Corrections to “Gastrointestinal stromal tumours: ESMO–EURACAN Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up”

Casali, Paolo G.; Abecassis, N.; Aro, Helena; Bauer, Stephen J.; Biagini, R.; Bielack, Stefan; Bonvalot, Sylvie; Boukovinas, I.; Bovée, Judith V.M.G.; Brodowicz, Thomas; Broto, Javier Martín; Buonadonna, A.; Álava, Enrique de; Tos, Angelo Paolo Dei; Muro, Xavier García del; Dileo, Palma; Eriksson, Mikael; Феденко, А. А.; Ferraresi, Virginia; Ferrari, A.; Ferrari, Samantha; Frezza, Anna Maria; Gasperoni, Silvia; Gelderblom, Hans; Gil, Thierry; Grignani, Giovanni; Gronchi, A.; Haas, Rick L.; Hassan, B.; Hohenberger, Peter; Issels, Rolf D.; Joensuu, Heikki; Jones, Robin L.; Judson, Ian; Jutte, Paul C.; Kaal, Suzanne E. J.; Kasper, Bernd; Kopečková, Kateřina; Krákorová, Dagmar Adámková; Cesne, A. Le; Ługowska, Iwona; Merimsky, Ofer; Montemurro, Michael; Pantaleo, Maria Abbondanza; Piana, Raimondo; Picci, P.; Piperno‐Neumann, Sophie; Pousa, Antonio López; Reichardt, Peter; Robinson, Martin; Rutkowski, Piotr; Safwat, Akmal; Schöffski, Patrick; Sleijfer, Stefan; Stacchiotti, Silvia; Hall, Kirsten Sundby; Unk, Mojca; Coevorden, Frits van; Graaf, Winette T.A. van der; Whelan, Jeremy; Wardelmann, Eva; Zaikova, Olga; Blay, J-Y.

doi:10.1093/annonc/mdy320

Cited by 133 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This applied in particular to patients with a c‐KIT exon 9 mutation, in whom reported outcome was worse compared to patients with a mutation in exon 11. Although the evidence is limited, it is currently advised by the ESMO guidelines to treat patients with a c‐KIT exon 9 mutation at a dose of 400 mg BID . No data on plasma concentrations are available in c‐KIT exon 9 mutated GIST treated with imatinib 400 mg BID.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imatinib, sunitinib and pazopanib: From flat‐fixed dosing towards a pharmacokinetically guided personalized dose

Westerdijk¹,

Desar²,

Steeghs

et al. 2020

Brit J Clinical Pharma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are anti‐cancer drugs that target tyrosine kinases, enzymes that are involved in multiple cellular processes. Currently, multiple oral TKIs have been introduced in the treatment of solid tumours, all administered in a fixed dose, although large interpatient pharmacokinetic (PK) variability is described. For imatinib, sunitinib and pazopanib exposure‐treatment outcome (efficacy and toxicity) relationships have been established and therapeutic windows have been defined, therefore dose optimization based on the measured blood concentration, called therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), can be valuable in increasing efficacy and reducing the toxicity of these drugs. In this review, an overview of the current knowledge on TDM guided individualized dosing of imatinib, sunitinib and pazopanib for the treatment of solid tumours is presented. We summarize preclinical and clinical data that have defined thresholds for efficacy and toxicity. Furthermore, PK models and factors that influence the PK of these drugs which partly explain the interpatient PK variability are summarized. Finally, pharmacological interventions that have been performed to optimize plasma concentrations are described. Based on current literature, we advise which methods should be used to optimize exposure to imatinib, sunitinib and pazopanib.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Imatinib, sunitinib and pazopanib: From flat‐fixed dosing towards a pharmacokinetically guided personalized dose

Westerdijk¹,

Desar²,

Steeghs

et al. 2020

Brit J Clinical Pharma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gastric subepithelial lesions (SEL), including potentially malignant gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST), are sometimes incidentally found during routine esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Because of their similar endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) characteristics and cytomorphology, immunohistochemical staining of c‐kit (CD117) and/or DOG1 is required to distinguish GIST from benign SEL, such as leiomyomas and schwannomas . According to the European Society for Medical Oncology and the Japanese GIST guidelines, the standard treatment for histologically proven GIST (even tumors <2 cm in size) is surgical resection .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because of their similar endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) characteristics and cytomorphology, immunohistochemical staining of c‐kit (CD117) and/or DOG1 is required to distinguish GIST from benign SEL, such as leiomyomas and schwannomas . According to the European Society for Medical Oncology and the Japanese GIST guidelines, the standard treatment for histologically proven GIST (even tumors <2 cm in size) is surgical resection . Thus, a histological examination that includes immunohistochemistry is important for discriminating GIST from benign SEL.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mucosal incision‐assisted biopsy versus endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration with a rapid on‐site evaluation for gastric subepithelial lesions: A randomized cross‐over study

