Transanal versus nontransanal surgery for the treatment of primary rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a 10-year experience in a high-volume center

Gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST): British Sarcoma Group clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

British Sarcoma Group guidelines for the management of GIST were initially informed by those published by the European Society of Clinical Oncology. This update was written by a group of experts to includes a discussion of the highlight improvements in our knowledge of the disease and recent treatment developments. The guidelines include sections on Incidence, Aetiology, Diagnosis, including risk assessment, Treatment and Follow-up.

METHODS

A careful review of the literature was performed to ensure that wherever possible recommendations are supported by the results of clinical trials or substantive retrospective reports. Areas of uncertainty are indicated appropriately.

CONCLUSION

Guidelines represent a consensus view of current best clinical practice. Where appropriate, key recommendations are given and the levels of evidence and strength of recommendation gradings are those used by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO).

Local excision and radical excision for rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a meta-analysis protocol

Background

To date, several studies have compared the surgical and oncological outcomes of local excision (LE) and radical excision (RE) for rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), but some have limited numbers of small series. This protocol outlines the planned scope and methods for a systematic review and meta-analysis that will compare the surgical and oncological outcomes of LE and RE in patients with rectal GISTs.

Methods

This protocol is presented in accordance with the PRISMA-P guideline. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Wanfang database will be systematically searched. Furthermore, reference lists of all included articles will be screened manually to add other eligible studies. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRS) in this study. The primary outcomes evaluated will be R0 resection rate and disease-free survival, while the secondary outcomes will contain overall survival, length of stay, tumor rupture rate and complications. Two reviewers will independently screen and select studies, extract data from the included studies, and assess the risk of bias of the included studies. Preplanned subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses are detailed within this protocol. The strength of the body of evidence will be assessed using GRADE.

Discussion

This review and meta-analysis will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the current evidence concerning the application of LE and RE in patients with rectal GISTs. The findings from this review will serve as a foundation for future research and emphasize the implications for clinical practice.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO (CRD42017078338), https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=387409, PROSPERO CRD42017078338.

Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours (GIST) of the Rectum: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) have many treatment options, but uncertainty remains regarding the best treatment regimen for this rare pathology. The aim of this review is to assess the optimal management approach including timing of chemotherapy. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant articles comparing the impact of radical vs. local excision, and neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant therapy had on outcomes in the management of rectal GISTs. We specifically evaluated the influence that the aforementioned factors had on margins, recurrence, overall survival, 5-year disease-free survival, and hospital length of stay. Results: Twenty-eight studies met our predefined criteria and were included in our study, twelve of which were included in the quantitative synthesis. When comparing neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy, our meta-analysis noted no significance in terms of margin negativity (R0) (odds ratio [OR] 2.01, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7−5.79, p = 0.20) or recurrence rates (OR 0.22, 95% CI, 0.02−1.91, p = 0.17). However, there was a difference in overall 5-year survival in favour of neoadjuvant therapy (OR 3.19, 95% CI, 1.37−7.40, * p = 0.007). Comparing local excision versus radical excision, our meta-analysis observed no significance in terms of overall 5-year survival (OR1.31, 95% CI, 0.81−2.12, p = 0.26), recurrence (OR 0.67, 95% CI, 0.40−1.13, p = 0.12), or 5-year disease-free survival (OR 1.10, 95% CI, 0.55−2.19, p = 0.80). There was a difference in length of hospital stay with a reduced mean length of stay in local excision group (mean difference [MD] 6.74 days less in the LE group; 95% CI, −6.92−−6.56, * p =< 0.00001) as well as a difference in R0 rates in favour of radical resection (OR 0.68, 95% CI, 0.47−0.99, * p = 0.05). Conclusion: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved overall 5-year survival, while local excision is associated with reduced mean length of hospital stay. Further large-volume, prospective studies are required to further define the optimal treatment regimen in this complex pathology.

Comparison of prognosis between neoadjuvant imatinib and upfront surgery for GIST: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Significant survival benefit of adjuvant imatinib therapy has been observed in gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). However, the impact of neoadjuvant imatinib on prognosis of GIST remains unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the prognostic impact between upfront surgery and neoadjuvant imatinib plus surgery on GIST.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed to identify eligible studies up to 30 Sep 2021, through PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Studies compared the impact of upfront surgery and neoadjuvant imatinib plus surgery on disease-free (DFS) or overall survival (OS) in patients with GIST were selected.

