| Literature DB >> 26498480 |
Mehdi Brahmi1, Laurent Alberti2, Armelle Dufresne3, Isabelle Ray-Coquard4, Philippe Cassier5, Pierre Meeus6, Anne-Valérie Decouvelaere7, Dominique Ranchère-Vince8, Jean-Yves Blay9.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumor genotype plays a crucial role in clinical management of GIST. Whether genetic polymorphism of KIT may influence GIST patient outcome is unclear.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26498480 PMCID: PMC4619434 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-015-1817-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1KIT maturation and activation status and related intracellular signaling in KIT-expressing cells treated or not with imatinib. Western blotting analysis after a 24-h exposure to 1 μM of imatinib of the expression and the phosphorylation of a. mature (145 kDa) and immature (125 kDa) forms of KIT on residues Tyr703 and Tyr823 and b. AKT, RAF and ERK1/2
Baseline characteristics of the two retrospective series of GIST
| Characteristics | First series of resected primary GIST | Second series of metastatic or locally advanced at diagnosis GIST |
|---|---|---|
| N | 87 | 22 |
| Male | 42 | 13 |
| Female | 45 | 9 |
| Age (years) | 65 (22–84) | 64 (39–79) |
| Median size (mm) | 58 (17–400) | 90 (45–240) |
| Location | ||
| Stomach | 52 (60 %) | 8 (36 %) |
| Small bowel | 24 (28 %) | 11 (50 %) |
| Other locations | 11 (12 %) | 3 (14 %) |
| Mitotic index per 50 HPF | ||
| ≤ 5 | 51 (59 %)a | 5 (26 %)a |
| 6–10 | 12 (14 %)a | 4 (21 %)a |
| > 10 | 23 (27 %)a | 10 (52 %)a |
| Unknown | 1 | 3 |
| Mutation status | ||
| KIT ex 11 | 40 (54 %)a | 12 (75 %)a |
| KIT ex 9 | 5 (7 %)a | 3 (19 %)a |
| KIT ex 13 | 1 (1 %)a | 1 (6 %)a |
| KIT ex 17 | 2 (3 %)a | 0 |
| PDGFRA ex 18 | 11 (15 %)a | 0 |
| D842V | 9 | 0 |
| No mutation on | 15 (20 %)a | 0 |
| Unknown | 13 | 6 |
| Prevalence of the variant | 15 (17 %) | 9 (41 %) |
aPercentages are determined on the evaluable cases
HPF high-power field
Clinical and biological characteristics of the two GIST patients series according to KIT
| Clinical and biological characteristics |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| N | 24 | 85 | |
| Median size (mm) | 50 (17–240) | 60 (20–400) | |
| Location | |||
| Stomach | 12 (50 %) | 48 (56 %) | 0.6 |
| Small bowel | 7 (29 %) | 28 (33 %) | 1 |
| Mitotic index | |||
| ≤ 5 | 11 (50 %)a | 46 (54 %) | 0.8 |
| 6–10 | 2 (9 %)a | 15 (18 %) | 0.5 |
| > 10 | 9 (41 %)a | 24 (28 %) | 0.4 |
| Mutation status | |||
| | 15 (75 %)a | 49 (70 %)a | 0.8 |
| | 10 (50 %)a | 42 (60 %)a | 0.5 |
| | 3 (15 %)a | 5 (7 %)a | 0.4 |
| | 2 (10 %)a | 0 | n/a |
| | 0 | 2 (3 %)a | n/a |
| | 2 (10 %)a | 9 (13 %)a | 1 |
| | 1 | 8 | |
| Wild Type | 3 (15 %)a | 12 (17 %)a | 1 |
| Undetermined | 4 | 15 | |
| Stage of the disease at diagnosis | |||
| Localized | 15 (62 %) | 72 (85 %) | 0.02 |
| Metastatic (or locally advanced/unresectable) | 9 (38 %) | 13 (15 %) |
aPercentages are determined on the evaluable cases
bChi-square test or Fisher’s exact test were applied as appropriate to check for differences according to the presence of KIT
Fig. 2a. Kaplan–Meier analysis of RFS at 5 years of the first retrospective series of primary resected GIST stratified by KIT status (p = 0.001); x-axis, time in months. b. Kaplan–Meier analysis of OS at 5 years of the first retrospective series of primary resected GIST stratified by KIT status (p = 0.3); x-axis, time in months
Impact of KIT, tumor size, location, mitotic index and mutational status on RFS at 5 years in multivariate analysis
| Variable | HR (95 % CI) |
|
|---|---|---|
|
| 6.1 (1.8–21) | 0.004 |
| Tumor size (<50 mm versus ≥ 50 mm) | 3.6 (1.1–12) | 0.03 |
| Location (gastric versus non gastric) | 0.5 (0.1–2) | 0.06 |
| Mitotic index per 50 HPF (<5 versus ≥5) | 6.2 (1.7–23) | 0.006 |
| Mutation status (all other versus KIT exon 11) | 1.5 (0.4–5) | 0.6 |
HR Hazard ratio, CI confidence intervals