Outcomes After Surgical Resection Differ by Primary Tumor Location for Metastatic Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GISTs): a Propensity Score Matching Population Study
- 100 Downloads
Primary tumor location has been identified as an important prognostic factor among patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). The purpose of this study is to identify how primary tumor location may affect outcomes after resection for patients with metastatic GISTs.
Patients with GISTs and distant metastases at diagnosis were identified in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Patients that underwent surgery were matched to patients that did not undergo surgery using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.
After PSM, 570 patients were identified (males 334 [58.6%], females 236 [41.4%], age 62 ± 13.9 years). Gastric tumors constituted the majority (325 [57%]), followed by small intestinal (136 [23.9%]), colorectal (19 [3.3%]), and retroperitoneal/peritoneal tumors (23 [4%]). Median follow-up was 25.5 months (95% CI 23–29 months). Undergoing surgery was associated with improved disease-specific survival (DSS) on both univariate (median not reached vs. 51 months, p < 0.001) and multivariate analyses (HR 4.98, 95% CI 2.23–11.12, p < 0.001). A sub-analysis of patients with gastric GISTs showed that undergoing surgery was the only significant factor associated with improved DSS (median not reached vs. 39 months, p < 0.001, HR 2.95, 95% CI 1.92–4.53). In contrast, undergoing surgery was not associated with improved survival for small intestinal, colorectal, or retroperitoneal/peritoneal tumors.
Surgery for gastric metastatic GISTs is associated with improved survival. No discernible benefit after surgical resection was identified for patients with small intestinal, colorectal, retroperitoneal, or peritoneal metastatic GISTs.
KeywordsGastrointestinal stromal tumors GIST Sarcoma Metastases
All the authors that contributed in the preparation of this manuscript have been mentioned.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors have nothing to disclose.
- 3.Nilsson B, Bümming P, Meis-Kindblom JM, Odén A, Dortok A, Gustavsson B, et al. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: the incidence, prevalence, clinical course, and prognostication in the preimatinib mesylate era. Cancer. Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company. 2005;103:821–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Demetri GD, von Mehren M, Antonescu CR, DeMatteo RP, Ganjoo KN, Maki RG, et al. NCCN Task Force report: update on the management of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. NIH Public Access. 2010;Suppl 2:S1–41.Google Scholar
- 16.Rutkowski P, Nowecki Z, Nyckowski P, Dziewirski W, Grzesiakowska U, Nasierowska-Guttmejer A, et al. Surgical treatment of patients with initially inoperable and/or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) during therapy with imatinib mesylate. J Surg Oncol. Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company. 2006;93:304–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Rubió-Casadevall J, Martinez-Trufero J, Garcia-Albeniz X, Calabuig S, Lopez-Pousa A, del Muro JG, et al. Role of surgery in patients with recurrent, metastatic, or unresectable locally advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors sensitive to Imatinib: a retrospective analysis of the Spanish Group for Research on Sarcoma (GEIS). Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22:2948–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.National Cancer Institute. Overview of the SEER Program. 2013Google Scholar
- 34.Kang Y-K, Ryu M-H, Yoo C, Ryoo B-Y, Kim HJ, Lee JJ, et al. Resumption of imatinib to control metastatic or unresectable gastrointestinal stromal tumours after failure of imatinib and sunitinib (RIGHT): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:1175–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Antonescu CR, Sommer G, Sarran L, Tschernyavsky SJ, Riedel E, Woodruff JM, et al. Association of KIT exon 9 mutations with nongastric primary site and aggressive behavior: KIT mutation analysis and clinical correlates of 120 gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Clin Cancer Res. American Association for Cancer Research. 2003;9:3329–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar