BACKGROUND: Adjuvant imatinib mesylate prolongs recurrence-free survival (RFS) after resection of localised primary gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST). We aimed to develop a nomogram to predict RFS after surgery in the absence of adjuvant therapy to help guide patient selection for adjuvant imatinib therapy. METHODS: A nomogram to predict RFS based on tumour size (cm), location (stomach, small intestine, colon/rectum, or other), and mitotic index (<5 or > or =5 mitoses per 50 high-power fields) was developed from 127 patients treated at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), New York, NY, USA. The nomogram was tested in patients from the Spanish Group for Research on Sarcomas (GEIS; n=212) and the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA (Mayo; n=148). The nomogram was assessed by calculating concordance probabilities and testing calibration of predicted RFS with observed RFS. Concordance probabilities were also compared with those of three commonly used staging systems. FINDINGS: The nomogram had a concordance probability of 0.78 (SE 0.02) in the MSKCC dataset, and 0.76 (0.03) and 0.80 (0.02) in the validation cohorts. Nomogram predictions were well calibrated. Inclusion of tyrosine kinase mutation status in the nomogram did not improve its discriminatory ability. Concordance probabilities of the nomogram were better than those of the two NIH staging systems (0.76 [0.03] vs 0.70 [0.04, p=0.04] and 0.66 [0.04, p=0.01] in the GEIS validation cohort; 0.80 [0.02] vs 0.74 [0.02, p=0.04] and 0.78 [0.02, p=0.05] in the Mayo cohort) and similar to those of the AFIP-Miettinen staging system (0.76 [0.03] vs 0.73 [0.004, p=0.28] in the GEIS cohort; 0.80 [0.02] vs 0.76 [0.003, p=0.09] in the Mayo cohort). Nomogram predictions of RFS seemed better calibrated than predictions made with the AFIP-Miettinen system. INTERPRETATION: The nomogram accurately predicts RFS after resection of localised primary GIST and could be used to select patients for adjuvant imatinib therapy.
BACKGROUND: Adjuvant imatinib mesylate prolongs recurrence-free survival (RFS) after resection of localised primary gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST). We aimed to develop a nomogram to predict RFS after surgery in the absence of adjuvant therapy to help guide patient selection for adjuvant imatinib therapy. METHODS: A nomogram to predict RFS based on tumour size (cm), location (stomach, small intestine, colon/rectum, or other), and mitotic index (<5 or > or =5 mitoses per 50 high-power fields) was developed from 127 patients treated at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC), New York, NY, USA. The nomogram was tested in patients from the Spanish Group for Research on Sarcomas (GEIS; n=212) and the Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA (Mayo; n=148). The nomogram was assessed by calculating concordance probabilities and testing calibration of predicted RFS with observed RFS. Concordance probabilities were also compared with those of three commonly used staging systems. FINDINGS: The nomogram had a concordance probability of 0.78 (SE 0.02) in the MSKCC dataset, and 0.76 (0.03) and 0.80 (0.02) in the validation cohorts. Nomogram predictions were well calibrated. Inclusion of tyrosine kinase mutation status in the nomogram did not improve its discriminatory ability. Concordance probabilities of the nomogram were better than those of the two NIH staging systems (0.76 [0.03] vs 0.70 [0.04, p=0.04] and 0.66 [0.04, p=0.01] in the GEIS validation cohort; 0.80 [0.02] vs 0.74 [0.02, p=0.04] and 0.78 [0.02, p=0.05] in the Mayo cohort) and similar to those of the AFIP-Miettinen staging system (0.76 [0.03] vs 0.73 [0.004, p=0.28] in the GEIS cohort; 0.80 [0.02] vs 0.76 [0.003, p=0.09] in the Mayo cohort). Nomogram predictions of RFS seemed better calibrated than predictions made with the AFIP-Miettinen system. INTERPRETATION: The nomogram accurately predicts RFS after resection of localised primary GIST and could be used to select patients for adjuvant imatinib therapy.
Authors: M Miettinen; J M Monihan; M Sarlomo-Rikala; A J Kovatich; N J Carr; T S Emory; L H Sobin Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: M Taniguchi; T Nishida; S Hirota; K Isozaki; T Ito; T Nomura; H Matsuda; Y Kitamura Journal: Cancer Res Date: 1999-09-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Michael W Kattan; Dilip Giri; Katherine S Panageas; Amanda Hummer; Milicent Cranor; Kimberly J Van Zee; Clifford A Hudis; Larry Norton; Patrick I Borgen; Lee K Tan Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M H Eleanor Koay; Yu-Wei Goh; Barry Iacopetta; Fabienne Grieu; Amanda Segal; Gregory F Sterrett; Michael Platten; Dominic V Spagnolo Journal: Pathology Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 5.306
Authors: Koen C M J Peeters; Michael W Kattan; Henk H Hartgrink; Elma Klein Kranenbarg; Martin S Karpeh; Murray F Brennan; Cornelis J H van de Velde Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Bengt Nilsson; Per Bümming; Jeanne M Meis-Kindblom; Anders Odén; Aydin Dortok; Bengt Gustavsson; Katarzyna Sablinska; Lars-Gunnar Kindblom Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: George D Demetri; Margaret von Mehren; Cristina R Antonescu; Ronald P DeMatteo; Kristen N Ganjoo; Robert G Maki; Peter W T Pisters; Chandrajit P Raut; Richard F Riedel; Scott Schuetze; Hema M Sundar; Jonathan C Trent; Jeffrey D Wayne Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: J F Emile; S Brahimi; J M Coindre; P P Bringuier; G Monges; P Samb; L Doucet; I Hostein; B Landi; M P Buisine; A Neuville; O Bouché; P Cervera; J L Pretet; J Tisserand; A Gauthier; A Le Cesne; J C Sabourin; J Y Scoazec; S Bonvalot; C L Corless; M C Heinrich; J Y Blay; P Aegerter Journal: Med Oncol Date: 2011-09-28 Impact factor: 3.064