BACKGROUND: Peritoneal and hepatic metastases are the main routes of spread of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). However, criteria to predict the site and pattern of recurrence in individual cases are still lacking. PATIENTS: We retrospectively analyzed 67 consecutive GISTs with complete gross descriptions to correlate macroscopic patterns with clinical course. Primary endpoint was the appearance of synchronous or metachronous peritoneal disease. Tumors were classified into type I (luminal/intramural) and type II (extramural) based on the macroscopic/histologic presence or absence of normal tissue between deeper tumor border and serosa, respectively. RESULTS: Patients were 35 men and 32 women (mean age, 64 yrs) with gastric (n=32), small bowel (n=30) and large bowel (n=5) GISTs. Based on the above proposal, 22 tumors were classified as type I and 45 as type II. Type I tumors were predominantly gastric (18/22; P<0.001) and frequently had very low/low risk (14/22; P<0.001) whereas type II tumors were predominantly intestinal (31/45; P<0.001) and often of intermediate/high risk (36/45; P<0.001). Ten patients had synchronous peritoneal spread and 6/30 patients with a mean follow-up of 29 months developed metachronous peritoneal spread at a mean of 27 months. Tumor rupture was seen in 2 patients (3%). Thus, 16/40 patients (40%) had synchronous or metachronous peritoneal progression. Taken by gross type, peritoneal progression was seen in 15/30 type II compared to 1/10 type I tumors (p=0.032). CONCLUSION: this study points to extramural growth as a predictor of peritoneal recurrence in GIST, probably as a consequence of tumor rupture or due to microscopic serosal penetration. This study aimed at alerting surgical pathologists to the importance of careful gross and microscopic assessment of resection specimen harboring GIST to allow for reliable prospective evaluation of serosal involvement as an adverse prognostic factor in GIST.
BACKGROUND: Peritoneal and hepatic metastases are the main routes of spread of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). However, criteria to predict the site and pattern of recurrence in individual cases are still lacking. PATIENTS: We retrospectively analyzed 67 consecutive GISTs with complete gross descriptions to correlate macroscopic patterns with clinical course. Primary endpoint was the appearance of synchronous or metachronous peritoneal disease. Tumors were classified into type I (luminal/intramural) and type II (extramural) based on the macroscopic/histologic presence or absence of normal tissue between deeper tumor border and serosa, respectively. RESULTS:Patients were 35 men and 32 women (mean age, 64 yrs) with gastric (n=32), small bowel (n=30) and large bowel (n=5) GISTs. Based on the above proposal, 22 tumors were classified as type I and 45 as type II. Type I tumors were predominantly gastric (18/22; P<0.001) and frequently had very low/low risk (14/22; P<0.001) whereas type II tumors were predominantly intestinal (31/45; P<0.001) and often of intermediate/high risk (36/45; P<0.001). Ten patients had synchronous peritoneal spread and 6/30 patients with a mean follow-up of 29 months developed metachronous peritoneal spread at a mean of 27 months. Tumor rupture was seen in 2 patients (3%). Thus, 16/40 patients (40%) had synchronous or metachronous peritoneal progression. Taken by gross type, peritoneal progression was seen in 15/30 type II compared to 1/10 type I tumors (p=0.032). CONCLUSION: this study points to extramural growth as a predictor of peritoneal recurrence in GIST, probably as a consequence of tumor rupture or due to microscopic serosal penetration. This study aimed at alerting surgical pathologists to the importance of careful gross and microscopic assessment of resection specimen harboring GIST to allow for reliable prospective evaluation of serosal involvement as an adverse prognostic factor in GIST.
Authors: Abbas Agaimy; Peter H Wünsch; Ferdinand Hofstaedter; Hagen Blaszyk; Petra Rümmele; Andreas Gaumann; Wolfgang Dietmaier; Arndt Hartmann Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 6.394
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: Piotr Rutkowski; Zbigniew I Nowecki; Wanda Michej; Maria Debiec-Rychter; Agnieszka Woźniak; Janusz Limon; Janusz Siedlecki; Urszula Grzesiakowska; Michał Kakol; Czesław Osuch; Marcin Polkowski; Stanisław Głuszek; Zbigniew Zurawski; Włodzimierz Ruka Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2007-05-02 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ronald P Dematteo; Jason S Gold; Lisa Saran; Mithat Gönen; Kui Hin Liau; Robert G Maki; Samuel Singer; Peter Besmer; Murray F Brennan; Cristina R Antonescu Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-02-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christopher D M Fletcher; Jules J Berman; Christopher Corless; Fred Gorstein; Jerzy Lasota; B Jack Longley; Markku Miettinen; Timothy J O'Leary; Helen Remotti; Brian P Rubin; Barry Shmookler; Leslie H Sobin; Sharon W Weiss Journal: Hum Pathol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 3.466
Authors: Ferdinando C M Cananzi; Bruno Lorenzi; Ajay Belgaumkar; Charlotte Benson; Ian Judson; Satvinder Mudan Journal: Langenbecks Arch Surg Date: 2014-01-12 Impact factor: 3.445