Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 385

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparison of two doses of imatinib for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST): A meta-analyis based on 1,640 patients (pts)

Van Glabbeke, M. M., Owzar, K., Rankin, C., Simes, J., Crowley, J., GIST Meta-analysis Group (MetaGIST)·2007·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

10004 Background: The MetaGIST project aims to further explore the data of the two randomized studies comparing two doses of imatinib (400 mg od vs bid) for the treatment of GIST: EORTC/ISG/AGITG 62005 (EU-AUS) and SWOG/CALGB/NCI-C/ECOG/ICAS S0033 (US-CDN). Methods: End-points were progression free (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Investigated cofactors included age, sex, performance status (PS), primary tumor site, time from diagnosis, prior therapies, baseline biology, and KIT / PDGFRa mutations for a subset of 772 pts (47%). The logrank test (stratified) and the Cox multivariate model with interaction terms were used for the analysis. Results: The median follow-up was 45 months. A small but significant PFS advantage was documented for the high dose arm, consistently in both studies. OS was identical in the two arms (see table ). Males and pts with a poor PS, GIST from bowel origin, baseline low hemoglobin and high neutrophils counts (ANC) had a significant worse PFS (multivariate analysis); these factors are consistent between studies. In pts analyzed for mutations, wild type pts (HR=1.56), KIT exon 9 mutants (HR=2.17) and pts with other mutations (HR=2.56) had a worse prognosis than KIT exon 11 mutants (univariate analysis); all 3 factors remained in the multivariate model. The US-CDN study included significantly (P<0.01) more females, more GIST from bowel or stomach origin, less KIT exon 9 mutants and pts with a lower baseline ANC. In KIT exon 9 mutants, the PFS advantage with high dose imatinib previously reported in the EU- AUS study was not confirmed in the US-CDN dataset, but remains significant in the pooled dataset. The interaction between dose effect on PFS and prognostic factors was siginficant for KIT exon 9 mutations but not for other factors. Conclusions: This analysis confirms a small PFS advantage of high dose imatinib, essentially amongst KIT exon 9 mutants, but no OS advantage. Heterogeneity between the two studies is being further explored. [Table: see text] [Table: see text]

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2007.25.18_suppl.10004

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 385

Metadata

Authors
Van Glabbeke, M. M., Owzar, K., Rankin, C., Simes, J., Crowley, J., & GIST Meta-analysis Group (MetaGIST)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2007-06-20
Volume
25
Issue
18_suppl
Pages
10004-10004
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2276801579
Cited by
385
References
0
Type
conference abstract
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of two doses of imatinib for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST): A meta-analyis based on 1,640 patients (pts). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2007.25.18_suppl.10004
The paper
Van Glabbeke, M. M., Owzar, K., Rankin, C., Simes, J., Crowley, J., & GIST Meta-analysis Group (MetaGIST). (2007). Comparison of two doses of imatinib for the treatment of unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST): A meta-analyis based on 1,640 patients (pts). Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.25.18_suppl.10004

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.