Anant Ramaswamy1, Vikas Ostwal2, Omshree Shetty3, Arvind Sahu1, Davinder Paul1, Trupti Pai3, Mamta Gurav3, Nitin Shetty4, Shailesh Shrikhande5. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, TMH, Mumbai, 400012, India. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, TMH, Mumbai, 400012, India. dr.vikas.ostwal@gmail.com. 3. Department of Pathology, TMH, Mumbai, 400012, India. 4. Department of Interventional Radiology, TMH, Mumbai, 400012, India. 5. Department of Surgical Oncology, TMH, Mumbai, 400012, India.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Longer duration of neoadjuvant (NA) imatinib (IM) used for locally advanced (LA) gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) is not based on biology of the tumour reflected by kit mutation analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: LA or locally recurrent (LR) GIST treated with NA IM from May 2008 to March 2015 from a prospective database were included in the analysis. Archived formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues (FFPE) were used for testing KIT exons 9, 11, 13 and 17 by PCR. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five patients with LA or LR GIST were treated with NA IM. Forty-five patients (36 %) had undergone c-kit mutation testing. Exon 11 was seen in 25 patients (55.5 %), 3 with exon 9 (6.7 %) and 2 with exon 13 (4.4 %). Twelve were wild type (26.6 %) and 3 (6.7 %) were declared uninterpretable. Response rate (RR) for the exon 11 mutants was higher than the non-exon 11 mutant group (84 vs. 40 %, p = 0.01). Disease stabilization rate (DSR) rates were also higher in the exon 11 subgroup than non-exon 11 group (92 vs. 75 %). Eighty-four per cent exon 11 and 75 % non-exon 11 mutants were surgical candidates. Patients undergoing surgery had significantly improved event free survival (EFS) (p < 0.001) compared to patients not undergoing surgery, with the same trend seen in OS (p = 0.021). Patients with a SD on response to NA IM had a lower EFS (p = 0.076) and OS compared to patients achieving CR/PR. There were no differences between the various exon variants in terms of outcomes and responses CONCLUSION: Upfront evaluation of kit mutation status may help us in delineating separate treatment strategies for potentially biologically different tumours and assessing the correct timing of surgery for this subset of GIST.
INTRODUCTION: Longer duration of neoadjuvant (NA) imatinib (IM) used for locally advanced (LA) gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) is not based on biology of the tumour reflected by kit mutation analysis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: LA or locally recurrent (LR) GIST treated with NA IM from May 2008 to March 2015 from a prospective database were included in the analysis. Archived formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues (FFPE) were used for testing KIT exons 9, 11, 13 and 17 by PCR. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five patients with LA or LR GIST were treated with NA IM. Forty-five patients (36 %) had undergone c-kit mutation testing. Exon 11 was seen in 25 patients (55.5 %), 3 with exon 9 (6.7 %) and 2 with exon 13 (4.4 %). Twelve were wild type (26.6 %) and 3 (6.7 %) were declared uninterpretable. Response rate (RR) for the exon 11 mutants was higher than the non-exon 11 mutant group (84 vs. 40 %, p = 0.01). Disease stabilization rate (DSR) rates were also higher in the exon 11 subgroup than non-exon 11 group (92 vs. 75 %). Eighty-four per cent exon 11 and 75 % non-exon 11 mutants were surgical candidates. Patients undergoing surgery had significantly improved event free survival (EFS) (p < 0.001) compared to patients not undergoing surgery, with the same trend seen in OS (p = 0.021). Patients with a SD on response to NA IM had a lower EFS (p = 0.076) and OS compared to patients achieving CR/PR. There were no differences between the various exon variants in terms of outcomes and responses CONCLUSION: Upfront evaluation of kit mutation status may help us in delineating separate treatment strategies for potentially biologically different tumours and assessing the correct timing of surgery for this subset of GIST.
Authors: Brian K Bednarski; Dejka M Araujo; Min Yi; Keila E Torres; Alexander Lazar; Jonathan C Trent; Janice N Cormier; Peter W T Pisters; Dina Chelouche Lev; Raphael E Pollock; Barry W Feig; Kelly K Hunt Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2014-03-18 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Dian Wang; Qiang Zhang; Charles D Blanke; George D Demetri; Michael C Heinrich; James C Watson; John P Hoffman; Scott Okuno; John M Kane; Margaret von Mehren; Burton L Eisenberg Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Piotr Rutkowski; Alessandro Gronchi; Peter Hohenberger; Sylvie Bonvalot; Patrick Schöffski; Sebastian Bauer; Elena Fumagalli; Pawel Nyckowski; Buu-Phuc Nguyen; Jan Martijn Kerst; Marco Fiore; Elzbieta Bylina; Mathias Hoiczyk; Annemieke Cats; Paolo G Casali; Axel Le Cesne; Jürgen Treckmann; Eberhard Stoeckle; Johannes H W de Wilt; Stefan Sleijfer; Ronald Tielen; Winette van der Graaf; Cornelis Verhoef; Frits van Coevorden Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2013-06-13 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: R Tielen; C Verhoef; F van Coevorden; H Gelderblom; S Sleijfer; H H Hartgrink; J J Bonenkamp; W T A van der Graaf; J H W de Wilt Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2012-10-16 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Aurore Blesius; Philippe A Cassier; François Bertucci; Jerome Fayette; Isabelle Ray-Coquard; Binh Bui; Antoine Adenis; Maria Rios; Didier Cupissol; David Pérol; Jean-Yves Blay; Axel Le Cesne Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 4.430