ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2019
Performance of risk stratification systems for gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A multicenter study.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of Survival Prediction Tools in Patients With Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of surgical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of nomograms and predictive tools in gastrointestinal stromal tumor.Journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2026Article
- A CT-based radiomics model for preoperative risk stratification of gastrointestinal stromal tumors.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Utility of inflammatory markers as predictors of recurrence in gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Insights from a nomogram-based approach.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025Article
- CT feature of irregular extensive ulceration as a predictor of liver metastasis in gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumours.European radiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Multi-Slice CT Features Predict Pathological Risk Classification in Gastric Stromal Tumors Larger Than 2 cm: A Retrospective Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Advances of endoscopic and surgical management in gastrointestinal stromal tumors.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
- Clinical-radiomics-based treatment decision support for KIT Exon 11 deletion in gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a multi-institutional retrospective study.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Malignancy risk of gastrointestinal stromal tumors evaluated with noninvasive radiomics: A multi-center study.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Building Radiomics Models Based on Triple-Phase CT Images Combining Clinical Features for Discriminating the Risk Rating in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors containing air-fluid levels.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumor type in the gastrointestinal system. Presently, various classification systems to prognosticate GISTs have been proposed.
aimTo evaluate the application value of four different risk stratification systems for GISTs.
methodsPatients who were diagnosed with GISTs and underwent surgical resection at four hospitals from 1998 to 2015 were identified from a database. Risk of recurrence was stratified by the modified National Institute of Health (NIH) criteria, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) criteria, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) prognostic nomogram, and the contour maps. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were established to compare the four abovementioned risk stratification systems based on the area under the curve (AUC).
resultsA total of 1303 patients were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 55.77 ± 13.70 yr; 52.3% of the patients were male. The mean follow-up period was 64.91 ± 35.79 mo. Approximately 67.0% the tumors were located in the stomach, and 59.5% were smaller than 5 cm; 67.3% of the patients had a mitotic count ≤ 5/50 high-power fields (HPFs). Thirty-four tumors ruptured before and during surgery. Univariate analysis demonstrated that tumor size > 5 cm (
conclusionAccording to our data, the AFIP criteria were associated with a larger AUC than the NIH modified criteria, the MSKCC nomogram, and the contour maps, which might indicate that the AFIP criteria have better accuracy to support therapeutic decision-making for patients with 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.