Preoperative imaging of gastric GISTs underestimates pathologic tumor size: A retrospective, single institution analysis.
computed tomography
endoscopic ultrasound
gastric submucosal tumor
gastrointestinal pathology
gastrointestinal stromal tumor
gastrointestinal surgery
Journal
Journal of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1096-9098
Titre abrégé: J Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0222643
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2021
Jul 2021
Historique:
revised:
21
03
2021
received:
22
12
2020
accepted:
02
04
2021
pubmed:
16
4
2021
medline:
25
6
2021
entrez:
15
4
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
How well imaging size agrees with pathologic size of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) is unknown. GIST risk stratification is based on pathologic size, location, and mitotic rate. To inform decision making, the size discrepancy between imaging and pathology for gastric GISTs was investigated. Imaging and pathology reports were reviewed for 113 patients. Bland-Altman analyses and intraclass correlation (ICC) assessed agreement of imaging and pathology. Changes in clinical risk category due to size discrepancy were identified. Computed tomography (CT) (n = 110) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) (n = 50) underestimated pathologic size for gastric GISTs by 0.42 cm, 95% confidence interval (CI): (0.11, 0.73), p = 0.008 and 0.54 cm, 95% CI: (0.25, 0.82), p < 0.001, respectively. ICCs were 0.94 and 0.88 for CT and EUS, respectively. For GISTs ≤ 3 cm, size underestimation was 0.24 cm for CT (n = 28), 95% CI: (0.01, 0.47), p = 0.039 and 0.56 cm for EUS (n = 26), 95% CI: (0.27, 0.84), p < 0.0001. ICCs were 0.72 and 0.55 for CT and EUS, respectively. Spearman's correlation was ≥0.84 for all groups. For GISTs ≤ 3 cm, 6/28 (21.4% p = 0.01) on CT and 7/26 (26.9% p = 0.005) on EUS upgraded risk category using pathologic size versus imaging size. No GISTs ≤ 3 cm downgraded risk categories. Size underestimation persisted for GISTs ≤ 2 cm on EUS (0.39 cm, 95% CI: [0.06, 0.72], p = 0.02, post hoc analysis). Imaging, particularly EUS, underestimates gastric GIST size. Caution should be exercised using imaging alone to risk-stratify gastric GISTs, and to decide between surveillance versus surgery.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
How well imaging size agrees with pathologic size of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) is unknown. GIST risk stratification is based on pathologic size, location, and mitotic rate. To inform decision making, the size discrepancy between imaging and pathology for gastric GISTs was investigated.
METHODS
METHODS
Imaging and pathology reports were reviewed for 113 patients. Bland-Altman analyses and intraclass correlation (ICC) assessed agreement of imaging and pathology. Changes in clinical risk category due to size discrepancy were identified.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Computed tomography (CT) (n = 110) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) (n = 50) underestimated pathologic size for gastric GISTs by 0.42 cm, 95% confidence interval (CI): (0.11, 0.73), p = 0.008 and 0.54 cm, 95% CI: (0.25, 0.82), p < 0.001, respectively. ICCs were 0.94 and 0.88 for CT and EUS, respectively. For GISTs ≤ 3 cm, size underestimation was 0.24 cm for CT (n = 28), 95% CI: (0.01, 0.47), p = 0.039 and 0.56 cm for EUS (n = 26), 95% CI: (0.27, 0.84), p < 0.0001. ICCs were 0.72 and 0.55 for CT and EUS, respectively. Spearman's correlation was ≥0.84 for all groups. For GISTs ≤ 3 cm, 6/28 (21.4% p = 0.01) on CT and 7/26 (26.9% p = 0.005) on EUS upgraded risk category using pathologic size versus imaging size. No GISTs ≤ 3 cm downgraded risk categories. Size underestimation persisted for GISTs ≤ 2 cm on EUS (0.39 cm, 95% CI: [0.06, 0.72], p = 0.02, post hoc analysis).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Imaging, particularly EUS, underestimates gastric GIST size. Caution should be exercised using imaging alone to risk-stratify gastric GISTs, and to decide between surveillance versus surgery.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
49-58Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Nishida T, Kawai N, Yamaguchi S, Nishida Y. Submucosal tumors: Comprehensive guide for the diagnosis and therapy of gastrointestinal submucosal tumors: submucosal tumors. Dig Endosc. 2013;25:479-489.
