open access

Vol 16, No 5 (2020)
Research paper
Published online: 2020-10-26
Get Citation

Analysis of reliability of different risk classifications for assessment of relapses of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) — the impact of primary tumor genotyping

Elżbieta Bylina, Czesław Osuch, Piotr Rutkowski
DOI: 10.5603/OCP.2020.0032
·
Oncol Clin Pract 2020;16(5):276-294.

open access

Vol 16, No 5 (2020)
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Published online: 2020-10-26

Abstract

Background. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. Radical surgery is the primary treatment for GIST. Unfortunately, 40–50% of patients relapse, mainly due to hepatic and peritoneal metastases. Currently, the treatment of choice for locally advanced, inoperable or metastatic GIST is the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, including imatinib. GISTs are a group of tumors with various morphological, pathological and molecular features as well as different clinical courses, therefore their biological course is difficult to determine. Nevertheless, we currently have 5 classifications that assess the risk of relapse after surgery. The aim of this study was to analyze prognostic factors with regard to the risk of recurrence and overall survival, and to compare the clinical reliability of the recurrence risk classifications developed so far with an attempt to present a new classification including the genotype of primary GIST.

Patients and methods. The material consisted of a group of 697 patients with primary GIST treated with the intention to cure, collected prospectively as part of the GIST clinical registry, Department of Melanoma and Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcomas, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw. All patients were classified based on 5 existing recurrence risk classifications. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The relationships of the following factors with DFS and OS were assessed: sex, age, primary tumor mutational status, primary tumor location, primary tumor size, number of mitoses/50 HPF, surgical margins and the presence of tumor rupture. The next analysis concerned the comparison of the accuracy of existing recurrence risk classifications. The analysis was performed using ROC curves and a new classification model was proposed including mutation analysis as well as factors such as gender and age for selected existing recurrence risk assessment models. Results. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed statistical significance of variables such as male sex (P = 0.02), mitotic index 5–10/50 HPF and > 10/50 HPF (P < 0.001), primary tumor size 5–10 cm and > 10 cm (P < 0.001), primary tumor location outside of the stomach (P < 0.001), R1 surgery (P < 0.001), tumor rupture (P < 0.001), and the presence of mutations in the KIT gene exon 11 including deletion 557–558 and the KIT gene exon 9 (P = 0.009) as negative prognostic factors affecting disease recurrence. Five-year disease-free survival rate was 57.3%. Median DFS was 76 months. Negative prognostic factors for OS are: age < 40 (P = 0.045), mitotic index 5–10/50 and > 10/50 HPF (P < 0.001), primary tumor size 5–10 cm and > 10 cm (P < 0.001), R1 surgery and tumor rupture (P < 0.001). All existing recurrence risk classifications showed prognostic value for assessing differences in DFS and OS, no significant differences were found between individual recurrence risk classifications. In addition, the reliability of all these classifications was improved by adding gender, age and mutation status. The value added of mutation status for better risk assessment was most significant when used in intermediate risk groups according to different classifications (P < 0.01). Conclusion. All current GIST recurrence risk classifications allow for reliable assessment of recurrence risk. Mutations involving deletions (557–558) in the KIT gene exon 11 are most often present in the group at high risk of recurrence. Patients with confirmed mutations in the PDGFRA gene exon 18 and wild-type genotype have a favorable prognostic effect. The reliability of existing classifications for assessing the risk of relapse after GIST resection can be improved by adding mutation status, especially in groups at intermediate risk of relapse, which should facilitate therapeutic decisions in the context of adjuvant therapy.

Abstract

Background. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumors of the gastrointestinal tract. Radical surgery is the primary treatment for GIST. Unfortunately, 40–50% of patients relapse, mainly due to hepatic and peritoneal metastases. Currently, the treatment of choice for locally advanced, inoperable or metastatic GIST is the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, including imatinib. GISTs are a group of tumors with various morphological, pathological and molecular features as well as different clinical courses, therefore their biological course is difficult to determine. Nevertheless, we currently have 5 classifications that assess the risk of relapse after surgery. The aim of this study was to analyze prognostic factors with regard to the risk of recurrence and overall survival, and to compare the clinical reliability of the recurrence risk classifications developed so far with an attempt to present a new classification including the genotype of primary GIST.

