scholarly journals Comparison of different risk classification systems in patients with high risk gastrointestinal stromal tumors

2018 ◽  
Vol 29 ◽  
pp. v33
Author(s):  
Y. Yin ◽  
Z. Cai ◽  
B. Zhang ◽  
C. Shen
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haijia Mao ◽  
Bingqian Zhang ◽  
Mingyue Zou ◽  
Yanan Huang ◽  
Liming Yang ◽  
...  

BackgroundWe conduct a study in developing and validating four MRI-based radiomics models to preoperatively predict the risk classification of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs).MethodsForty-one patients (low-risk = 17, intermediate-risk = 13, high-risk = 11) underwent MRI before surgery between September 2013 and March 2019 in this retrospective study. The Kruskal–Wallis test with Bonferonni correction and variance threshold was used to select appropriate features, and the Random Forest model (three classification model) was used to select features among the high-risk, intermediate-risk, and low-risk of GISTs. The predictive performance of the models built by the Random Forest was estimated by a 5-fold cross validation (5FCV). Their performance was estimated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, summarized as the area under the ROC curve (AUC). Area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for risk classification were reported. Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) was used to assess the discriminative ability of these radiomics models.ResultsThe high-risk, intermediate-risk, and low-risk of GISTs were well classified by radiomics models, the micro-average of ROC curves was 0.85, 0.81, 0.87 and 0.94 for T1WI, T2WI, ADC and combined three MR sequences. And ROC curves achieved excellent AUCs for T1WI (0.85, 0.75 and 0.82), T2WI (0.69, 0.78 and 0.78), ADC (0.85, 0.77 and 0.80) and combined three MR sequences (0.96, 0.92, 0.81) for the diagnosis of high-risk, intermediate-risk, and low-risk of GISTs, respectively. In addition, LDA demonstrated the different risk of GISTs were correctly classified by radiomics analysis (61.0% for T1WI, 70.7% for T2WI, 83.3% for ADC, and 78.9% for the combined three MR sequences).ConclusionsRadiomics models based on a single sequence and combined three MR sequences can be a noninvasive method to evaluate the risk classification of GISTs, which may help the treatment of GISTs patients in the future.


2016 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Schmieder ◽  
Doris Henne-Bruns ◽  
Benjamin Mayer ◽  
Uwe Knippschild ◽  
Claudia Rolke ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xing Xu ◽  
Guoliang Zheng ◽  
Zhichao Zheng

Abstract Background: Due to the extremely rare incidence, data of clinicopathological features and prognosis of primary hepatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) is limited. Methods: 36 cases of hepatic GISTs were from the literature, PUBMED, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and WANFANG DATA, and 1 case came from our center. Clinicopathological features and outcomes were analyzed between 37 hepatic GISTs and 254 gastric GISTs from our center. Results: A majority of hepatic GISTs exceeded 5 cm (83.7%), displayed mixed density (69.4%) and spindle morphology (74.2%) and were classified as high risk (91.4%). Larger tumors of hepatic GISTs were likely to display mixed lesion and tumors with mixed lesion were prone to be classified as high risk. In comparisons to gastric GISTs, hepatic GISTs differed from gastric GISTs in tumor size, main symptoms, histologic type, mitotic index, CD34 expression, NIH risk classification. In patients with hepatic GISTs, 5-year DFS and DSS rates were 19.4% and 53.7%, which were worse than that of gastric GISTs (P< 0.001), especially for those with tumor size exceeding 5 cm or mitotic indices exceeding 5/50 HPF (P < 0.001). Multivariable analysis showed location and NIH risk classification were independent prognostic factors for DFS in patients with GISTs, and size and location were significantly associated with DSS. Conclusions: Hepatic GISTs distinguished from gastric GISTs in respect to clinicopathological features and outcomes. Mitotic index exceeding 5/50 HPF or tumor size exceeding 5 cm may be important factor to distinguish hepatic GISTs from gastric GISTs in DFS and DSS.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yingjie Guo ◽  
Xue Jing ◽  
Jian Zhang ◽  
Xueli Ding ◽  
Xiaoyu Li ◽  
...  

Background and Aims. Endoscopic removal of GISTs (gastrointestinal stromal tumors) is recently recognized, but less is known about its efficacy and safety. This study is aimed at assessing the feasibility, clinical efficacy, and safety of the endoscopic removal of gastric GISTs. Patients and Methods. Endoscopic removal (ER) of GISTs was performed in 134 patients at our hospital between January 2015 and January 2019. The clinical features, surgical outcomes, complications, pathological diagnosis, and risk classification were evaluated retrospectively. Results. ER was successful in 131 cases (98%), including 58 by ESD (endoscopic submucosal dissection), 43 by ESE (endoscopic submucosal excavation), 25 by EFTR (endoscopic full-thickness resection), and 5 by STER (submucosal tunneling endoscopic resection). In addition, GISTs of two cases were resected using LECS (laparoscopic and luminal endoscopic cooperative surgery) for the extraluminal and intraluminal growth pattern. The average tumor size was 1.89±1.25 cm (range: 0.5-6.0 cm). Of these patients, 26 cases had a large tumor size (range: 2.0-6.0 cm), and endoscopic removal was successful in all of them. During the procedure, endoclips were used to close the perforation in all cases, without conversion to open surgery. The average length of hospital stay was 5.50±2.15 days (range: 3-10 days). In the risk classification, 106 (79.7%) were of a very low risk, 25 (18.8%) of a low risk, and 2 (1.5%) of a moderate risk. The moderate-risk cases were treated with imatinib mesylate after ER. No recurrence or metastasis was observed during the follow-up period of 23±8 months (range: 3-48 months). Conclusions. The endoscopic treatment is feasible, effective, and safe for gastric GISTs, and individualized choice of approaches is recommended for GISTs.


JAMA Oncology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (8) ◽  
pp. 1241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heikki Joensuu ◽  
Mikael Eriksson ◽  
Kirsten Sundby Hall ◽  
Annette Reichardt ◽  
Barbara Hermes ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document