Corless CL, Barnett CM, Heinrich MC. Gastrointestinal stromal tumours: origin and molecular oncology. Nat Rev Cancer. 2011;11:865-878.
Joensuu H, Hohenberger P, Corless CL. Gastrointestinal stromal tumour. Lancet Lond Engl. 2013;382:973-983.
Miettinen M, Sobin LH, Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors of the stomach: a clinicopathologic, immunohistochemical, and molecular genetic study of 1765 cases with long-term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29:52-68.
Miettinen M, Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: pathology and prognosis at different sites. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2006;23:70-83.
Miettinen M, El-Rifai W,H,L, Lasota J. Evaluation of malignancy and prognosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a review. Hum Pathol. 2002;33:478-483.
Joensuu H. Risk stratification of patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Hum Pathol. 2008;39:1411-1419.
Fletcher CDM, Berman JJ, Corless C, et al. Diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: a consensus approach. Hum Pathol. 2002;33:459-465.
Gold JS, Gönen M, Gutiérrez A, et al. Development and validation of a prognostic nomogram for recurrence-free survival after complete surgical resection of localised primary gastrointestinal stromal tumour: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:1045-1052.
Blackstein ME, Blay JY, Corless C, et al. Gastrointestinal stromal tumours: consensus statement on diagnosis and treatment. Can J Gastroenterol. 2006;20:157-164.
Casali PG, Abecassis N, Bauer S, et al. Gastrointestinal stromal tumours: ESMO-EURACAN clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2018;29:iv68-iv78.
Judson I, Bulusu R, Seddon B, Dangoor A, Wong N, Mudan S. UK clinical practice guidelines for the management of gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST). Clin Sarcoma Res. 2017;7:6.
Kalkmann J, Zeile M, Antoch G, et al. Consensus report on the radiological management of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST): recommendations of the German GIST Imaging Working Group. Cancer Imaging. 2012;12:126-135.
Kang Y-K, Kim KM, Sohn T, et al. Clinical practice guideline for accurate diagnosis and effective treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumor in Korea. J Korean Med Sci. 2010;25:1543.
Nishida T. Asian consensus guidelines for gastrointestinal stromal tumor: what is the same and what is different from global guidelines. Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;3:11.
Von Mehren M, Randall RL, Benjamin RS, et al. Soft tissue sarcoma, version 2.2018, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2018;16:536-563.
Rubin BP, Blanke CD, Demetri GD, et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:165-170.
Schmieder M, Henne-Bruns D, Mayer B, et al. Comparison of different risk classification systems in 558 patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors after R0-resection. Front Pharmacol. 2016;7.
Polkowski M, Gerke W, Jarosz D, et al. Diagnostic yield and safety of endoscopic-ultrasound guided trucut biopsy in patients with gastric submucosal tumors: a prospective study. Endoscopy. 2009;41:329-334.
Cananzi FCM, Judson I, Lorenzi B, Benson C, Mudan S. Multidisciplinary care of gastrointestinal stromal tumour: a review and a proposal for a pre-treatment classification. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39:1171-1178.
Chen T, Xu L, Dong X, et al. The roles of CT and EUS in the preoperative evaluation of gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors larger than 2 cm. Eur Radiol. 2019;29:2481-2489.
Li H, Ren G, Cai R, Chen J, Wu X, Zhao J. A correlation research of Ki67 index, CT features, and risk stratification in gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Cancer Med. 2018;7:4467-4474.
Kim MN, Kang SJ, Kim SG, et al. Prediction of risk of malignancy of gastrointestinal stromal tumors by endoscopic ultrasonography. Gut Liver. 2013;7:642-647.
Bill K, Chaar A, Barawi M. 2178 what you see is not what you get: EUS underestimation of gastric cardia mass size and shape. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019;114:S1218.
Tzilves D, Paraskevaidou E, Xinou E, Bouzoukas S, Kafalis N, Soufleris K, Lazaraki G. Comparison between EUS and cross-sectional imaging for the estimation of pancreatic cyst size: a single center experience. Endoscopy. 2020; 52(S01):S317. eP258.
