abstract: Objectives: This study aimed to report the clinicopathological features, management and long-term 
outcomes of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) in Oman. Methods: This retrospective study was 
conducted on patients treated for GIST between January 2003 and December 2017 at three tertiary referral centres in 
Muscat, Oman. All patients with confirmed histopathological diagnoses of GIST and followed-up at the centres during 
this period were included. Relevant information was retrieved from hospital records until April 2019. Results: A total 
of 44 patients were included in the study. The median age was 55.5 years and 56.8% were female. The most common 
primary site of disease was the stomach (63.6%) followed by the jejunum/ileum (18.2%). Two patients (4.5%) had 
c-Kit-negative, discovered on GIST-1-positive disease. A total of 24 patients (54.5%) presented with localised disease 
and eight (33.3%) were classified as being at high risk of relapse. Patients with metastatic disease received imatinib 
in a palliative setting, whereas those with completely resected disease in the intermediate and high-risk groups were 
treated with adjuvant imatinib. Of the six patients (13.6%) with progressive metastatic disease, of which four had 
mutations on exon 11 and one on exon 9, while one had wild-type disease. Overall, rates of progression-free survival 
and overall survival (OS) at 100 months were 77.4% and 80.4%, respectively. Rates of OS for patients with localised and 
metastatic disease were 89.9% and 80.2%, respectively. Conclusion: The presenting features and outcomes of patients 
with GISTs in Oman were comparable to those reported in the regional and international literature.

Keywords: Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors; Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-kit; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Imatinib; 
Adjuvant Chemotherapy; Survival Rate; Oman.

Clinicopathological Features and Outcomes of 
Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours in Oman

A multi-centre study

*Zainab Al-Maqrashi,1 Ikram A. Burney,2 Kadhim M. Taqi,3 Yaqoob Al-Sawafi,4 Asim Qureshi,5,6 Ritu Lakhtakia,7
Itrat Mehdi,8 Bassim Al-Bahrani,8 Shiyam Kumar,9 Mansour Al-Moundhri2 

Sultan Qaboos University Med J, May 2021, Vol. 21, Iss. 2, pp. e237–243, Epub. 21 Jun 21
Submitted 11 May 20
Revision Req. 16 Jul 20; Revision Recd. 13 Aug 20
Accepted 9 Sep 20

1Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada; 2Department of Medicine, College of Medicine & Health Sciences, Sultan Qaboos University, 
Muscat, Oman; 3Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; 4Department of 
General Surgery, Armed Forces Hospital, Muscat, Oman; 5Department of Pathology, King’s Mill Hospital, Sherwood Forest Hospitals National Health Service 
Foundation Trust, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, UK; 6Department of Pathology, Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, Muscat, Oman; 7Department of Pathology, 
Mohammed bin Rashid University of Medicine & Health Sciences, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; 8National Oncology Centre, Royal Hospital, Muscat, Oman; 
9Department of Medical Oncology, Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Somerset, UK
*Corresponding Author’s e-mail: zmaqrashi@gmail.com

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

https://doi.org/10.18295/squmj.2021.21.02.012

clinical & basic research

Advances in Knowledge
- Survival data from the current study were comparable with previous findings published in regional and international literature.
- To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to report the long-term outcomes of patients with gastrointestinal stromal 

tumours (GISTs) in the Middle East and may serve as a benchmark for future studies.

Application to Patient Care
- Results from this study support the use of international GIST treatment protocols in the local setting of Oman. 

Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) are the most common mesenchymal tumours of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT), 
yet account for only 2% of all GIT cancers.1 While 
GISTs can arise from any part of the GIT, the most 
commonly affected sites are the stomach (60%) 
and small intestine (30%); however, GISTs can also 
arise from other intra-abdominal sites including the 
mesentery and omentum.2,3 Although a diagnosis of a 
GIST can be indicated based on histological features, it 
is established via the immunohistochemical expression 
of either the cluster of differentiation (CD)117 protein 
coding for the c-Kit gene or the discovered on GIST-
1 (DOG-1) protein.4,5 Overall, CD117 is expressed 
in approximately 90–95% of cases, although such 
patients may harbour mutations on different exons.4 

