MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255025741 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz006.277

A278 SMALL GASTROINTESTINAL STROMAL TUMORS (GIST): A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS OF EUS SURVEILLANCE

2019· article· en· W4255025741 on OpenAlexaffabout
C A Macdonnell, Jennifer J. Telford, Cherry Galorport, Eric Lam, Francesca R. Donnellan, Michael F. Byrne, Weiss Aa, R A Enns

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Tumor Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGiSTMedicineNatural historyEndoscopic ultrasoundRadiologyDemographicsRetrospective cohort studyStromal tumorEndoscopyFine-needle aspirationGeneral surgeryStromal cellInternal medicineBiopsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumors of the GI tract. They are often noted incidentally at endoscopy or cross sectional imaging. Following their identification, further investigation via endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), often with fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) confirms diagnosis. The natural history and appropriate management of small (<2 cm) GISTs is not well understood and in 2010 the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines recommended surveillance EUS every 6–12 months. To determine if our management strategy for <2cm GISTs was consistent with present guidelines. Secondary outcomes were to identify barriers to surveillance and determine the natural history of GIST. A retrospective chart review of all EUS procedures at St. Paul’s Hospital (SPH) and Vancouver General Hospital (VGH), Vancouver, Canada was completed from 01/05-06/17 and 01/12-06/17 respectively. Individuals with <2cm GISTs were identified. A GIST was defined as a hypoechoic lesion arising from the 2nd or 4th layer of the GI wall +/- cytologic or histologic diagnosis. Data collected included patient demographics, clinical presentation, initial and subsequent EUS findings, interval between EUS, reasons for not undergoing surveillance EUS, and pathology. Candidates were collated based on the presence of GISTs and whether appropriate follow-up occurred based on NCCN guidelines. This study was approved by the IRB at SPH and VGH. GISTs were identified by EUS in 199 patients, 94 (47%) had lesions <2 cm in size. Mean age at diagnosis was 64 years (SD:12.6). 77% were referred due to incidental findings at initial endoscopy and 23% were referred based on CT imaging. GISTs identified were located in the stomach and esophagus. Of the 94 patients with <2cm GISTs, surveillance was recommended in 86 (92%) and 69 (80%) had at least one surveillance EUS. Of the 17 patients surveillance was recommended but not completed, the barrier was not identified. Over the review period, there was an improvement in surveillance adherence to 100%. During a median follow-up of 6 yrs (1–10), 66 (96%) lesions remained unchanged in size and 3 increased in size. Of these 3 lesions, 1 exceeded 2cm in size but remained stable over serial examinations. Of the 69 patients with <2cm GISTs, 3 were referred to surgery for high risk features. No patients with <2cm lesions developed unresectable disease. SPH and VGH endosonographers recommendations for surveillance of <2cm GISTs agreed with current guidelines in 92% of patients. Adherence to recommendations improved to 100% over the study. Rate of progression of <2cm GISTs is very low and evidence supports that surveillance intervals can be increased for patients with small GISTs that have been stable over serial examinations. None

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicGastrointestinal Tumor Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207