Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Clinical Studies

What kind of tumour rupture requires adjuvant therapy?

British Journal of Cancer volume 131, pages 1109–1110 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

We have read with great interest an original article by Heikki Joensuu et al., which retrospectively investigated the impact of adjuvant imatinib therapy for gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) ruptures based on data from a randomised controlled trial (SSGXVIII/AIO), in which subjects with high-risk GIST were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant imatinib therapy for either 1 year or 3 years postoperatively [1]. The authors concluded that despite recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) being poorer in the trial subjects with a ruptured GIST than in the other, high-risk subjects, a commendable 10-year OS rate was achieved in the 3-year adjuvant imatinib cohort when the GIST harboured an imatinib-sensitive KIT exon 11 deletion/indel mutation [1].

Our concern revolves around the criteria for defining a GIST rupture. It is now generally accepted that the prognosis of patients with a GIST rupture is much bleaker than that of other types of high-risk GIST patients, yet the definition itself is nebulous owing to its variation across studies. The Oslo criteria published by Hølmebakk et al. in 2016, which categorised GIST ruptures into major and minor types, have been adopted by a growing number of researchers [2]. Nishida et al. later introduced a modified definition of GIST rupture in 2019 that marked a refinement of the Oslo criteria by excluding four, minor rupture patterns, such as those produced by a core- or fine-needle biopsy without complications [3]. It is noteworthy that when selecting their cases of GIST rupture, Heikki Joensuu et al. chose to ignore Nishida et al.’s new definition and instead used their own modification of the Oslo criteria. Specifically, the authors did not include ‘microscopic direct invasion into adjacent organs’ in their criteria, adopting instead three types of minor defect besides intraluminal tumour perforation as instances of a minor rupture, thus exemplifying the lack of a global consensus on the definition of GIST rupture. Moreover, their distinction between a major and minor rupture, particularly in terms of visible leakage of the tumour content into the peritoneal cavity, was not based on objective criteria. A significant number of cases in their study (12 out of 69) involved a rupture of unclassified degree; this group may have been classified as a major or minor rupture due to the 'subjective judgement' of the surgeon or the potential recall bias associated with the retrospective assessment of past surgical records, which may have altered their study results. Hølmebakk et al. have shown that the prognosis of GIST with a minor rupture did not differ significantly from that of GIST without a rupture [2, 4, 5]. Conversely, while Heikki Joensuu et al. included only nine patients with a minor rupture, the prognosis of these patients was as poor as that of patients with a major rupture. Needless to say, these facts inject considerable uncertainty into their findings. A GIST rupture may be relatively rare, but how it is defined can have a significant impact on outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Joensuu H, Reichardt A, Eriksson M, Hohenberger P, Boye K, Cameron S, et al. Survival of patients with ruptured gastrointestinal stromal tumour treated with adjuvant imatinib in a randomised trial. Br J Cancer. 2024;131:299–304. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-024-02738-z.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hølmebakk T, Bjerkehagen B, Boye K, Bruland Ø, Stoldt S, Sundby Hall K. Definition and clinical significance of tumour rupture in gastrointestinal stromal tumours of the small intestine. Br J Surg. 2016;103:684–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nishida T, Hølmebakk T, Raut CP, Rutkowski P. Defining tumor rupture in gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:1669–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hølmebakk T, Bjerkehagen B, Lobmaier IVK, Hompland I, Stoldt S, Boye K. Is peritoneal tumor penetration of prognostic importance in gastrointestinal stromal tumors? Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:4730–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hølmebakk T, Bjerkehagen B, Hompland I, Stoldt S, Boye K. Relationship between R1 resection, tumour rupture and recurrence in resected gastrointestinal stromal tumour. Br J Surg. 2019;106:419–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chiguchi G, Cho H, Sato S, Takahashi T, Nabeshima K, Maruyama T, et al. Impact of preoperative tumor rupture timing on gastrointestinal stromal tumor prognosis: a retrospective multicentric cohort study. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2022;52:237–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Mr. James R Valera for his assistance with editing this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gastroenterology, Japan Labour Health and Welfare Organization, Yokohama Rosai Hospital, Yokohama, Japan

    Gaku Chiguchi

  2. Department of Surgery, Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious Disease Centre, Komagome Hospital, Tokyo, Japan

    Haruhiko Cho

Authors
  1. Gaku Chiguchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haruhiko Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Both GC and HC wrote, revised and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gaku Chiguchi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chiguchi, G., Cho, H. What kind of tumour rupture requires adjuvant therapy?. Br J Cancer 131, 1109–1110 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-024-02812-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-024-02812-6

Search

Advanced search

Quick links