Patients with GISTs without CD117 expression may 
harbour mutations in the platelet-derived growth 
factor receptor-α (PDGFR-α) gene or may have wild-
type tumours with substantial reductions in the 
expression of succinate dehydrogenase.6 

Complete surgical resection is the mainstay of 
treatment for GIST cases with localised disease.4 More 
recently, it has become possible to stratify patients 
based on risk of recurrence into various categories 
using either the National Institutes of Health (NIH), 
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) or 
modified Jonessu criteria.4,7,8 In general, the risk of 
relapse depends on the site and size of the tumour 
and its mitotic rate.8–10 In particular, metastatic 
GISTs are resistant to standard chemotherapy.11 The 
introduction of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) 

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/


Clinicopathological Features and Outcomes of Gastrointestinal Tumours in Oman 
A 15-year multi-centre study

e238 | SQU Medical Journal, May 2021, Volume 21, Issue 2

has not only dramatically improved the prognosis of 
patients with unresectable, recurrent or metastatic 
GISTs, but also reduced the risk of recurrence and 
improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall 
survival (OS) rates in patients considered to have a 
high risk of relapse after complete resection.12 

Nevertheless, while several studies have sought 
to report the presentation and outcomes of GIST cases 
across the world, there remains a scarcity of literature 
from Oman and the Gulf region.13–16 As such, this 
study aimed to report the clinicopathological features 
and outcomes of GIST cases in Oman.

Methods

This retrospective multicentre study was conducted 
between January 2003 and December 2017 at the 
Sultan Qaboos University Hospital, Armed Forces 
Hospital and Royal Hospital in Muscat, Oman. These 
three major tertiary hospitals receive referrals from all 
over the country for the evaluation and management 
of cancer cases. All patients diagnosed with 
histopathologically-confirmed GISTs during the study 
period at these hospitals and with complete follow-
up data were included. Patients with incomplete data, 
including patients who were lost to follow-up, those 
diagnosed elsewhere and those for whom a major part 
of treatment was carried out at other hospitals were 
excluded.

The patients’ clinical and sociodemographic data 
were collected from paper and electronic hospital 
records. In addition, other information was recorded, 
including primary tumour site, metastatic sites, 
histopathological subtype and immunohistochemical 
patterns of expression of relevant diagnostic markers, 
as well as type of surgery employed, use of TKIs and 
indications for treatment with imatinib (i.e. in an 
adjuvant, neoadjuvant or palliative setting). For cases 
in which the tumour was completely resected, risk 
of relapse was determined using the AFIP-Miettinen 
criteria incorporating tumour size, mitotic rate and 
site as prognostic factors.7 Subsequently, the NIH 
criteria was utilised for the purposes of comparative 
stratification with regional data, with patients 
subcategorised into four risk groups based on tumour 
size and mitotic activity.4 

Kaplan-Meier curves were used to estimate 
survival rates, with OS calculated from the date of 
diagnosis to the date of death or last follow-up. The 
data cut-off point was the end of April 2019. A log-
rank test was used for the purposes of comparative 
analysis. This study was approved by the individual 
institutional ethical committees of all three hospitals. 

Results

Over the 15-year study period, a total of 44 patients 
were diagnosed with GISTs and treated at the three 
referral centres. Of these, 19 (43.2%) were male and 
25 (56.8%) were female. The median age at diagnosis 
was 55.5 years (range: 26–83 years). The majority of 
patients presented with abdominal pain (81.8%; n = 36), 
GIT bleeding (47.7%; n = 21) or constitutional symptoms 
(29.5%; n = 13) such as fever, weakness and weight loss. 
The most common primary site of the tumour was 
the stomach (63.6%) followed by the jejunum/ileum 

Table 1: Clinicopathological characteristics of patients 
diagnosed with gastrointestinal stromal tumours over a 
15-year period at three tertiary referral centres in Muscat, 
Oman (N = 44)

Characteristic n (%)

Gender

Male 19 (43.2)

Female 25 (56.8)

Age in years

Mean ± SD 55.5 ± 13.1

Range 26–83

Site of primary tumour

Stomach 28 (63.6)

Jejunum/ileum 8 (18.2)

