切除胃间质瘤的总体生存和边缘状况

iGIE Pub Date : 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.igie.2025.01.013
Fiyinfoluwa O. Abraham MD , Tarrant McPherson PhD , Leslie Blackshear MD , Yuan Liu PhD , Theresa Gillespie PhD , Preeyanka Sundar MD , Vaishali Patel MD , Jordan Orr MD , Saurabh Chawla MD , Steven A. Keilin MD , Field F. Willingham MD, MPH, FASGE
{"title":"切除胃间质瘤的总体生存和边缘状况","authors":"Fiyinfoluwa O. Abraham MD ,&nbsp;Tarrant McPherson PhD ,&nbsp;Leslie Blackshear MD ,&nbsp;Yuan Liu PhD ,&nbsp;Theresa Gillespie PhD ,&nbsp;Preeyanka Sundar MD ,&nbsp;Vaishali Patel MD ,&nbsp;Jordan Orr MD ,&nbsp;Saurabh Chawla MD ,&nbsp;Steven A. Keilin MD ,&nbsp;Field F. Willingham MD, MPH, FASGE","doi":"10.1016/j.igie.2025.01.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Aims</h3><div>Studies assessing gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) have found no survival differences based on margin status; however, small sample sizes, merged anatomic locations, and limited follow-up have been limitations. This study examined the impact of margin status on overall survival in a large national cohort of patients with resected gastric GISTs.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Data on patients with gastric GISTs were abstracted from the National Cancer Database, with data collected over a 16-year period (2004-2020). Exclusion criteria included the presence of other primary tumors, unknown patient/tumor characteristics, macroscopic residual margins, metastasis at diagnosis, and prior chemotherapy. The cohort was stratified according to tumor size. R0 is defined as microscopically negative margin, and R1 is microscopically positive margin.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>After exclusions, there were 8448 patients in the analysis cohort: 8221 (97.3%) had R0 resections, and 227 (2.7%) had R1 resections. On univariate analysis, tumor size ≤5 cm (<em>P</em> &lt; .001), T1 stage (<em>P</em> &lt; .001), low grade (<em>P</em> &lt; .001), and low mitotic index (<em>P</em> &lt; .001) were associated with a decreased risk of death. Margin status (R0 vs R1) did not have an impact on survival in the combined (<em>P</em> = .249), ≤5 cm (<em>P</em> = .961), ≤3 cm (<em>P</em> = .595), or ≤2 cm (<em>P</em> = .614) cohorts. There was also no difference in the risk of death based on the resection margin, in which the hazard ratio (R1 vs R0) with a 95% confidence interval was 1.206 (.862-1.633). In multivariate analysis, the resection margin status did not affect overall survival (<em>P</em> = .666).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Congruent with prior studies, there was no difference in survival when comparing R0 with R1 resections in gastric GIST patients without metastasis over an extended follow-up period. These data may be helpful in assessing suitability for endoscopic resection for patients with gastric GISTs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100652,"journal":{"name":"iGIE","volume":"4 1","pages":"Pages 48-60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Overall survival and margin status in resected gastric stromal tumors\",\"authors\":\"Fiyinfoluwa O. Abraham MD ,&nbsp;Tarrant McPherson PhD ,&nbsp;Leslie Blackshear MD ,&nbsp;Yuan Liu PhD ,&nbsp;Theresa Gillespie PhD ,&nbsp;Preeyanka Sundar MD ,&nbsp;Vaishali Patel MD ,&nbsp;Jordan Orr MD ,&nbsp;Saurabh Chawla MD ,&nbsp;Steven A. Keilin MD ,&nbsp;Field F. Willingham MD, MPH, FASGE\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.igie.2025.01.013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and Aims</h3><div>Studies assessing gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) have found no survival differences based on margin status; however, small sample sizes, merged anatomic locations, and limited follow-up have been limitations. This study examined the impact of margin status on overall survival in a large national cohort of patients with resected gastric GISTs.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Data on patients with gastric GISTs were abstracted from the National Cancer Database, with data collected over a 16-year period (2004-2020). Exclusion criteria included the presence of other primary tumors, unknown patient/tumor characteristics, macroscopic residual margins, metastasis at diagnosis, and prior chemotherapy. The cohort was stratified according to tumor size. R0 is defined as microscopically negative margin, and R1 is microscopically positive margin.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>After exclusions, there were 8448 patients in the analysis cohort: 8221 (97.3%) had R0 resections, and 227 (2.7%) had R1 resections. On univariate analysis, tumor size ≤5 cm (<em>P</em> &lt; .001), T1 stage (<em>P</em> &lt; .001), low grade (<em>P</em> &lt; .001), and low mitotic index (<em>P</em> &lt; .001) were associated with a decreased risk of death. Margin status (R0 vs R1) did not have an impact on survival in the combined (<em>P</em> = .249), ≤5 cm (<em>P</em> = .961), ≤3 cm (<em>P</em> = .595), or ≤2 cm (<em>P</em> = .614) cohorts. There was also no difference in the risk of death based on the resection margin, in which the hazard ratio (R1 vs R0) with a 95% confidence interval was 1.206 (.862-1.633). In multivariate analysis, the resection margin status did not affect overall survival (<em>P</em> = .666).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Congruent with prior studies, there was no difference in survival when comparing R0 with R1 resections in gastric GIST patients without metastasis over an extended follow-up period. These data may be helpful in assessing suitability for endoscopic resection for patients with gastric GISTs.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"iGIE\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 48-60\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"iGIE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949708625000135\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"iGIE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949708625000135","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的评估胃肠道间质瘤(gist)的研究没有发现基于边缘状态的生存差异;然而,小样本量,合并的解剖位置和有限的随访是局限性的。本研究考察了切缘状态对切除胃间质瘤患者总体生存率的影响。方法从美国国家癌症数据库(National Cancer Database)中提取16年(2004-2020年)胃间质间质瘤患者的数据。排除标准包括其他原发肿瘤的存在、未知的患者/肿瘤特征、肉眼残余边缘、诊断时的转移和既往化疗。根据肿瘤大小对队列进行分层。定义R0为显微镜下的负缘,R1为显微镜下的正缘。结果排除后,分析队列中有8448例患者,其中R0切除8221例(97.3%),R1切除227例(2.7%)。单因素分析:肿瘤大小≤5 cm (P <;.001), T1期(P <;.001),低档(P <;.001),有丝分裂指数低(P <;.001)与死亡风险降低相关。切缘状态(R0 vs R1)对合并(P = 0.249)、≤5 cm (P = .961)、≤3 cm (P = .595)或≤2 cm (P = .614)队列的生存率没有影响。基于切除边缘的死亡风险也无差异,95%可信区间的风险比(R1 vs R0)为1.206(.862-1.633)。在多变量分析中,切除边缘状态不影响总生存率(P = .666)。结论与先前的研究一致,在延长的随访期内,比较R0和R1切除无转移的胃间质瘤患者的生存率没有差异。这些数据可能有助于评估胃胃肠道间质瘤患者内镜切除的适宜性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Overall survival and margin status in resected gastric stromal tumors

