Ulrich Guller1,2, Ignazio Tarantino3, Thomas Cerny4, Alexis Ulrich3, Bruno M Schmied5, Rene Warschkow5,6. 1. Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, 9007, St Gallen, Switzerland. ulrich.gueller@kssg.ch. 2. University Clinic for Visceral Surgery and Medicine, Bern University Hospital, 3010, Bern, Switzerland. ulrich.gueller@kssg.ch. 3. Department of General, Abdominal and Transplant Surgery, University of Heidelberg, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Division of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, 9007, St Gallen, Switzerland. 5. Department of General, Visceral, Endocrine and Transplantation Surgery, Kantonsspital St. Gallen, 9007, St Gallen, Switzerland. 6. Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of the present analysis was to assess whether small bowel gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is associated with worse cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) compared with gastric GIST on a population-based level. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data on patients aged 18 years or older with histologically proven GIST was extracted from the SEER database from 1998 to 2011. OS and CSS for small bowel GIST were compared with OS and CSS for gastric GIST by application of adjusted and unadjusted Cox regression analyses and propensity score analyses. RESULTS: GIST were located in the stomach (n = 3011, 59 %), duodenum (n = 313, 6 %), jejunum/ileum (n = 1288, 25 %), colon (n = 139, 3 %), rectum (n = 172, 3 %), and extraviscerally (n = 173, 3 %). OS and CSS of patients with GIST in the duodenum [OS, HR 0.95, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.76-1.19; CSS, HR 0.99, 95 % CI 0.76-1.29] and in the jejunum/ileum (OS, HR 0.97, 95 % CI 0.85-1.10; CSS, HR = 0.95, 95 % CI 0.81-1.10) were similar to those of patients with gastric GIST in multivariate analyses. Conversely, OS and CSS of patients with GIST in the colon (OS, HR 1.40; 95 % CI 1.07-1.83; CSS, HR 1.89, 95 % CI 1.41-2.54) and in an extravisceral location (OS, HR 1.42, 95 % CI 1.14-1.77; CSS, HR = 1.43, 95 % CI 1.11-1.84) were significantly worse than those of patients with gastric GIST. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to common belief, OS and CSS of patients with small bowel GIST are not statistically different from those of patients with gastric GIST when adjustment is made for confounding variables on a population-based level. The prognosis of patients with nongastric GIST is worse because of a colonic and extravisceral GIST location. These findings have implications regarding adjuvant treatment of GIST patients. Hence, the dogma that small bowel GIST patients have worse prognosis than gastric GIST patients and therefore should receive adjuvant treatment to a greater extent must be revisited.
BACKGROUND: The objective of the present analysis was to assess whether small bowel gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is associated with worse cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) compared with gastric GIST on a population-based level. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data on patients aged 18 years or older with histologically proven GIST was extracted from the SEER database from 1998 to 2011. OS and CSS for small bowel GIST were compared with OS and CSS for gastric GIST by application of adjusted and unadjusted Cox regression analyses and propensity score analyses. RESULTS: GIST were located in the stomach (n = 3011, 59 %), duodenum (n = 313, 6 %), jejunum/ileum (n = 1288, 25 %), colon (n = 139, 3 %), rectum (n = 172, 3 %), and extraviscerally (n = 173, 3 %). OS and CSS of patients with GIST in the duodenum [OS, HR 0.95, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.76-1.19; CSS, HR 0.99, 95 % CI 0.76-1.29] and in the jejunum/ileum (OS, HR 0.97, 95 % CI 0.85-1.10; CSS, HR = 0.95, 95 % CI 0.81-1.10) were similar to those of patients with gastric GIST in multivariate analyses. Conversely, OS and CSS of patients with GIST in the colon (OS, HR 1.40; 95 % CI 1.07-1.83; CSS, HR 1.89, 95 % CI 1.41-2.54) and in an extravisceral location (OS, HR 1.42, 95 % CI 1.14-1.77; CSS, HR = 1.43, 95 % CI 1.11-1.84) were significantly worse than those of patients with gastric GIST. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to common belief, OS and CSS of patients with small bowel GIST are not statistically different from those of patients with gastric GIST when adjustment is made for confounding variables on a population-based level. The prognosis of patients with nongastric GIST is worse because of a colonic and extravisceral GIST location. These findings have implications regarding adjuvant treatment of GIST patients. Hence, the dogma that small bowel GISTpatients have worse prognosis than gastric GIST patients and therefore should receive adjuvant treatment to a greater extent must be revisited.
Entities:
Keywords:
Gastrointestinal stromal tumors; Mortality; Propensity score; Small bowel neoplasms; Stomach neoplasms; Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program
Authors: Heikki Joensuu; Aki Vehtari; Jaakko Riihimäki; Toshirou Nishida; Sonja E Steigen; Peter Brabec; Lukas Plank; Bengt Nilsson; Claudia Cirilli; Chiara Braconi; Andrea Bordoni; Magnus K Magnusson; Zdenek Linke; Jozef Sufliarsky; Massimo Federico; Jon G Jonasson; Angelo Paolo Dei Tos; Piotr Rutkowski Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Subbaya Subramanian; Robert B West; Christopher L Corless; Wenbin Ou; Brian P Rubin; Kent-Man Chu; Suet Yi Leung; Siu Tsan Yuen; Shirley Zhu; Tina Hernandez-Boussard; Kelli Montgomery; Torsten O Nielsen; Rajiv M Patel; John R Goldblum; Michael C Heinrich; Jonathan A Fletcher; Matt van de Rijn Journal: Oncogene Date: 2004-10-14 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Jaap Verweij; Paolo G Casali; John Zalcberg; Axel LeCesne; Peter Reichardt; Jean-Yves Blay; Rolf Issels; Allan van Oosterom; Pancras C W Hogendoorn; Martine Van Glabbeke; Rossella Bertulli; Ian Judson Journal: Lancet Date: 2004 Sep 25-Oct 1 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Charles D Blanke; Cathryn Rankin; George D Demetri; Christopher W Ryan; Margaret von Mehren; Robert S Benjamin; A Kevin Raymond; Vivien H C Bramwell; Laurence H Baker; Robert G Maki; Michael Tanaka; J Randolph Hecht; Michael C Heinrich; Christopher D M Fletcher; John J Crowley; Ernest C Borden Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Phyllis A Wingo; Patricia M Jamison; Robert A Hiatt; Hannah K Weir; Paul M Gargiullo; Mary Hutton; Nancy C Lee; H Irene Hall Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Ronald P Dematteo; Karla V Ballman; Cristina R Antonescu; Robert G Maki; Peter W T Pisters; George D Demetri; Martin E Blackstein; Charles D Blanke; Margaret von Mehren; Murray F Brennan; Shreyaskumar Patel; Martin D McCarter; Jonathan A Polikoff; Benjamin R Tan; Kouros Owzar Journal: Lancet Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Cristina R Antonescu; Agnes Viale; Lisa Sarran; Sylvia J Tschernyavsky; Mithat Gonen; Neil H Segal; Robert G Maki; Nicholas D Socci; Ronald P DeMatteo; Peter Besmer Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-05-15 Impact factor: 12.531