Patients and methods. The material consisted of a group of 697 patients with primary GIST treated with the intention to cure, collected prospectively as part of the GIST clinical registry, Department of Melanoma and Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcomas, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology in Warsaw. All patients were classified based on 5 existing recurrence risk classifications. Univariate and multivariate analysis were performed for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The relationships of the following factors with DFS and OS were assessed: sex, age, primary tumor mutational status, primary tumor location, primary tumor size, number of mitoses/50 HPF, surgical margins and the presence of tumor rupture. The next analysis concerned the comparison of the accuracy of existing recurrence risk classifications. The analysis was performed using ROC curves and a new classification model was proposed including mutation analysis as well as factors such as gender and age for selected existing recurrence risk assessment models. Results. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed statistical significance of variables such as male sex (P = 0.02), mitotic index 5–10/50 HPF and > 10/50 HPF (P < 0.001), primary tumor size 5–10 cm and > 10 cm (P < 0.001), primary tumor location outside of the stomach (P < 0.001), R1 surgery (P < 0.001), tumor rupture (P < 0.001), and the presence of mutations in the KIT gene exon 11 including deletion 557–558 and the KIT gene exon 9 (P = 0.009) as negative prognostic factors affecting disease recurrence. Five-year disease-free survival rate was 57.3%. Median DFS was 76 months. Negative prognostic factors for OS are: age < 40 (P = 0.045), mitotic index 5–10/50 and > 10/50 HPF (P < 0.001), primary tumor size 5–10 cm and > 10 cm (P < 0.001), R1 surgery and tumor rupture (P < 0.001). All existing recurrence risk classifications showed prognostic value for assessing differences in DFS and OS, no significant differences were found between individual recurrence risk classifications. In addition, the reliability of all these classifications was improved by adding gender, age and mutation status. The value added of mutation status for better risk assessment was most significant when used in intermediate risk groups according to different classifications (P < 0.01). Conclusion. All current GIST recurrence risk classifications allow for reliable assessment of recurrence risk. Mutations involving deletions (557–558) in the KIT gene exon 11 are most often present in the group at high risk of recurrence. Patients with confirmed mutations in the PDGFRA gene exon 18 and wild-type genotype have a favorable prognostic effect. The reliability of existing classifications for assessing the risk of relapse after GIST resection can be improved by adding mutation status, especially in groups at intermediate risk of relapse, which should facilitate therapeutic decisions in the context of adjuvant therapy.

Get Citation

Keywords

GIST; risk classification; genotyping

About this article
Title

Analysis of reliability of different risk classifications for assessment of relapses of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) — the impact of primary tumor genotyping

Journal

Oncology in Clinical Practice

Issue

Vol 16, No 5 (2020)

Article type

Research paper

Pages

276-294

Published online

2020-10-26

DOI

10.5603/OCP.2020.0032

Bibliographic record

Oncol Clin Pract 2020;16(5):276-294.