Results: Seven eligible studies with 17,171 patients were included. The reduction rates of tumor size in rectal and mixed site GIST were 33% and 29.8%, respectively. Neoadjuvant imatinib was not significantly associated with DFS compared with no-neoadjuvant therapy in rectal GIST (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.35–1.41). The OS of rectal GIST was significantly improved by neoadjuvant imatinib compared with no-neoadjuvant therapy (HR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.17–0.75).

Conclusion: Neoadjuvant imatinib therapy contributed to tumor shrinkage and R0 resection of rectal GIST. Neoadjuvant imatinib plus surgery significantly improved overall survival of rectal GIST in comparison with upfront surgery.

Complete response of advanced rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors after imatinib treatment: A case report and literature review

RATIONALE

Patients with rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) who achieve a complete response (CR) with imatinib therapy have rarely been reported in the literature. Moreover, no treatment guidelines have been established for rectal GIST patients with CR after imatinib treatment, warranting further studies.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 51-year-old man presented to our outpatient clinic in October 2013 with complaints of difficulty to defecate and a change in stool characteristics. During digital rectal examination, a mass was palpated within 5 cm from the anal verge. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography revealed a 8.1 × 7.2-cm rectal mass with significant enhancement during the arterial phase.

DIAGNOSES

A diagnosis of GIST was established after conducting needle biopsy and immunohistochemistry staining.

INTERVENTIONS

Imatinib therapy (400 mg/d, oral administration) was immediately started. When the patient achieved clinical CR (cCR), the oncologist recommended the patient to continue imatinib treatment.

OUTCOMES

At 7 months after imatinib administration, the patient achieved cCR. As suggested by the oncologist, the patient continued to receive imatinib treatment after cCR. After 13 months, the patient spontaneously stopped imatinib. Finally, tumor recurrence was observed 7 months later.

LESSONS

Surgery remains the mainstay of treatment for advanced rectal GIST patients who achieve cCR after imatinib treatment. Close follow-up and continuous imatinib treatment are indicated in patients who cannot undergo surgery.

Prognostic Factors and Management of Colorectal Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors

Introduction The gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is the most common mesenchymal neoplasm of the gastrointestinal tract. Even though it can be found in any location of the digestive tract, the colorectal GIST is rare. With this study, we aim to review the current knowledge regarding the prognosis and management of colorectal GIST.

Methods A literature search was conducted in PubMed, and 717 articles were collected. After analyzing these studies, 60 articles were selected to use in this review.

Results The mitotic index, as well as tumor size and location were identified as good discriminators of prognosis in various studies. Surgery remains the only curative therapy for potentially resectable tumors. However, even after surgical resection, some patients develop disease recurrence and metastasis, especially those with high-risk tumors. Therefore, surgical resection alone might be inadequate for the management of all colorectal GISTs. The discovery of GIST's molecular pathway led to a shift in its therapy, insofar as tyrosine kinase inhibitors became part of the treatment schemes for this tumor, revolutionizing the treatment's outcome and prognosis.

Discussion/Conclusion The controversy concerning colorectal GIST prognosis and treatment can be, in part, attributed to the limited number of studies in the literature. In this review, we gathered the most recent knowledge about the prognosis and management of GIST in this rare location and propose two algorithms for its approach. Lastly, we highlight the importance of an individualized approach in the setting of a multidisciplinary team.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: associations between contrast-enhanced CT images and KIT exon 11 gene mutation

Background

Mutation screening for gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is crucial and the c kit gene (KIT) exon 11 mutation is the most common type. This study aimed to explore the associations between GIST with KIT exon 11 mutation and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) images.

Methods

Pathologically proven GISTs with definitive genotype testing results in our hospital were retrospectively included. Abdominal contrast-enhanced CT images were analyzed. Conventional CT image features and radiomic features were recorded and extracted to build the following models: model _[CT], model _{[radiomic + clinic]} and model _{[CT + radiomic + clinic]}. The diagnostic performances of GISTs with KIT exon 11 mutation and KIT exon 11 deletion involving codons 557–558 were evaluated.

Results

In total, 327 GISTs (255 with KIT exon 11 mutation, and 73 with KIT exon 11 mutation deletion involving codons 557–558) were included. Significant CT features were found for GISTs with KIT exon 11 mutation. The area under curves (AUCs) of the models for KIT exon 11 mutation were 0.7158, 0.7530, and 0.8375 in the training cohort, and 0.6777, 0.7349, and 0.8105 in validation cohort, respectively. The AUCs of the models for KIT exon 11 mutation deletion involving codons 557–558 were 0.7155, 8621, and 0.8691 in the training cohort, and 0.7099, 0.8355, and 0.8488 in the validation cohort, respectively. The model _{[CT + radiomic + clinic]} demonstrated the highest AUCs for prediction of KIT exon 11 mutation and those with deletion involving codons 557–558 (P<0.05), respectively. The model _{[radiomic + clinic]} showed higher diagnostic performance than model _[CT] significantly.