Duodenum 4 (9.1)

Rectum 3 (6.8)

Extraintestinal 1 (2.3)

Histological subtype

Spindle cell 26 (59.1)

Epithelioid 2 (4.5)

Mixed 16 (36.4)

Disease extension

Localised 24 (54.5)

Metastatic 20 (45.5)

Risk category*

None 2 (8.3)

Very low 4 (16.7)

Low 5 (20.8)

Moderate (Intermediate) 4 (16.7)

High 8 (33.3)

Unknown 1 (4.2)

SD = standard deviation.
*Including only those patients with localised disease. Risk stratification was 
performed using the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology-Miettinen criteria.7



Zainab Al-Maqrashi, Ikram Burney, Kadhim M. Taqi, Yaqoob Al-Sawafi, Asim Qureshi, Ritu Lakhtakia, Itrat Mehdi, Bassim Al-Bahrani, 
Shiyam Kumar and Mansour Al-Moundhri

Clinical and Basic Research | e239

(18.2%). One patient (2.3%) had an extraintestinal 
GIST. In addition, one patient had underlying 
neurofibromatosis type I, while another had 
concomitant colon cancer. Overall, 24 (54.5%) and 
20 (45.5%) patients presented with localised and 
metastatic disease, respectively [Table 1].

The majority of tumours were of the spindle cell 
type (59.1%; n = 26). Tumours ranged in size from 
2–29 cm, with 29 patients (65.9%) having tumours of 
>5 cm in its greatest dimension. A total of 42 patients 
(95.5%) had CD117-immunoreactive disease. The 
remaining two cases (4.5%) were negative for CD117 
but positive for DOG-1. The most common sites of 
metastases were the liver (n = 18; 90%), peritoneum 
(n = 7; 35%), lungs (n = 4; 20%) and skeleton (n = 2; 
10%). Out of the 20 patients diagnosed with metastatic 
disease, six (30%) had progressive disease; of these, 
four had mutations on exon 11 and one on exon 9. The 
remaining patients had underlying neurofibromatosis 
and was diagnosed with wild-type disease.

Of the patients who presented with localised 
disease, two (8.3%) received neoadjuvant imatinib 
and both responded to the treatment, subsequently 
allowing for wedge resection of the stomach. A total 
of 14 patients (58.3%) received adjuvant imatinib 
according to the guidelines, whereas eight (33.3%) 
were diagnosed before 2009 and treated using an 
expectant approach. Among the patients presenting 
with metastatic disease, all but one (95%) received 
palliative treatment using imatinib. The only patient 
who did not receive imatinib presented with a score of 
4 on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/World 
Health Organization Performance Status scale and 
died within a week of diagnosis.17 

Table 2: Management of patients diagnosed with gastro- 
intestinal stromal tumours and treated surgically over 
a 15-year period at three tertiary referral centres in Muscat, 
Oman (N = 34)

Primary site of tumour/
type of surgery

Disease extension, n (%)

Localised* 
(n = 24)

Metastatic† 
(n = 10)

Upper GIT

Wedge resection/excision 11 (45.8) 2 (20)

Partial gastrectomy 3 (12.5) 0 (0)

Subtotal/total gastrectomy 3 (12.5) 2 (20)

Small intestine

Resection and anastomosis 5 (20.8) 3 (30)

Rectum

Hartman’s procedure 0 (0) 2 (20)

Abdominoperineal resection 0 (0) 1 (10)

Multivisceral Resection 
(Gastric: distal gastrectomy 
with cholecystectomy and 
gastrojejunostomy; Duodenal: 
Whipple’s procedure)

2 (8.3) 0 (0)

*Treated using curative resection.  †Only those treated with palliative 
surgery.

 
Figure 1: Kaplan-Meier curves showing (A) progression-free survival and (B) overall survival among patients diagnosed 
with gastrointestinal stromal tumours over a 15-year period at three tertiary referral centres in Muscat, Oman (N = 44).

 
Figure 2: Kaplan-Meier curves showing (A) progression-free survival and (B) overall survival according to disease 
extension among patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal stromal tumours over a 15-year period at three tertiary referral 
centres in Muscat, Oman (N = 44).



