Guideline-Based Follow-Up Outcomes in Patients With Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor With Low Risk of Recurrence: A Report From the Italian Sarcoma Group

Importance: Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) follow-up is recommended by international guidelines, but data on the role of follow-up in patients with low relapse risk are missing. For these patients, the potential benefit of anticipating recurrence detection should be weighed against psychological burden and radiologic examination loads in terms of costs and radiation exposure. Objective: To evaluate the outcomes of guideline-based follow-up in low-risk GIST. Design, setting, and participants: This multi-institutional retrospective cohort study involving Italian Sarcoma Group reference institutions evaluated patients with GIST who underwent surgery between January 2001 and June 2019. Median follow-up time was 69.2 months. Data analysis was performed from December 15, 2022, to March 20, 2023. Patients with GIST at low risk according to Armed Forces Institute of Pathology criteria were included provided adequate clinical information was available: primary site, size, mitotic index, surgical margins, and 2 or more years of follow-up. Exposures: All patients underwent follow-up according to European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines. Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was the number of tests needed to identify a relapse according to ESMO guidelines follow-up plan. Secondary outcomes included relapse rate, relapse timing, disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), GIST-specific survival (GIST-SS), postrelapse OS, secondary tumor rates, and theoretical ionizing radiation exposure. An exploratory end point, new follow-up schedule proposal for patients with low-risk GIST according to the observed results, was also assessed. Results: A total of 737 patients (377 men [51.2%]; median age at diagnosis, 63 [range, 18-86] years) with low-risk GIST were included. Estimated 5-year survival rates were 95.5% for DFS, 99.8% for GIST-SS, and 96.1% for OS. Estimated 10-year survival rates were 93.4% for DFS, 98.1% for GIST-SS, and 91.0% for OS. Forty-two patients (5.7%) experienced disease relapse during follow-up (9 local, 31 distant, 2 both), of which 9 were detected after 10 or more years. This translated into approximately 1 relapse detected for every 170 computed tomography scans performed, with a median radiation exposure of 80 (IQR, 32-112) mSv per patient. Nongastric primary tumor (hazard ratio [HR], 2.09; 95% CI, 1.14-3.83; P = .02), and KIT mutation (HR, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.05-7.27; P = .04) were associated with a higher risk of relapse. Second tumors affected 187 of 737 patients (25%), of which 56 were detected during follow-up and represented the primary cause of death in these patients. Conclusions and relevance: In this cohort study on patients affected by low-risk GISTs, the risk of relapse was low despite a follow-up across 10 or more years. These data suggest the need to revise follow-up schedules to reduce the anxiety, costs, and radiation exposure of currently recommended follow-up strategy

Synchronous GISTs associated with multiple sporadic tumors: a case report

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are rare neoplasms, but they also represent the most common mesenchymal tumors of the gastrointestinal tract originating from the cell of Cajal. GIST incidence ranges around 1% of all gastrointestinal malignancies. Approximately 5% of all GISTs have a hereditary etiology. The remaining 95% of GISTs are considered sporadic events, with up to 75% of cases driven by a constitutional activation of the c-KIT proto-oncogene. GISTs are generally solitary lesions. Nonetheless, multiple sporadic GISTs can occur and present as synchronous or metachronous tumors, usually associated with familial GIST. Here, we report a case of primary prostate and lung tumors associated with gastric and small bowel GISTs, unrelated to any known hereditary syndrome. Also, in the case we describe, the prostatic tumor came before the GISTs, while the lung tumor occurred later in time and led to pulmonary lobectomy plus lymphoadenectomy, with a diagnosis of nonsmall cell lung cancer. With the exception of a slight difference in lymphoid infiltration, the abdominal and gastric GIST nodules shared the same proliferative MIB1 index and mitotic count. However, the genetic analysis revealed that the gastric GIST and abdominal tumors were characterized by two different c-KIT mutations. This molecular heterogeneity supported the hypothesis of two different synchronous GISTs arising from stomach and ileum. At present, the patient is disease free and has already completed the third year of adjuvant therapy with imatinib. This case supports the importance of the analysis of c-KIT mutational status to distinguish metastases from synchronous multicentric GISTs, with relevant implications in therapeutic decisions, as well as the importance of a dedicated multidisciplinary team and of a radiological follow-up after the diagnosis of a primary GIST, to discover a relapse of the GIST or, possibly, additional malignancies

Molecular Tailored Therapeutic Options for Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GISTs): Current Practice and Future Perspectives

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are one of the most common mesenchymal tumors characterized by different molecular alterations that lead to specific clinical presentations and behaviors. In the last twenty years, thanks to the discovery of these mutations, several new treatment options have emerged. This review provides an extensive overview of GISTs’ molecular pathways and their respective tailored therapeutic strategies. Furthermore, current treatment strategies under investigation and future perspectives are analyzed and discussed

Counting mitoses in gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs): variable practices in the real-world setting and their clinical implications

Mitotic count (MC) is an important prognostic indicator in gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs). Though MC evaluation was initially proposed in 50 HPFs, recent international guidelines recommend that MC be performed on 5 mm(2) because HPFs may have different areas depending on the ocular field number (FN) of the utilized light microscope. Performing MC on different areas leads to a non-standardized evaluation and erroneous risk stratification. The aim of the study was to audit real-life MC practices with special emphasis on possible risk stratification errors. A survey was administered to Italian pathologists to evaluate the following: method used for MC (5 mm(2) versus 50 HPF); FN of the light microscope; prognostic scheme for risk stratification. Based on the results of the survey, 100 GISTs (25/risk class using Miettinen prognostic scheme) were retrieved and MC performed using 5 mm(2) versus the corresponding mm(2) area sizes of 50 HPFs with variable FNs (18, 20, 22). The survey demonstrated that the majority of pathologists (64.5%) use 50 HPFs with various FNs leading to excessive area size. The most frequently used prognostic scheme is that by Miettinen. Using this prognostic scheme and counting mitoses in 5 mm(2) versus 50 HPFs with FNs 18, 20 and 22, a change in risk class was identified ranging from 10 to 41%, depending on FN. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that MC is still frequently performed on 50 HPF, with area sizes exceeding the specified 5 mm(2) by far

Reliability of patient-reported toxicities during adjuvant chemotherapy

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are validated tools to assess the impact of efficacy and toxicities of cancer treatments on patients' health status. Because of the demonstrated little reliability of humans in reporting memories of painful experiences, this work explores the reliability of cancer patients in reporting chemotherapy-related toxicities. Aim: This study aims to evaluate the concordance between toxicities experienced by the patients during chemotherapy and toxicities reported to the doctor at the end of the cycles. Methods: Questionnaires concerning chemotherapy-related toxicities were administered on days 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17 of each chemo cycle and at the end of the same cycle to patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. The co-primary end-points were Lins's concordance cor-relation coefficient (CCC) and mean difference between real-time and retrospective toxicity as-sessments. Results: In total, 7182 toxicity assessments were collected from 1096 questionnaires. Concor-dance was observed between the retrospective evaluations and the toxicity assessments at early (day 2), peak (maximum toxicity), late (day 14 or 17), and mean real-time evaluations for each chemotherapy cycle (CCC for mean ranging from 0.52 to 0.77). No systematic discrepancy was found between real-time and retrospective evaluations, except for peak, which was system-atically underestimated retrospectively. Conclusions: Toxicities reported by the patients to the doctor at the end of each chemotherapy cycle reflect what they actually experienced without any substantial distortion. This result is very relevant both for the clinical implications in daily patients' management and in the light of the current growing impact on digital monitoring of PROs. 2023 Published by Elsevier Ltd