Background The use of imatinib, sunitinib, and regorafenib has transformed the treatment of advanced GIST. Sunitinib and regorafenib improve progression free-survival in the second (2L) and third (3L) line, respectively, compared with placebo. However, the impact of these agents on overall survival (OS) is unclear. Methods The Life Raft Group (LRG) patient registry contains records from 1716 GIST patients; 526 have advanced to at least 2L treatment. Patient-reported treatment and outcome data were examined to determine treatment patterns and their impact on OS. Results Median OS from start of 2L therapy was 32.4 months for sunitinib (n = 436) compared with 27.1 months for patients treated with any other 2L drug (n = 74, p = 0.023, HR 1.377) and 16.8 months for patients who never received sunitinib in any treatment line (n = 42, p = 0.028, HR 1.52). In patients reporting progression in 2L, the median OS in patients subsequently receiving 3L regorafenib (n = 53, 26.2 months) was longer than that of 3L patients who never received regorafenib in any line of therapy (n = 174, 14.3 months, p = 0.0002, HR 2.231), and was longer than that of patients who received any other 3L treatment (19.8 months, p = 0.044, HR 1.525). OS for advanced GIST patients in the LRG registry has improved over time ( p = 0.0013), correlated with the increased use of TKIs in ≥ 2L settings. Conclusions In our analysis, sunitinib and regorafenib significantly improved OS compared with patients who never received these agents. Our data also support the hypothesis that the use of KIT/PDGFRA inhibitors, including non-approved agents, has improved OS for patients with imatinib- and sunitinib-resistant GIST. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13569-019-0114-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

e24164 Background: Biomarker testing has advanced precision medicine in cancer. However, not all eligible patients benefit from biomarker-driven therapies due to suboptimal testing rates. A working group of 20 patient advocacy groups representing solid/hematologic malignancies, three professional societies, and 18 pharmaceutical and diagnostics companies identified patient confusion inconsistent testing terms as a possible contributing factor to biomarker testing underutilization. The group aimed to address patients’ confusion by identifying and adopting consistent, plain language terms for biomarker and germline genetic testing that are applicable across cancer types. Methods: Following a stakeholder roundtable discussion on barriers to precision medicine, working group members participated in interviews on their goals for consistent testing terminology for their constituents. We then conducted a framework analysis covering five themes: available testing by cancer type; purpose of test; biospecimen source; terms used in patient education; and preferred plain language term. Working group members were surveyed on preferences for germline testing terminology and also deployed a preliminary patient survey to their constituents to gain insight on preferences for germline testing terms. Results: Interviews, framework analysis, and surveys revealed notable differences across cancer communities. We identified at least 33 different terms related to biomarker, genetic and genomic testing being used in patient education and clinical care among the different cancer communities and stakeholders. Terminology was complicated by the variety of testing modalities and gene mutations tested for across cancers. Following multiple discussions, working group members agreed on two umbrella terms to distinguish between somatic and germline testing with additional context for specific cancer communities. “Biomarker testing” was selected as the somatic testing term. “Genetic testing for an inherited mutation” and “genetic testing for inherited cancer risk” were selected as preferred germline testing terms. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the disparate testing terminology landscape and the need for consistent terms to reduce patient confusion, improve communication, facilitate shared decision-making and assure concordance in policy development.

Background Due to the low mutational testing rate in patients with Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GIST), The Life Raft Group (LRG), a non-profit organization that provides support, advocacy and conducts research for patients with GIST, analyzed various factors that may have an impact on patients’ ability to receive mutational testing. Methods A survey about mutational testing for patients with GIST or their caregivers, was conducted in June 2020. The survey, sent to 1004 GIST patients and caregivers through email, was promoted through social media with instructions to contact the LRG to participate. The survey was designed by the LRG Patient Registry Department. Members of the LRG, regardless of Patient Registry status, were eligible to participate. Results A total of 295 patients/caregivers participated in this study (response rate: 29.4%). The percentage of patients who indicated they had received mutational testing was much higher in this survey (80%) than in the general GIST community (26.7%). Several reasons were cited for having a test, including: “My doctor ordered/suggested that I have it done” (54%); “The Life Raft Group advised/suggested I have it done” (25%); “I asked my doctor to have it done” (22%); “I had it done as part of a clinical trial” (5%); “I am not sure” (3%) and “Other” (14%). Mutational testing resulted in a treatment change in 25% of cases. Patients were able to select more than one option when completing this question resulting in a percentage greater than 100. Conclusions The LRG membership is voluntary and proactive; patients who join are more likely to participate in surveys and mutational testing, as well as more likely to have a GIST specialist. Mutational testing can influence understanding of a patient’s GIST and the treatment best suited to each case. These are extremely important findings, as it helps ensure that patients are on the proper treatment, which should lead to better outcomes.

No abstract

Background Due to the low mutational testing rate in patients with Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors (GIST), The Life Raft Group (LRG), a non-profit organization that provides support, advocacy, and conducts research for patients with GIST, analyzed various factors that may have an impact on patients’ ability to receive mutational testing. Methods A survey about mutational testing for patients with GIST, or their caregivers, was conducted in June 2020. The survey, sent to 1004 GIST patients and caregivers through email, was promoted through social media with instructions to contact the LRG to participate. The survey was designed by the LRG Patient Registry Department. Members of the LRG, regardless of Patient Registry status, were eligible to participate. Results A total of 295 patients/caregivers participated in this study (response rate: 29.4%). The percentage of patients who indicated they had received mutational testing was much higher in this survey (80%) than in the general GIST community (26.7%). Several reasons were cited for having a test, including: “My doctor ordered/suggested that I have it done” (54%); “The Life Raft Group advised/suggested I have it done” (25%); “I asked my doctor to have it done” (22%); “I had it done as part of a clinical trial” (5%); “I am not sure” (3%) and “Other” (14%). Mutational testing resulted in a treatment change in 25% of cases. Patients were able to select more than one option when completing this question resulting in a percentage greater than 100.Conclusions The LRG membership is voluntary and proactive; patients who join are more likely to participate in surveys and mutational testing, as well has more likely to have a GIST specialist. Mutational testing can influence understanding a patient’s GIST and the treatment best suited to each case. These are extremely important findings, as it helps ensure that patients are on the proper treatment, which should lead to better outcomes.