Keywords

GIST
risk classification
genotyping

Authors

Elżbieta Bylina
Czesław Osuch
Piotr Rutkowski

References (89)
  1. Joensuu H, Fletcher C, Dimitrijevic S, et al. Management of malignant gastrointestinal stromal tumours. Lancet Oncol. 2002; 3(11): 655–664.
  2. Miettinen M, Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors--definition, clinical, histological, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic features and differential diagnosis. Virchows Arch. 2001; 438(1): 1–12.
  3. Joensuu H, DeMatteo RP. The management of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a model for targeted and multidisciplinary therapy of malignancy. Annu Rev Med. 2012; 63: 247–258.
  4. Kindblom LG, Remotti HE, Aldenborg F, et al. Gastrointestinal pacemaker cell tumor (GIPACT): gastrointestinal stromal tumors show phenotypic characteristics of the interstitial cells of Cajal. Am J Pathol. 1998; 152(5): 1259–1269.
  5. Zhao X, Yue C. Gastrointestinal stromal tumor. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2012; 3(3): 189–208.
  6. Sandvik OM, Søreide K, Kvaløy JT, et al. Epidemiology of gastrointestinal stromal tumours: single-institution experience and clinical presentation over three decades. Cancer Epidemiol. 2011; 35(6): 515–520.
  7. Goettsch WG, Bos SD, Breekveldt-Postma N, et al. Incidence of gastrointestinal stromal tumours is underestimated: results of a nation-wide study. Eur J Cancer. 2005; 41(18): 2868–2872.
  8. Rubin JL, Sanon M, Taylor DCa, et al. Epidemiology, survival, and costs of localized gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Int J Gen Med. 2011; 4: 121–130.
  9. Tran T, Davila JA, El-Serag HB. The epidemiology of malignant gastrointestinal stromal tumors: an analysis of 1,458 cases from 1992 to 2000. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005; 100(1): 162–168.
  10. Rutkowski P, Kulig J, Krzakowski M. Zasady postępowania diagnostyczno terapeutycznego u chorych na nowotwory podścieliskowe przewodu pokarmowego (GIST) . Nowotwory J Oncol. 2011; 61: 70–80.
  11. Ruka W, Rutkowski P, Nowecki Z. Przeżycia chorych na rozsiany i nieoperacyjny GIST leczonych imatinibem – analiza etapowa Klinicznego rejestru GIST. Nowotwory J Oncol. 2005; 55: 195–199.
  12. Blanke CD. Therapeutic options for gastrointestinal stroma tumors. ASCO 2003. Educational Book : 266–272.
  13. Blay JY, Bonvalot S, Casali P, et al. GIST consensus meeting panelists. Consensus meeting for the management of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Report of the GIST Consensus Conference of 20-21 March 2004, under the auspices of ESMO. Ann Oncol. 2005; 16(4): 566–578.
  14. Trent JC, Benjamin RS. New developments in gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Curr Opin Oncol. 2006; 18(4): 386–395.
  15. Rutkowski P, Nowecki ZI, Michej W, et al. Risk criteria and prognostic factors for predicting recurrences after resection of primary gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007; 14(7): 2018–2027.
  16. DeMatteo RP, Lewis JJ, Leung D, et al. Two hundred gastrointestinal stromal tumors: recurrence patterns and prognostic factors for survival. Ann Surg. 2000; 231(1): 51–58.
  17. Samiian L, Weaver M, Velanovich V. Evaluation of gastrointestinal stromal tumors for recurrence rates and patterns of long-term follow-up. Am Surg. 2004; 70(3): 187–191.
  18. Learn PA, Sicklick JK, DeMatteo RP. Randomized clinical trials in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Surg Oncol Clin N Am. 2010; 19(1): 101–113.
  19. DeMatteo R, Ballman K, Antonescu C, et al. Adjuvant imatinib mesylate after resection of localised, primary gastrointestinal stromal tumour: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2009; 373(9669): 1097–1104.
  20. Casali PG, Jost L, Reichardt P, et al. ESMO Guidelines Working Group. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: ESMO clinical recommendations for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2008; 19 Suppl 2: ii35–ii38.
  21. van Oosterom AT, Judson I, Verweij J, et al. Safety and efficacy of imatinib (STI571) in metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours: a phase I study. Lancet. 2001; 358(9291): 1421–1423.
  22. Demetri GD, von Mehren M, Blanke CD, et al. Efficacy and safety of imatinib mesylate in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors. N Engl J Med. 2002; 347(7): 472–480.
  23. Blanke CD, Rankin C, Demetri GD, et al. Phase III randomized, intergroup trial assessing imatinib mesylate at two dose levels in patients with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors expressing the kit receptor tyrosine kinase: S0033. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26(4): 626–632.
  24. Eisenberg BL, Smith KD. Adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy for primary GIST. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2011; 67 Suppl 1: S3–S8.