Conclusions

Our results demonstrated the associations between GIST with KIT exon 11 mutation and contrast-enhanced CT images. We found combing conventional image analysis and texture analysis is a useful tool to distinguish GIST with KIT exon 11 mutation. CT radiogenomics exhibited good application potential in predict the KIT exon 11 mutation of GIST.

Comparison of outcomes between neoadjuvant imatinib and upfront surgery in patients with localized rectal GIST: An inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare outcomes between neoadjuvant imatinib and upfront surgery in patients with localized rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) patients.

METHODS

Eighty-five patients with localized rectal GIST were divided into two groups: upfront surgery ± adjuvant imatinib (Group A, n = 33) and the neoadjuvant imatinib + surgery + adjuvant imatinib (Group B, n = 52). Baseline characteristics between groups were controlled for with inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjusted analysis.

RESULTS

The response rate to neoadjuvant imatinib was 65.9%. After the IPTW-adjusted analysis, patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy had better distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) compared with those who underwent upfront surgery (5-year DRFS 97.8 vs. 71.9%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.87; p = 0.03; 5-year DSS 100 vs. 77.1%; HR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.92; p = 0.04). While no significant association was found between overall survival (OS) and treatment groups (p = 0.07), 5-year OS was higher for the neoadjuvant group than upfront surgery group (97.8% vs. 71.9%; HR, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.03-1.15).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with localized rectal GIST, neoadjuvant imatinib not only shrunk the tumor size but also decreased the risk of metastasis and tumor-related deaths when compared to upfront surgery and adjuvant imatinib alone.

The Combination of Neoadjuvant Therapy and Surgical Resection: A Safe and Effective Treatment for Rectal Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors

Background

Rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare digestive tumors. The treatment methods of rectal GISTs are diverse, while no standardized treatment was recommended. The aim of this study was to report the treatment mode of rectal GISTs in our center.

Methods

Patients with pathologically confirmed rectal GISTs who received neoadjuvant therapy and surgical resection were retrospectively collected. Perioperative complications and long-term prognosis were evaluated.

Results

From January 2010 to December 2019, 36 patients were pathologically diagnosed with primary rectal GISTs. After excluding patients who were treated with surgery or imatinib alone, 21 patients received neoadjuvant therapy and surgery was enrolled. During neoadjuvant treatment, tumors shrank significantly (6.53cm to 4.68cm, p<0.001) without toxicities over grade 2. The total postoperative complication rate was 42.9% (all grade). R0 resection was achieved in 76.2% patients. Transanal resection had advantages on anus preservation and postoperative recovery. No patients died during the follow-up period, 4 patients relapsed and the relapse-free survival was 81.0%.

Conclusion

The combination of neoadjuvant therapy and surgical resection was a safe and effective treatment for rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

Different Medical Features and Strategies of Large Rectal Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: A Multi-Central Pooling Analysis

Purpose

The rectum is a rare site for gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Tumors in this critical anatomical site are prone to develop local recurrence, and this occurs at a high level even in low-risk tumors. Previous studies found that high-risk was the most common category in rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (RGISTs), and size was the most important factor affecting the long-term prognosis. We aimed to find out the most influential factor on clinical outcomes, and describe demographics, oncological differences, and surgical procedures in patients with poor prognosis.

Patients and Methods

Data on consecutive patients with RGIST, who were diagnosed at Peking University People’s Hospital, Shandong Province Hospital, and The First Affiliated Hospital of Shandong First Medical University from 2010 to 2020, were retrospectively evaluated. Further, a literature search was conducted by retrieving data from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception up to March 20, 2020.

Results

In all, 50 patients were diagnosed with RGIST at three medical centers, and 86 published records were finally included in the literature review. Combined analysis of the whole individual patient data showed that 5.5 cm was deemed an appropriate cut-off value for L-RGIST, and that patients usually showed a male predominance (67.59%), younger age at onset (56.61 years), higher operative difficulty, and poorer prognosis.

Conclusion

Separation of patients with large RGIST from general patients may contribute to the recognition of the oncological characteristics and clinical management of this rare type of tumor.