BACKGROUND: Although various risk classification systems for GISTs have been proposed, the optimum one remains uncertain. In the present study, we compared the prognostic stratification of different risk classification systems for GIST patients. METHODS: We reviewed those patients who were pathologically diagnosed with GISTs in the SEER database between 2009 and 2014. All patients were classified into different risk groups according to the NIH criteria, AFIP criteria and AJCC staging system, respectively. The prognostic differences between different risk groups were compared and clinicopathologic features were analyzed. RESULTS: The prognosis of small intestinal GISTs was not significantly different from that of gastric GISTs. For gastric GIST patients, there was no significant prognostic difference between very low risk and low risk group according to the NIH and AFIP criteria. However, the prognostic stratification for two groups could be improved by the AJCC staging system. For small intestinal GIST patients, the prognostic difference between low risk and intermediate risk group was not stratified properly by the NIH and AFIP criteria. However, the prognostic difference between two groups could reach statistical significance according to the AJCC staging system. Unlike gastric GISTs, tumor size was not identified as an independent factor influencing the prognosis of small intestinal GISTs. CONCLUSIONS: The AJCC staging system could provide a better prognostic stratification for GIST patients compared with the NIH and AFIP criteria, regardless of gastric or small intestinal tumor. However, primary tumor location and tumor size may be reconsidered and revised in the risk classification system.
BACKGROUND: Although various risk classification systems for GISTs have been proposed, the optimum one remains uncertain. In the present study, we compared the prognostic stratification of different risk classification systems for GISTpatients. METHODS: We reviewed those patients who were pathologically diagnosed with GISTs in the SEER database between 2009 and 2014. All patients were classified into different risk groups according to the NIH criteria, AFIP criteria and AJCC staging system, respectively. The prognostic differences between different risk groups were compared and clinicopathologic features were analyzed. RESULTS: The prognosis of small intestinal GISTs was not significantly different from that of gastric GISTs. For gastric GISTpatients, there was no significant prognostic difference between very low risk and low risk group according to the NIH and AFIP criteria. However, the prognostic stratification for two groups could be improved by the AJCC staging system. For small intestinal GISTpatients, the prognostic difference between low risk and intermediate risk group was not stratified properly by the NIH and AFIP criteria. However, the prognostic difference between two groups could reach statistical significance according to the AJCC staging system. Unlike gastric GISTs, tumor size was not identified as an independent factor influencing the prognosis of small intestinal GISTs. CONCLUSIONS: The AJCC staging system could provide a better prognostic stratification for GISTpatients compared with the NIH and AFIP criteria, regardless of gastric or small intestinal tumor. However, primary tumor location and tumor size may be reconsidered and revised in the risk classification system.
Entities:
Keywords:
Gastrointestinal stromal tumors; SEER; imatinib; prognosis; risk classification system