4.7 Review

Perspective on Updated Treatment Guidelines for Patients With Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors

期刊

CANCER
卷 116, 期 22, 页码 5126-5137

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25267

关键词

gastrointestinal; stromal; tumors; imatinib; practice guideline; protein tyrosine; kinases; sunitinib

类别

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [CA106588]
  2. Novartis
  3. Pfizer
  4. Conticanet Network of Excellence [FP6-018806]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumors of the gastrointestinal tract and present predominantly in middle-aged and older individuals. Historically, the outlook for patients with GISTs was very poor because of the general lack of efficacy of conventional chemotherapy and the often limited surgical options. However, the recognition of the role of mutations of the v-kit Hardy/Zuckerman 4 feline sarcoma viral oncogene homolog KIT and the platelet derived growth factor receptor alpha gene PDGFR alpha in the development of GISTs led to the evaluation of potential antitumor effects of the tyrosine kinase inhibitors imatinib and, more recently, sunitinib. Consequently, these molecularly targeted therapies were introduced into clinical practice, and the outcome for patients with GISTs improved considerably. In the last few years, the European Society of Medical Oncology, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and the Canadian Advisory Committee on GIST each published a major set of guidelines or practice recommendations for the management of patients with GIST. In the current review, the latest recommendations from each organization are summarized in terms of diagnosis and risk assessment, tumor staging, surgical and/or drug treatment of primary resectable and recurrent metastatic disease, and patient follow-up and assessment. In addition, areas of consensus and points of divergence among the guidelines are highlighted along with any unresolved issues. Cancer 2010;116:5126-37. (c) 2010 American Cancer Society

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据