  25. Casali PG, Le Cesne A, Poveda Velasco A, et al. Time to Definitive Failure to the First Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor in Localized GI Stromal Tumors Treated With Imatinib As an Adjuvant: A European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group Intergroup Randomized Trial in Collaboration With the Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group, UNICANCER, French Sarcoma Group, Italian Sarcoma Group, and Spanish Group for Research on Sarcomas. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33(36): 4276–4283.
  26. Reichardt P, Blay JY, Boukovinas I, et al. Adjuvant therapy in primary GIST: state-of-the-art. Ann Oncol. 2012; 23(11): 2776–2781.
  27. Rutkowski P, Przybył J, Zdzienicki M. Extended adjuvant therapy with imatinib in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors : recommendations for patient selection, risk assessment, and molecular response monitoring. Mol Diagn Ther. 2013; 17(1): 9–19.
  28. Essat M, Cooper K. Imatinib as adjuvant therapy for gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a systematic review. Int J Cancer. 2011; 128(9): 2202–2214.
  29. Miettinen M, El-Rifai W, H L Sobin L, et al. Evaluation of malignancy and prognosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a review. Hum Pathol. 2002; 33(5): 478–483.
  30. Fletcher CDM, Berman JJ, Corless C, et al. Diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A consensus approach. Hum Pathol. 2002; 33(5): 459–465.
  31. Miettinen M, Makhlouf H, Sobin LH, et al. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors of the jejunum and ileum: a clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic study of 906 cases before imatinib with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006; 30(4): 477–489.
  32. Miettinen M, Sobin LH, Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors of the stomach: a clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic study of 1765 cases with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005; 29(1): 52–68.
  33. Joensuu H. Risk stratification of patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Hum Pathol. 2008; 39(10): 1411–1419.
  34. Park CH, Kim GHa, Lee BE, et al. Two staging systems for gastrointestinal stromal tumors in the stomach: which is better? BMC Gastroenterol. 2017; 17(1): 141.
  35. Sobin LH, Wittekind Ch (ed). International union against cancer (UICC). 7th ed. TNM classification of malignant tumors. Wiley, New York 2010.
  36. Gold JS, Gönen M, Gutiérrez A, et al. Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for recurrence-free survival after complete surgical resection of localised primary gastrointestinal stromal tumour: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2009; 10(11): 1045–1052.
  37. Hirota S, Isozaki K, Moriyama Y, et al. Gain-of-function mutations of c-kit in human gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Science. 1998; 279(5350): 577–580.
  38. Lasota J, Jasinski M, Sarlomo-Rikala M, et al. Mutations in exon 11 of c-Kit occur preferentially in malignant versus benign gastrointestinal stromal tumors and do not occur in leiomyomas or leiomyosarcomas. Am J Pathol. 1999; 154(1): 53–60.
  39. Corless CL, Schroeder A, Griffith D, et al. PDGFRA mutations in gastrointestinal stromal tumors: frequency, spectrum and in vitro sensitivity to imatinib. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23(23): 5357–5364.
  40. Debiec-Rychter M, Wasag B, Stul M, et al. Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) negative for KIT (CD117 antigen) immunoreactivity. J Pathol. 2004; 202(4): 430–438.
  41. Heinrich MC, Corless CL, Demetri GD, et al. Kinase mutations and imatinib response in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumor. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21(23): 4342–4349.
  42. Wozniak A, Floris G, Debiec-Rychter M, et al. Implications of mutational analysis for the management of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors and the application of targeted therapies. Cancer Invest. 2010; 28(8): 839–848.
  43. Debiec-Rychter M, Sciot R, Le Cesne A, et al. EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group, Italian Sarcoma Group, Australasian GastroIntestinal Trials Group. KIT mutations and dose selection for imatinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours. Eur J Cancer. 2006; 42(8): 1093–1103.
  44. Andersson J, Bümming P, Meis-Kindblom JM, et al. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors with KIT exon 11 deletions are associated with poor prognosis. Gastroenterology. 2006; 130(6): 1573–1581.
  45. Lasota J, vel Dobosz AJ, Wasag B, et al. Presence of homozygous KIT exon 11 mutations is strongly associated with malignant clinical behavior in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Lab Invest. 2007; 87(10): 1029–1041.
  46. Lasota J, Dansonka-Mieszkowska A, Sobin LH, et al. A great majority of GISTs with PDGFRA mutations represent gastric tumors of low or no malignant potential. Lab Invest. 2004; 84(7): 874–883.
  47. Lasota J, Miettinen M. KIT and PDGFRA mutations in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Semin Diagn Pathol. 2006; 23(2): 91–102.
