This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) eLetters: Submit a response to this article Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services E-mail this article link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints/Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Choi, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Choi, H.

Response Evaluation of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors

University of Texas, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA

Key Words. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors • Response evaluation • Computed tomography

Correspondence: Haesun Choi, M.D., University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Box 57, Houston Texas 77030, USA. Telephone: 713-792-8177; Fax: 713-745-1302; e-mail: hchoi{at}di.mdacc.tmc.edu

Disclosure: No potential conflicts of interest were reported by the author, planners, reviewers, or staff managers of this article.

Clinical management of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) has dramatically changed with the introduction of novel therapeutics, such as imatinib mesylate. This has created a need to re-evaluate the existing criteria used to assess treatment response. The current Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors are based on unidimensional tumor size, and do not take into account changes in responding GISTs such as a decrease in tumor density and decrease in the number of intratumoral vessels with computed tomography (CT). Positron emission tomography (PET) has been found to be highly sensitive in detecting early response, and to be useful in predicting long-term response to imatinib in patients with metastatic GIST; however, widespread use of PET is limited because of a lack of scanner availability and cost constraints. Modified CT criteria using a combination of tumor density and tumor size are promising in early response evaluation, and have excellent prognostic value. Identifying appropriate treatment response criteria is essential to optimize treatment for patients with GIST.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Mussi, U. Ronellenfitsch, J. Jakob, E. Tamborini, P. Reichardt, P. G. Casali, M. Fiore, P. Hohenberger, and A. Gronchi Post-imatinib surgery in advanced/metastatic GIST: is it worthwhile in all patients? Ann. Onc., February 1, 2010; 21(2): 403 - 408. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. E. DePrimo, X. Huang, M. E. Blackstein, C. R. Garrett, C. S. Harmon, P. Schoffski, M. H. Shah, J. Verweij, C. M. Baum, and G. D. Demetri Circulating Levels of Soluble KIT Serve as a Biomarker for Clinical Outcome in Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Patients Receiving Sunitinib following Imatinib Failure Clin. Cancer Res., September 15, 2009; 15(18): 5869 - 5877. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R Palmer, F MacLeod, and J Marshall Atypical dyspepsia Gut, September 1, 2009; 58(9): 1217 - 1217. [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. D. Van den Abbeele The Lessons of GIST--PET and PET/CT: A New Paradigm for Imaging Oncologist, April 1, 2008; 13(suppl_2): 8 - 13. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. C. Jaffe Response Assessment in Clinical Trials: Implications for Sarcoma Clinical Trial Design Oncologist, April 1, 2008; 13(suppl_2): 14 - 18. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]