Clinicopathological Features and Outcomes of Gastrointestinal Tumours in Oman 
A 15-year multi-centre study

e240 | SQU Medical Journal, May 2021, Volume 21, Issue 2

Out of the 19 patients treated with imatinib, 11 
(57.9%) were still being treated at the time of the data 
cut-off point and eight (42.1%) relapsed after a mean of 
55 months and were switched to second-line treatment 
with either high doses of imatinib (n = 4; 50%) or 
sunitinib (n = 4; 50%). In addition to palliative systemic 
treatment, 10 metastatic patients (50%) underwent 

palliative surgical resection of the primary tumour site 
due to either bleeding or obstruction [Table 2].

Overall, the 100-month PFS and OS rates were 
77.4% and 80.4%, respectively [Figure 1]. For patients 
with localised and metastatic disease, OS rates were 
89.9% and 80.2%, respectively [Figure 2]. Among 
patients with localised disease, the OS rate for those 
with very low or low risk of relapse was 100%, dropping 
to 81% for those at intermediate or high risk [Figure 3]. 

Discussion

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first 
study to report the long-term outcomes of GIST cases 
in Oman. In total, 44 patients were diagnosed with 
GISTs and followed-up over a 15-year period at the 
three main tertiary referral centres in Oman. This likely 
constitutes the vast majority of national GIST cases 
during this period, given that these centres receive 
cancer referrals from all over the country. Overall, 
24 patients presented with localised disease and 
underwent complete resection, followed by adjuvant 
treatment according to institutional guidelines, while 
19 patients who presented with metastatic disease 

Table 3: Studies assessing overall survival and risk of relapse among patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours13–16,18–22

Author 
and year of 
publication

Country Sample 
size

Metastatic at 
presentation, 

n (%)

Mean age 
in years ± 
SD (range)

Risk of relapse*, n (%) OS rate 
in % 

(period)Very low Low Intermediate High

Makar et al.13 
(2002)

Kuwait 26† - 54.0 ± 12.2 
(25–80)

2 (9.5)‡ 6 (28.6)‡ 2 (9.5)‡ 11 (52.4)‡ -

Barakat et 
al.14 (2010)

Jordan 42 3 (7.1) 53 2 (5.1) 6 (15.4) 4 (10.3) 27 (69.2) -

Al Hussaini15 
(2012)

Saudi 
Arabia

75 - 56.5 ± 16.95 
(8–90)

12 (16) 25 (33.3) 17 (22.7) 21 (28) -

Al-Thani et 
al.16 (2014)

Qatar 48 - 48.4 ± 13.7 0 (0) 0 (0) 18 (37.5) 9 (18.8) 43.8

Yacob et al.18 
(2015)

India 150 - (19–79) 73 (48.6)§ 35 (23.3) 42 (28) 86.6% 
(Three-year 

rate)

Ud Din et 
al.19 (2015)

Pakistan 255¶ - 51 (16–83) 3 (1.4)// 24 (10.9)// 39 (17.7)// 154 (70)// -

Salem et al.20 
(2016)

Egypt 36 14 (28.9) 52.8 ± 14.4 
(17–76)

1 (2.8)** 4 (11.1)** 11 (30.6)** 18 (50.6)** 51 (Five-
year 
rate)

McDonnell 
et al.21 (2017)

UK 42 - 68 (43–91) 2 (8) 7 (28) 4 (16) 12 (48) -

Cavaliere et 
al.22 (2005)

Italy 22 2 (9.1) 67 ± 10 
(47–86)

1 (5) 9 (45) 3 (15) 7 (35) 78.9 
(Five-
year 
rate)

Present study 
(2021)

Oman 44 20 (45.5) 54.2 ± 13.1 
(26–83)

2 (8.4) 5 (20.8) 6 (25) 11 (45.8) 80.4 
(100- 

month 
rate)

SD = standard deviation; OS = overall survival.
*Including only those patients with localised disease. Risk stratification was performed using the National Institutes of Health criteria.4  †Including five cases (19.2%) diag- 
nosed by core biopsy.  ‡Percentages were calculated out of 21 cases. §Very low- and low-risk categories were combined.  ¶Including 35 cases (13.7%) diagnosed by core 
biopsy.  //Percentages were calculated out of 220 cases.  **Percentages were calculated out of all cases, not just those with localised disease.