  48. Wozniak A, Rutkowski P, Bylina E, et al. Correlation between KIT exon 11 mutation site and imatinib treatment outcome in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). CTOS annual meeting 2012.
  49. Gronchi A. Risk stratification models and mutational analysis: keys to optimising adjuvant therapy in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumour. Eur J Cancer. 2013; 49(4): 884–892.
  50. Rutkowski P, Bylina E, Wozniak A, et al. Validation of the Joensuu risk criteria for primary resectable gastrointestinal stromal tumour - the impact of tumour rupture on patient outcomes. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011; 37(10): 890–896.
  51. Goh BKP, Chow PKH, Yap WM, et al. Which is the optimal risk stratification system for surgically treated localized primary GIST? Comparison of three contemporary prognostic criteria in 171 tumors and a proposal for a modified Armed Forces Institute of Pathology risk criteria. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008; 15(8): 2153–2163.
  52. Kim TW, Lee H, Kang YK, et al. Prognostic significance of c-kit mutation in localized gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2004; 10(9): 3076–3081.
  53. Joensuu H, Vehtari A, Riihimäki J, et al. Risk of recurrence of gastrointestinal stromal tumour after surgery: an analysis of pooled population-based cohorts. Lancet Oncol. 2012; 13(3): 265–274.
  54. Kapoor R, Khosla D, Kumar P, et al. Five-year follow up of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor: recurrence-free survival by risk group. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2013; 9(1): 40–46.
  55. Bearzi I, Mandolesi A, Arduini F, et al. Gastrointestinal stromal tumor. A study of 158 cases: clinicopathological features and prognostic factors. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 2006; 28(3): 137–147.
  56. Ning L, Zhang Df, Zhou Yb, et al. [Prognosis analysis of 247 cases of gastrointestinal stromal tumor]. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2013; 16(3): 247–250.
  57. Wu XJ, Zhang RX, Chen G, et al. Prognostic factors in surgically managed gastrointestinal stromal tumours. J Int Med Res. 2012; 40(5): 1904–1911.
  58. Fujimoto Y, Nakanishi Y, Yoshimura K, et al. Clinicopathologic study of primary malignant gastrointestinal stromal tumor of the stomach, with special reference to prognostic factors: analysis of results in 140 surgically resected patients. Gastric Cancer. 2003; 6(1): 39–48.
  59. Miettinen M, Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: pathology and prognosis at different sites. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2006; 23(2): 70–83.
  60. Nishida T, Cho H, Hirota S, et al. Kinki GIST Study Group. Clinicopathological features and prognosis of primary GISTs with tumor rupture in the real world. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 25(7): 1961–1969.
  61. Hohenberger P, Ronellenfitsch U, Oladeji O, et al. Pattern of recurrence in patients with ruptured primary gastrointestinal stromal tumour. Br J Surg. 2010; 97(12): 1854–1859.
  62. Debiec-Rychter M, Dumez H, Judson I, et al. EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group. Use of c-KIT/PDGFRA mutational analysis to predict the clinical response to imatinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours entered on phase I and II studies of the EORTC Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group. Eur J Cancer. 2004; 40(5): 689–695.
  63. Heinrich MC, Corless CL, Blanke CD, et al. Molecular correlates of imatinib resistance in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24(29): 4764–4774.
  64. Heinrich MC, Owzar K, Corless CL, et al. Correlation of kinase genotype and clinical outcome in the North American Intergroup Phase III Trial of imatinib mesylate for treatment of advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor: CALGB 150105 Study by Cancer and Leukemia Group B and Southwest Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26(33): 5360–5367.
  65. Wozniak A, Rutkowski P, Schöffski P, et al. Tumor genotype is an independent prognostic factor in primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors of gastric origin: a european multicenter analysis based on ConticaGIST. Clin Cancer Res. 2014; 20(23): 6105–6116.
  66. Bachet JB, Hostein I, Le Cesne A, et al. Prognosis and predictive value of KIT exon 11 deletion in GISTs. Br J Cancer. 2009; 101(1): 7–11.
  67. Wang M, Xu J, Zhao W, et al. Prognostic value of mutational characteristics in gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a single-center experience in 275 cases. Med Oncol. 2014; 31(1): 819.
  68. Corless C, Ballman K, Antonescu C, et al. Pathologic and molecular features correlate with long-term outcome after adjuvant therapy of resected primary GI stromal tumor: the ACOSOG Z9001 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2014; 32(15): 1563–1570.
  69. Yanagimoto Y, Takahashi T, Muguruma K, et al. Re-appraisal of risk classifications for primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) after complete resection: indications for adjuvant therapy. Gastric Cancer. 2015; 18(2): 426–433.