Osoegawa

Minoda

Ihara

et al. 2019

Digestive Endoscopy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study aimed to compare the diagnostic yield of mucosal incision‐assisted biopsy (MIAB) and endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration (EUS‐FNA) with a rapid on‐site evaluation (ROSE) for gastric subepithelial lesions (SEL) suspected of being gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) with an intraluminal growth pattern. Methods This was a prospective randomized, cross‐over multicenter study. The primary outcome was the diagnostic yield of EUS‐FNA and MIAB. The secondary outcomes were the technical success rate, complication rate, procedure time and biopsy frequency. Results A total of 47 patients were randomized to the MIAB group (n = 23) and EUS‐FNA group (n = 24). There was no significant difference in the diagnostic yield of MIAB and EUS‐FNA (91.3% vs 70.8%, P = 0.0746). The complication rates of MIAB and EUS‐FNA did not differ to a statistically significant extent. The mean procedure time in the MIAB group was significantly longer than that in the EUS‐FNA group (34 vs 26 min, P = 0.0011). Conclusions The diagnostic yield of MIAB was satisfactorily as high as EUS‐FNA with ROSE for gastric SEL with an intraluminal growth pattern.

show abstract

“…The analysis of GIST includes measurement of mitosis per 5 mm 2 , which is used for risk stratification in combination with tumor size and tumor site [6]. Mutational analysis of GIST is another key element in the diagnostic work-up of GIST [7]. First, because mutational analysis has predictive value for molecular-targeted therapy and, second, because some genotypes have a distinct natural history.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, because mutational analysis has predictive value for molecular-targeted therapy and, second, because some genotypes have a distinct natural history. Therefore, current guidelines tend to recommend that every GIST be tested for mutations [7]. KIT is the most commonly mutated gene (70–80%), followed by PDGFRA (5–10%) [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Molecular Profile of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors in Sixty-Eight Patients from a Single Swiss Institution

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is the most common mesenchymal neoplasm of the gastrointestinal tract. It has distinct molecular features and primarily affects the KIT and PDGFRA genes. Objective: We wanted to assess the molecular profile of 68 GIST patients who were sequenced consecutively between 2014 and 2019 at our institute of pathology. Methods: Our cohort comprised 60 primary and 8 metastatic GIST patients; 43 and 57% of the cases, respectively, were analyzed by Sanger sequencing or next-generation sequencing (NGS). Results: Of the 60 primary GIST patients, 47 (78%) showed a KIT mutation; 2 cases showed a double KIT mutation, and 1 of these was a therapy-naive GIST. Nine (15%) patients harbored a PDGFRA mutation, 2 (3%) had a BRAF mutation, 1 (2%) had a PIK3CA mutation, and 1 (2%) did not show any mutation. One BRAF and the PIK3CA mutation have not been described in GIST before. All metastatic GIST harbored exclusively KIT mutations. Conclusion: A retrospective analysis of GIST sequenced at our institute revealed incidences of KIT and PDGFRA mutations comparable to those in other cohorts from Europe. Interestingly, we found 2 previously undescribed mutations in the BRAF and PIK3CA genes as well as 1 treatment-naive case with a double KIT mutation in exon 11.

show abstract

Corrections to “Gastrointestinal stromal tumours: ESMO–EURACAN Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up”

Cited by 133 publications

References 0 publications

Imatinib, sunitinib and pazopanib: From flat‐fixed dosing towards a pharmacokinetically guided personalized dose

Imatinib, sunitinib and pazopanib: From flat‐fixed dosing towards a pharmacokinetically guided personalized dose

Mucosal incision‐assisted biopsy versus endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration with a rapid on‐site evaluation for gastric subepithelial lesions: A randomized cross‐over study

Molecular Profile of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors in Sixty-Eight Patients from a Single Swiss Institution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About