Huynh T, Ali K, Vyas S, et al. Comparison of imaging modalities for measuring the diameter of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms of the pancreas. Pancreatology. 2020;20:448-453.
Reza JA, Monreal A, Meyer PH, Patel S, Zakari A, de la Fuente S. Tumor downsizing following neoadjuvant therapy for borderline-resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2020;30:690.
Lee YS, Paik K, Kim HW, Lee JC, Kim J, Hwang JH. Comparison of endoscopic ultrasonography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging for pancreas cystic lesions. Medicine. 2015;94:e1666.
Pinaikul S, Woodtichartpreecha P, Kanngurn S, Leelakiatpaiboon S. 1189 Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST): computed tomographic features and correlation of CT findings with histologic grade. J Med Assoc Thail Chotmaihet Thangphaet. 2014;97:1189-1198.
Shah P, Gao F, Edmundowicz SA, Azar RR, Early DS. Predicting malignant potential of gastrointestinal stromal tumors using endoscopic ultrasound. Dig Dis Sci. 2009;54:1265-1269.
Tateishi U, Hasegawa T, Satake M, Moriyama N. Gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Correlation of computed tomography findings with tumor grade and mortality. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2003;27:792-798.
O'Neill AC, Shinagare AB, Kurra V, et al. Assessment of metastatic risk of gastric GIST based on treatment-naïve CT features. J Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:1222-1228.
Mazzei MA, et al. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST): a proposal of a “CT-based predictive model of Miettinen index” in predicting the risk of malignancy. Abdom Radiol NY. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02209-7
Iannicelli E, Carbonetti F, Federici GF, et al. Evaluation of the relationships between computed tomography features, pathological findings, and prognostic risk assessment in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2017;41:271-278.
Vittinghoff E, McCulloch CE. Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. Am J Epidemiol. 2007;165:710-718.
Hwang JH, Rulyak SD, Kimmey MB. & American Gastroenterological Association Institute. American Gastroenterological Association Institute technical review on the management of gastric subepithelial masses. Gastroenterology. 2006;130:2217-2228.
Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet Lond Engl. 2007;370:1453-1457.
Altman DG, Bland JM. Measurement in medicine: the analysis of method comparison. Studies J R Stat Soc Ser Stat. 1983;32:307-317.
Myles PS, Cui JI. Using the Bland-Altman method to measure agreement with repeated measures. BJA Br J Anaesth. 2007;99:309-311.
Stralen KJ, van, Dekker FW, Zoccali C, Jager KJ. Measuring agreement, more complicated than it seems. Nephron Clin Pract. 2012;120:c162-c167.
Giavarina D. Understanding Bland-Altman analysis. Biochem Medica. 2015;25:141-151.
Dewitte K, Fierens C, Stöckl D, Thienpont LM. Application of the Bland-Altman plot for interpretation of method-comparison studies: a critical investigation of its practice. Clin Chem. 2002;48:799-801.
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420-428.
Spearman C. The proof and measurement of association between two things. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39:1137-1150.
Liljequist D, Elfving B, Skavberg Roaldsen K. Intraclass correlation-a discussion and demonstration of basic features. PLOS One. 2019;14:e0219854.
Sugita S, Hirano H, Hatanaka Y, et al. Image analysis is an excellent tool for quantifying Ki-67 to predict the prognosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumor patients. Pathol Int. 2018;68:7-11.
Gao Z, Wang C, Xue Q, et al. The cut-off value of tumor size and appropriate timing of follow-up for management of minimal EUS-suspected gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors. BMC Gastroenterol. 2017;17:8.
Fang Y-J, Cheng TY, Sun MS, et al. Suggested cutoff tumor size for management of small EUS-suspected gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumors. J Formos Med Assoc Taiwan Yi Zhi. 2012;111:88-93.
Tran T, Sundaram CP, Bahler CD, et al. Correcting the shrinkage effects of formalin fixation and tissue processing for renal tumors: toward standardization of pathological reporting of tumor size. J Cancer. 2015;6:759-766.
Hsu P-K, Huang HC, Hsieh CC, et al. Effect of formalin fixation on tumor size determination in stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007;84:1825-1829.
Peery AF, Dellon ES, Lund J, et al. Burden of gastrointestinal disease in the United States: 2012 update. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:1179-1187.