHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicPrognosisRupture, Spontaneous

Identifiers

PMID30868512
PMCPMC6510879

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.