Background and Aims

Studies assessing gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) have found no survival differences based on margin status; however, small sample sizes, merged anatomic locations, and limited follow-up have been limitations. This study examined the impact of margin status on overall survival in a large national cohort of patients with resected gastric GISTs.

Methods

Data on patients with gastric GISTs were abstracted from the National Cancer Database, with data collected over a 16-year period (2004-2020). Exclusion criteria included the presence of other primary tumors, unknown patient/tumor characteristics, macroscopic residual margins, metastasis at diagnosis, and prior chemotherapy. The cohort was stratified according to tumor size. R0 is defined as microscopically negative margin, and R1 is microscopically positive margin.

Results

After exclusions, there were 8448 patients in the analysis cohort: 8221 (97.3%) had R0 resections, and 227 (2.7%) had R1 resections. On univariate analysis, tumor size ≤5 cm (P < .001), T1 stage (P < .001), low grade (P < .001), and low mitotic index (P < .001) were associated with a decreased risk of death. Margin status (R0 vs R1) did not have an impact on survival in the combined (P = .249), ≤5 cm (P = .961), ≤3 cm (P = .595), or ≤2 cm (P = .614) cohorts. There was also no difference in the risk of death based on the resection margin, in which the hazard ratio (R1 vs R0) with a 95% confidence interval was 1.206 (.862-1.633). In multivariate analysis, the resection margin status did not affect overall survival (P = .666).

Conclusions

Congruent with prior studies, there was no difference in survival when comparing R0 with R1 resections in gastric GIST patients without metastasis over an extended follow-up period. These data may be helpful in assessing suitability for endoscopic resection for patients with gastric GISTs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信