  70. Wozniak A, Rutkowski P, Piskorz A, et al. Polish Clinical GIST Registry. Prognostic value of KIT/PDGFRA mutations in gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST): Polish Clinical GIST Registry experience. Ann Oncol. 2012; 23(2): 353–360.
  71. Taniguchi M, Nishida T, Hirota S, et al. Effect of c-kit mutation on prognosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Cancer Res. 1999; 59(17): 4297–4300.
  72. Singer S, Rubin BP, Lux ML, et al. Prognostic value of KIT mutation type, mitotic activity, and histologic subtype in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20(18): 3898–3905.
  73. Martín J, Poveda A, Llombart-Bosch A, et al. Spanish Group for Sarcoma Research. Deletions affecting codons 557-558 of the c-KIT gene indicate a poor prognosis in patients with completely resected gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a study by the Spanish Group for Sarcoma Research (GEIS). J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23(25): 6190–6198.
  74. Dematteo RP, Gold JS, Saran L, et al. Tumor mitotic rate, size, and location independently predict recurrence after resection of primary gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Cancer. 2008; 112(3): 608–615.
  75. Ma Y, Longley BJ, Wang X, et al. Clustering of activating mutations in c-KIT's juxtamembrane coding region in canine mast cell neoplasms. J Invest Dermatol. 1999; 112(2): 165–170.
  76. Zong L, Chen P. Prognostic value of KIT/PDGFRA mutations in gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a meta-analysis. World J Surg Oncol. 2014; 12: 71.
  77. Joensuu H, Rutkowski P, Nishida T, et al. KIT and PDGFRA mutations and the risk of GI stromal tumor recurrence. J Clin Oncol. 2015; 33(6): 634–642.
  78. Künstlinger H, Binot E, Merkelbach-Bruse S, et al. High-resolution melting analysis is a sensitive diagnostic tool to detect imatinib-resistant and imatinib-sensitive PDGFRA exon 18 mutations in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Hum Pathol. 2014; 45(3): 573–582.
  79. Wardelmann E, Thomas N, Merkelbach-Bruse S, et al. Acquired resistance to imatinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumours caused by multiple KIT mutations. Lancet Oncol. 2005; 6(4): 249–251.
  80. Schmieder M, Henne-Bruns D, Mayer B, et al. Comparison of different risk classification systems in 558 patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors after R0-resection. Front Pharmacol. 2016; 7: 504.
  81. Chen T, Qiou H, Feng X, et al. Comparison of modified NIH and AFIP risk-stratification criteria for gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A multicenter retrospective study. Zhonghua Wei Chang Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2017; 20(9): 1020–1024.
  82. Chen T, Xu L, Ye L, et al. A new nomogram for recurrence-free survival prediction of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Comparison with current risk classification methods. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2019; 45(6): 1109–1114.
  83. Casali PG, Abecassis N, Bauer S, et al. Gastrointestinal stromal tumours: ESMO–EURACAN Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2018.
  84. Rossi S, Gasparotto D, Miceli R, et al. KIT, PDGFRA, and BRAF mutational spectrum impacts on the natural history of imatinib-naive localized GIST: a population-based study. Am J Surg Pathol. 2015; 39(7): 922–930.
  85. Joensuu H, Wardelmann E, Sihto H, et al. Effect of KIT and PDGFRA Mutations on Survival in Patients With Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors Treated With Adjuvant Imatinib: An Exploratory Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncol. 2017; 3(5): 602–609.
  86. Nilsson B, Bümming P, Meis-Kindblom JM, et al. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: the incidence, prevalence, clinical course, and prognostication in the preimatinib mesylate era--a population-based study in western Sweden. Cancer. 2005; 103(4): 821–829.
  87. Choi H, Charnsangavej C, de Castro Faria S, et al. CT evaluation of the response of gastrointestinal stromal tumors after imatinib mesylate treatment: a quantitative analysis correlated with FDG PET findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004; 183(6): 1619–1628.
  88. Dagher R, Cohen M, Williams G, et al. Approval summary: imatinib mesylate in the treatment of metastatic and/or unresectable malignant gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2002; 8(10): 3034–3038.
  89. Le Cesne A, Van Glabbeke M, Verweij J, et al. Absence of progression as assessed by response evaluation criteria in solid tumors predicts survival in advanced GI stromal tumors treated with imatinib mesylate: the intergroup EORTC-ISG-AGITG phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27(24): 3969–3974.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

Wydawcą serwisu jest  "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail:  viamedica@viamedica.pl