SynthesisMedicine2019
Relationship between efficacy of sunitinib and KIT mutation of patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors after failure of imatinib: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.Current oncology reports · 2025Review
- Advances in the diagnosis and treatment of MET-variant digestive tract tumors.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA large number of studies have shown that KIT mutations are closely related to the prognosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). At the same time, sunitinib (SU) has become the second-line recommended drug for GISTs because of its efficacy. We initiated a systematic review to compare the efficacy of SU after failure of Imatinib (IM) in different KIT mutations.
methodsWe searched for SU-treated patients with advanced GISTs after failed IM treatment by using databases such as PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, up to March 2018. We conducted statistical analyses to calculate the odds ratio (OR), hazard ratio (HR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) using fixed-effects and random-effects models by Review Manager 5.3 software.
resultsWe included a total of 474 patients from 3 retrospective studies and 2 cohort studies. Patients with exon 9 mutations had higher clinical benefit (OR = 2.61, 95% CIs = 1.32-5.18, P = .006) rates and longer progression-free survival (progressive disease, HR = 0.51, 95% CIs = 0.36-0.72, P = .0001) compared with exon 11, but there was no statistically significant difference in overall survival (OS, HR = 0.93, 95% CIs = 0.34-2.55, P = .89) and there was greater heterogeneity (Tau = 0.72, Chi = 21.45, df = 3, P < .001, I = 86%). Subgroup analysis suggests that race may be one of the sources of heterogeneity.
conclusionThe results show that efficacy of SU is closely associated with KIT genotypes in GISTs. Moreover, racial factor also directly affects the prognosis of different KIT mutational status, so GISTs patients of different genotypes might also consider the use of targeted drugs in consideration of ethnic differences.
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.