ArticleCancer research communications2026
Predicting Clinical Sensitivities of PDGFRA Exon 18 Mutations to Imatinib and Avapritinib to Optimize Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Treatment.
Article in Cancer research communications, 2026. 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
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The most common platelet-derived growth factor receptor α (PDGFRA) alteration in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) is the exon 18 activation loop mutation D842V, which is resistant to imatinib and other type II tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) but sensitive to type I TKI avapritinib. Avapritinib is FDA-approved for first-line treatment of all PDGFRA exon 18-mutant GIST cases but is only available for D842V-mutant cases outside the United States. Non-D842V exon 18-mutant GIST cases are understudied and lack evidence-based treatment guidelines. However, there are a few previous reports describing non-D842V exon 18-mutant patients with GIST who responded well to imatinib therapy. Given that imatinib is more tolerable, globally accessible, and significantly less expensive than avapritinib, we sought to define which patients could be treated with imatinib rather than avapritinib. We assembled a cohort of more than 1,000 PDGFRA exon 18-mutant GIST cases and identified that 78% of these mutations involved a key autoinhibitory aspartic acid residue at position 842. Using cell-based models, we demonstrated that imatinib sensitivity was dependent on the amino acid class of the 842-position residue, with all hydrophobic amino acids except alanine conferring resistance. In contrast, all 842-position mutations were avapritinib-sensitive. Structural modeling supported our biochemical results and revealed how 842-position mutations induce changes that can interfere with imatinib binding. Lastly, our biochemical data were validated using imatinib response data for first-line metastatic disease; patients with predicted exon 18-sensitive mutations had longer progression-free survival than patients with predicted imatinib-resistant mutations. These results provide key evidence that should be used to guide therapy selection for PDGFRA-mutant GIST. SIGNIFICANCE: Biochemical and structural modeling of PDGFRA exon 18 842-position mutations allows for the prediction of clinical TKI responses. These data can be used to generate new treatment guidelines for PDGFRA exon 18-mutant GISTs and select optimal therapies for patients.
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.