Copyright
©The Author(s) 2025.
World J Gastrointest Oncol. Mar 15, 2025; 17(3): 98746
Published online Mar 15, 2025. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v17.i3.98746
Published online Mar 15, 2025. doi: 10.4251/wjgo.v17.i3.98746
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the two groups of patients, n (%)
| Characteristics | Group A (n = 32) | Group B (n = 43) | P value |
| Age | 51 ± 16 | 53 ± 12 | 0.608 |
| Sex | 0.888 | ||
| Male | 25 (78) | 33 (77) | |
| Female | 7 (22) | 10 (23) | |
| Primary tumor site | 0.275 | ||
| Stomach | 12 (38) | 10 (23) | |
| Small intestine | 14 (44) | 19 (44) | |
| Other | 6 (19) | 14 (33) | |
| Mitotic count (/50 HPF) | 0.142 | ||
| ≤ 5 | 13 (41) | 27 (63) | |
| 5 to ≤ 10 | 10 (31) | 7 (16) | |
| > 10 | 9 (28) | 9 (21) | |
| Ki 67 | 0.189 | ||
| ≤ 10 | 16 (50) | 28 (65) | |
| > 10 | 16 (50) | 15 (35) | |
| Risk classification | > 0.9991 | ||
| Medium | 1 (3) | 1 (2) | |
| High | 31 (97) | 42 (98) | |
| Mutation type | 0.5181 | ||
| Point mutation | 6 (19) | 13 (30) | |
| Delete mutation | 25 (78) | 29 (67) | |
| Other | 1 (3) | 1 (2) | |
| Sum of largest diameter (cm) | 0.317 | ||
| ≤ 5 | 10 (31) | 12 (28) | |
| 5-10 | 10 (31) | 8 (19) | |
| > 10 | 12 (38) | 23 (53) | |
| Lesions > 3 | 0.435 | ||
| Yes | 18 (56) | 28 (65) | |
| No | 14 (44) | 15 (35) | |
| R0 resection | 0.350 | ||
| Yes | 13 (41) | 13 (30) | |
| No | 19 (59) | 30 (70) |
Table 2 Baseline characteristics of patient subgroups, n (%)
| Characteristics | LP (n = 28) | HP (n = 37) | ||||
| Group A (n = 14) | Group B (n = 14) | P value | Group A (n = 18) | Group B (n = 29) | P value | |
| Age | 51 ± 12 | 53 ± 12 | 0.611 | 51 ± 19 | 52 ± 13 | 0.785 |
| Sex | > 0.9991 | > 0.999 | ||||
| Male | 11 (79) | 10 (71) | 14 (78) | 23 (79) | ||
| Female | 3 (21) | 4 (29) | 4 (22) | 6 (21) | ||
| Primary tumor site | 0.3561 | 0.5981 | ||||
| Stomach | 6 (43) | 2 (14) | 6 (33) | 8 (28) | ||
| Small intestine | 5 (36) | 7 (50) | 9 (50) | 12 (41) | ||
| Other | 3 (21) | 5 (36) | 3 (17) | 9 (31) | ||
| Mitotic count (/50 HPF) | 0.1841 | 0.408 | ||||
| ≤ 5 | 7 (50) | 12 (86) | 6 (33) | 15 (52) | ||
| 5 to ≤ 10 | 4 (29) | 1 (7) | 6 (33) | 6 (21) | ||
| > 10 | 3 (21) | 1 (7) | 6 (33) | 8 (28) | ||
| Ki 67 | > 0.999 | 0.096 | ||||
| ≤ 10 | 8 (57) | 8 (57) | 8 (44) | 20 (69) | ||
| > 10 | 6 (43) | 6 (43) | 10 (56) | 9 (31) | ||
| Risk classification | > 0.9991 | > 0.9991 | ||||
| Medium | 1 (7) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (3) | ||
| High | 13 (93) | 14 (100) | 18 (100) | 28 (97) | ||
| Mutation type | 0.2091 | > 0.9991 | ||||
| Point mutation | 2 (14) | 6 (43) | 4 (22) | 7 (24) | ||
| Delete mutation | 11 (79) | 8 (57) | 14 (78) | 21 (72) | ||
| Other | 1 (7) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (3) | ||
| Sum of largest diameter (cm) | 0.7971 | 0.520 | ||||
| ≤ 5 | 6 (43) | 5 (36) | 4 (22) | 7 (24) | ||
| 5-10 | 4 (29) | 3 (21) | 6 (33) | 5 (17) | ||
| > 10 | 4 (29) | 6 (43) | 8 (44) | 17 (59) | ||
| Lesions > 3 | 0.450 | 0.869 | ||||
| Yes | 6 (43) | 8 (57) | 12 (67) | 20 (69) | ||
| No | 8 (57) | 6 (43) | 6 (33) | 9 (31) | ||
| R0 resection | > 0.999 | 0.236 | ||||
| Yes | 5 (36) | 5 (36) | 8 (44) | 8 (28) | ||
| No | 9 (64) | 9 (64) | 10 (56) | 21 (72) | ||
Table 3 Comparison of disease control rate and objective response rate between the two groups of patients in group low plasma concentration group, n (%)
| Group | n | CR | PR | SD | PD | DCR | ORR |
| Group A | 14 | 0 (0) | 2 (14.2) | 8 (57.1) | 4 (28.5) | 10 (71.4) | 3 (21.4) |
| Group B | 14 | 0 (0) | 6 (42.8) | 3 (21.4) | 5 (35.7) | 9 (64.3) | 6 (42.9) |
| χ2 | - | - | |||||
| P value | > 0.99 | 0.42 | |||||
Table 4 Comparison of disease control rate and objective response rate between the two groups of patients in group high plasma concentration group, n (%)
| Group | n | CR | PR | SD | PD | DCR | ORR |
| Group A | 18 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 6 (33.3) | 12 (66.6) | 6 (33.3) | 0 (0) |
| Group B | 29 | 0 (0) | 4 (13.7) | 17 (58.6) | 8 (27.5) | 21 (72.4) | 4 (13.8) |
| χ2 | 6.94 | - | |||||
| P value | 0.008a | 0.28 | |||||
Table 5 Adverse effects in the dose-escalation group, n (%)
| Types of adverse reactions | LP (n = 14) | HP (n = 18) | ||
| Before1 | After2 | Before1 | After2 | |
| Fatigue | 0 (0.0) | 2 (14.3) | 2 (11.1) | 10 (55.6)b |
| Rash | 3 (21.4) | 7 (50.0) | 8 (44.4) | 12 (66.7) |
| Muscle spasm | 0 (0.0) | 1 (7.1) | 4 (22.2) | 7 (38.9) |
| Anemia | 5 (35.7) | 10 (71.4) | 13 (72.2) | 15 (83.3) |
| Gastrointestinal reactions | 2 (14.3) | 9 (64.3)b | 4 (22.2) | 18 (100.0)b |
| Edema | 4 (28.6) | 8 (57.1) | 10 (55.6) | 17 (94.4)a |
| Liver dysfunction | 0 (0.0) | 1 (7.1) | 2 (11.1) | 2 (11.1) |
| Granulocytopenia | 3 (21.4) | 5 (35.7) | 8 (44.4) | 11 (61.1) |
- Citation: Li HT, Du YY, Huang Z, Li JJ, Zhang J. Significance of monitoring imatinib plasma concentration in second-line treatment decisions for c-kit 11 gene-mutated gastrointestinal stromal tumors. World J Gastrointest Oncol 2025; 17(3): 98746
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5204/full/v17/i3/98746.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4251/wjgo.v17.i3.98746
