Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38353407›Full record

ArticleActa oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden)2024

Referral patterns of GIST patients: data from a nationwide study.

Evelyne Roets, Nikki S Ijzerman, Vincent K Y Ho, Ingrid M E Desar, Anna K L Reyners, Hans Gelderblom, Dirk J Grünhagen, Boudewijn Van Etten, Winan J Van Houdt, Winette T A Van der Graaf and 1 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 97% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Evelyne RoetsDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Nikki S IjzermanDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Vincent K Y HoDepartment of Research and Development, Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation (IKNL), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Ingrid M E DesarDepartment of Medical Oncology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Anna K L ReynersDepartment of Medical Oncology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Hans GelderblomDepartment of Medical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Dirk J GrünhagenDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Boudewijn Van EttenUniversity of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Surgical Oncology and gastrointestinal surgery, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Winan J Van HoudtDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Winette T A Van der GraafDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. w.vd.graaf@nki.nl.
Neeltje SteeghsDepartment of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLNetherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study compares the characteristics, referral and treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) patients treated in reference and non-reference centers in the Netherlands. PATIENTS AND

methodsThis retrospective cohort study on patients diagnosed between 2016 and 2019, utilises data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Nationwide Pathology Database. Patients were categorized into two groups: patients diagnosed in or referred to reference centers and patients diagnosed in non-reference centers without referral.

resultsThis study included 1,550 GIST patients with a median age of 67.0 in reference and 68.0 years in non-reference centers. Eighty-seven per cent of patients were diagnosed in non-reference centers, of which 36.5% (493/1,352) were referred to a reference center. Referral rates were higher for high-risk (62.2% [74/119]) and metastatic patients (67.2% [90/134]). Mutation analysis was performed in 96.9% and 87.6% of these cases in reference and in non-reference centers (p < 0.01), respectively. Systemic therapy was given in reference centers versus non-reference in 89.5% versus 82.0% (p < 0.01) of high-risk and in 94.1% versus 65.9% (p < 0.01) of metastatic patients, respectively. The proportion of positive resection margins and tumor rupture did not differ between reference and non-reference centers. Median OS was not reached.

conclusionA substantial amount of metastatic GIST patients in non-reference centers did not receive systemic treatment. This might be due to valid reasons. However, optimisation of the referral strategy of GIST patients in the Netherlands could benefit patients. Further research is needed to explore reasons for not starting systemic treatment in metastatic GIST patients.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsGastrointestinal NeoplasmsGastrointestinal Stromal TumorsHumansNetherlandsReferral and ConsultationRetrospective StudiesAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID38353407
PMCPMC11332507
OpenAlexW4391822932

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.