MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313328792 · doi:10.3390/curroncol30010034

Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours (GIST) of the Rectum: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4313328792 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shaheer I. Khan, Niall J. O’Sullivan, Hugo C. Temperley, Emanuele Rausa, Brian Mehigan, Paul McCormick, John O. Larkin, Dara O. Kavanagh, Michael E. Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGastrointestinal Tumor Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalMeta-analysisOdds ratioInternal medicineNeoadjuvant therapyGiSTAdjuvant therapyRegimenOncologyResection marginCochrane LibraryRectumColorectal cancerChemotherapySurgeryCancerStromal cellResectionBreast cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Rectal gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) have many treatment options, but uncertainty remains regarding the best treatment regimen for this rare pathology. The aim of this review is to assess the optimal management approach including timing of chemotherapy. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant articles comparing the impact of radical vs. local excision, and neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant therapy had on outcomes in the management of rectal GISTs. We specifically evaluated the influence that the aforementioned factors had on margins, recurrence, overall survival, 5-year disease-free survival, and hospital length of stay. Results: Twenty-eight studies met our predefined criteria and were included in our study, twelve of which were included in the quantitative synthesis. When comparing neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy, our meta-analysis noted no significance in terms of margin negativity (R0) (odds ratio [OR] 2.01, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7−5.79, p = 0.20) or recurrence rates (OR 0.22, 95% CI, 0.02−1.91, p = 0.17). However, there was a difference in overall 5-year survival in favour of neoadjuvant therapy (OR 3.19, 95% CI, 1.37−7.40, * p = 0.007). Comparing local excision versus radical excision, our meta-analysis observed no significance in terms of overall 5-year survival (OR1.31, 95% CI, 0.81−2.12, p = 0.26), recurrence (OR 0.67, 95% CI, 0.40−1.13, p = 0.12), or 5-year disease-free survival (OR 1.10, 95% CI, 0.55−2.19, p = 0.80). There was a difference in length of hospital stay with a reduced mean length of stay in local excision group (mean difference [MD] 6.74 days less in the LE group; 95% CI, −6.92−−6.56, * p =< 0.00001) as well as a difference in R0 rates in favour of radical resection (OR 0.68, 95% CI, 0.47−0.99, * p = 0.05). Conclusion: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved overall 5-year survival, while local excision is associated with reduced mean length of hospital stay. Further large-volume, prospective studies are required to further define the optimal treatment regimen in this complex pathology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.385
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.107 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicGastrointestinal Tumor Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207