Comparison of the Long-Term Risk of Recurrence and Other Clinical Outcomes in GIST Patients Receiving Imatinib as Adjuvant Therapy—A Retrospective Chart Extract-Based Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare characteristics of patients, the risk of recurrence, and mortality among adult patients with primary resectable gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) receiving short-term (6-12 months) versus long-term (≥ 24 months) imatinib therapy. METHODS: Detailed information on primary resectable KIT-positive GIST patients initiated on imatinib adjuvant therapy was retrospectively collected for short- and long-term imatinib patients from 318 US oncologists using an online data collection form. Patient characteristics were compared using Wilcoxon and Chi-square tests. Disease recurrence and mortality rates were compared using multivariate Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: Among the 406 short-term and 406 long-term imatinib patients, the median follow-up was 916 and 970 days, respectively. While patients generally had similar demographic characteristics, the short-term group had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular and ischemic heart diseases and patients in the long-term group had a higher pre-surgery risk profile. This finding was consistent with the main reason reported by oncologists for prescribing adjuvant imatinib over longer duration, i.e., patient risk profile. Disease recurrence [5.9 versus 1.2 %, (p < .001)] and mortality rates [7.1 % versus 2.0 %, (p < .001)] were higher in short- versus long-term patients. The adjusted risk of recurrence was 5.30 times (p < .001) higher, and mortality risk was 4.02 times (p < .001) higher in short- versus long-term patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patient risk profile is an important factor in oncologists' decisions to prescribe adjuvant imatinib. Despite the higher risk profile observed in long-term patients, the long-term use of imatinib was associated with a reduction in long-term risk of disease recurrence and mortality.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".