Apostolos Gaitanidis1, Michail Alevizakos2, Alexandra Tsaroucha3, Michail Pitiakoudis3. 1. Second Department of Surgery, University General Hospital of Alexandroupoli, Democritus University of Thrace Medical School, 68100, Alexandroupoli, Greece. agaitanidis@gmail.com. 2. Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 3. Second Department of Surgery, University General Hospital of Alexandroupoli, Democritus University of Thrace Medical School, 68100, Alexandroupoli, Greece.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Primary tumor location has been identified as an important prognostic factor among patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). The purpose of this study is to identify how primary tumor location may affect outcomes after resection for patients with metastatic GISTs. METHODS: Patients with GISTs and distant metastases at diagnosis were identified in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Patients that underwent surgery were matched to patients that did not undergo surgery using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. RESULTS: After PSM, 570 patients were identified (males 334 [58.6%], females 236 [41.4%], age 62 ± 13.9 years). Gastric tumors constituted the majority (325 [57%]), followed by small intestinal (136 [23.9%]), colorectal (19 [3.3%]), and retroperitoneal/peritoneal tumors (23 [4%]). Median follow-up was 25.5 months (95% CI 23-29 months). Undergoing surgery was associated with improved disease-specific survival (DSS) on both univariate (median not reached vs. 51 months, p < 0.001) and multivariate analyses (HR 4.98, 95% CI 2.23-11.12, p < 0.001). A sub-analysis of patients with gastric GISTs showed that undergoing surgery was the only significant factor associated with improved DSS (median not reached vs. 39 months, p < 0.001, HR 2.95, 95% CI 1.92-4.53). In contrast, undergoing surgery was not associated with improved survival for small intestinal, colorectal, or retroperitoneal/peritoneal tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery for gastric metastatic GISTs is associated with improved survival. No discernible benefit after surgical resection was identified for patients with small intestinal, colorectal, retroperitoneal, or peritoneal metastatic GISTs.
PURPOSE:Primary tumor location has been identified as an important prognostic factor among patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). The purpose of this study is to identify how primary tumor location may affect outcomes after resection for patients with metastatic GISTs. METHODS:Patients with GISTs and distant metastases at diagnosis were identified in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database. Patients that underwent surgery were matched to patients that did not undergo surgery using propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. RESULTS: After PSM, 570 patients were identified (males 334 [58.6%], females 236 [41.4%], age 62 ± 13.9 years). Gastric tumors constituted the majority (325 [57%]), followed by small intestinal (136 [23.9%]), colorectal (19 [3.3%]), and retroperitoneal/peritoneal tumors (23 [4%]). Median follow-up was 25.5 months (95% CI 23-29 months). Undergoing surgery was associated with improved disease-specific survival (DSS) on both univariate (median not reached vs. 51 months, p < 0.001) and multivariate analyses (HR 4.98, 95% CI 2.23-11.12, p < 0.001). A sub-analysis of patients with gastric GISTs showed that undergoing surgery was the only significant factor associated with improved DSS (median not reached vs. 39 months, p < 0.001, HR 2.95, 95% CI 1.92-4.53). In contrast, undergoing surgery was not associated with improved survival for small intestinal, colorectal, or retroperitoneal/peritoneal tumors. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery for gastric metastatic GISTs is associated with improved survival. No discernible benefit after surgical resection was identified for patients with small intestinal, colorectal, retroperitoneal, or peritoneal metastatic GISTs.
Authors: Grace L Ma; James D Murphy; Maria E Martinez; Jason K Sicklick Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-10-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Heikki Joensuu; Mikael Eriksson; Kirsten Sundby Hall; Jörg T Hartmann; Daniel Pink; Jochen Schütte; Giuliano Ramadori; Peter Hohenberger; Justus Duyster; Salah-Eddin Al-Batran; Marcus Schlemmer; Sebastian Bauer; Eva Wardelmann; Maarit Sarlomo-Rikala; Bengt Nilsson; Harri Sihto; Odd R Monge; Petri Bono; Raija Kallio; Aki Vehtari; Mika Leinonen; Thor Alvegård; Peter Reichardt Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-03-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: C Mussi; U Ronellenfitsch; J Jakob; E Tamborini; P Reichardt; P G Casali; M Fiore; P Hohenberger; A Gronchi Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2009-07-23 Impact factor: 32.976
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: 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: S Bauer; P Rutkowski; P Hohenberger; R Miceli; E Fumagalli; J A Siedlecki; B-P Nguyen; M Kerst; M Fiore; P Nyckowski; M Hoiczyk; A Cats; P G Casali; J Treckmann; F van Coevorden; A Gronchi Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: Heikki Joensuu; Mikael Eriksson; Kirsten Sundby Hall; Annette Reichardt; Jörg T Hartmann; Daniel Pink; Giuliano Ramadori; Peter Hohenberger; Salah-Eddin Al-Batran; Marcus Schlemmer; Sebastian Bauer; Eva Wardelmann; Bengt Nilsson; Harri Sihto; Petri Bono; Raija Kallio; Jouni Junnila; Thor Alvegård; Peter Reichardt Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-11-02 Impact factor: 44.544