ArticleTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology2024
Cytoreductive surgery in patients with recurrent or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors sensitive to imatinib: a retrospective analysis of two Russian cancer centers.
Article in Translational gastroenterology and hepatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The role of cytoreductive surgery for patients with recurrent or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (mGISTs) responding to imatinib (IM) has not yet been established. We carried out a retrospective analysis of the outcomes of patients with mGISTs in two Russian cancer centers. We compared two cohorts: treated (Group S) or not treated with surgery (Group NS) after a partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) while on IM. Methods: A total 44 patients treated by IM as first line treatment were included in our analysis. Prognostically similar patients only sensitive to IM cases with hepatic or peritoneal metastases as well as durable response to IM lasting more than 12 months were included in a control arm. Patients in Group NS received only IM until disease progression. Patients in Group S were treated additionally with metastasectomy after having response or SD on IM. Results: The baseline characteristics were similar between the groups with several trends: a higher proportion of patients achieved a PR in Group S (87% Conclusions: The surgical resection of residual lesions after disease control with IM is likely to be beneficial to patients with mGISTs.
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.