ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
Comparative efficacy of neoadjuvant imatinib therapy in gastric versus rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a two-center retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate and compare tumor response, survival outcomes, and prognostic factors in gastric versus rectal GIST patients treated with neoadjuvant IM.
methodsWe conducted a two-center retrospective cohort study of 134 patients with locally advanced gastric (n = 83) and rectal (n = 51) GISTs who received neoadjuvant IM followed by surgery between 2012 and 2024. Radiologic and pathologic responses were assessed, and survival outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models.
resultsPreoperative IM (Pre-IM) duration was stratified by the median of 9 months (IQR: 6–12 months). Before IM therapy, the mean tumor size was significantly larger in the gastric group than in the rectal group (12.07 ± 5.42 cm vs. 6.42 ± 2.96 cm, P < 0.001). Both groups demonstrated significant tumor shrinkage after IM (post-treatment size: 8.35 ± 4.33 cm vs. 4.25 ± 2.11 cm, P < 0.001), with comparable percentage reduction in size (29.7%±19.3% vs. 32.5%±17.7%, P = 0.402). Radiologic and pathologic response rates were also similar between the groups. However, rectal GISTs exhibited significantly better overall survival (5-year OS: 98.0% vs. 78.5%, P = 0.003) and a trend toward improved relapse-free survival (5-year RFS: 87.2% vs. 70.1%, P = 0.057). These survival benefits persisted across subgroups stratified by tumor size and Pre-IM duration, with a significant OS advantage observed in rectal GIST patients treated for ≥ 9 months (P = 0.025). Multivariate Cox regression confirmed rectal tumor location as an independent predictor of improved RFS (HR = 0.242, P = 0.022) and OS (HR = 0.044, P = 0.003).
conclusionGastric and rectal GISTs showed similar antitumor responses to neoadjuvant IM, while survival appeared more favorable for rectal tumors, particularly with extended Pre-IM. However, this result may be influenced by confounding factors and requires further validation in larger prospective studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.