 
Figure 3: Kaplan-Meier curve showing overall survival 
according to risk category* among patients diagnosed 
with gastrointestinal stromal tumours over a 15-year 
period at three tertiary referral centres in Muscat, 
Oman (N = 44).
*Risk stratification was performed using the Armed Forces Institute 
of Pathology-Miettinen criteria.7



Zainab Al-Maqrashi, Ikram Burney, Kadhim M. Taqi, Yaqoob Al-Sawafi, Asim Qureshi, Ritu Lakhtakia, Itrat Mehdi, Bassim Al-Bahrani, 
Shiyam Kumar and Mansour Al-Moundhri

Clinical and Basic Research | e241

received imatinib. A comparative analysis of regional 
and international research concerning GIST cases is 
presented in Table 3.13–16,18–22 

In the current study, the median age at 
presentation was 55.5 years. While this finding is 
consistent with other studies published from countries 
in South East Asia and the Middle East, it varies 
compared to studies from the UK and Italy.13–16,18–22 
This could be explained by either methodological 
differences in patient selection or may be reflective of 
the average age of the local population; however, this 
remains speculative. The stomach was the primary site 
of involvement in almost two-thirds of patients in the 
present study. Similarly, Miettinen et al. reported the 
stomach to be the most common primary site (60%) 
followed by the jejunum and ileum (30%), duodenum 
(5%) and colorectum (5%), while Dematteo et al. 
reported involvement of the stomach, small intestine 
and rectum in 50%, 42% and 1% of GIST cases, 
respectively.2,9

The biological behaviour of resected GISTs are 
a particular focus of interest worldwide. Moreover, 
with the emergence of risk stratification systems, 
predictions regarding a patient’s prognosis have 
become more reliable. Initially, tumour size and 
mitotic figures were used to categorise GIST patients 
into subgroups in terms of risk of relapse; the NIH 
consensus criteria, also known as Fletcher’s criteria, 
uses both parameters to stratify patients into very low, 
low, intermediate and high-risk groups.4 Dematteo 
et al. suggested that location of the primary tumour 
be added as an independent factor; however, this has 
not yet been included in the NIH criteria.9 In contrast, 
the AFIP criteria, also known as Miettinen’s criteria, 
incorporates this as a prognostic factor.7 Patients are 
categorised into four groups based on tumour size 
and two groups with regards to mitotic count, while 
primary tumours are classified into either stomach, 
duodenum, ileum/jejunum or rectum tumours.10 

In 2008, Joensuu revised the NIH criteria and 
proposed the inclusion of both tumour site and rupture 
as high-risk factors.8 Several other modifications have 
been suggested—such as peritoneal dissemination, 
metastasis and invasion and the mutation status of the 
c-Kit and PDGFR-α genes—as risk stratification criteria 
continue to evolve.23 In addition, two nomograms have 
been proposed for the purposes of risk assessment.24,25 In 
the current study, as data regarding tumour rupture were 
not available for all patients, the AFIP-Miettinen criteria 
were used to categorise patients into risk categories.7 
Nonetheless, according to NIH scoring system, among 
patients with localised disease, seven (29.2%) were at 
very low to low risk, six (25%) were at intermediate risk 
and 11 (45.8%) were at high risk of relapse [Table 3]. 

These observations compare favourably with reports 
from the UK, Qatar, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt and Pakistan, 
but are at variance with reports from Saudi Arabia and 
India.13–16,18–21 This discrepancy could be attributed to 
variations in patient populations, referral patterns or the 
risk criteria being used.

Imatinib was approved for use in CD117-
expressing metastatic GISTs in 2002; however, the 
drug was only approved in intermediate-to-high-risk 
cases in an adjuvant setting in 2008.26 Subsequently, 
in 2012, a confirmatory phase III trial suggested that 
patients taking imatinib for 36 months in an adjuvant 
setting had better five-year OS rates compared to 
those who took the drug for one year (92% versus 82%); 
furthermore, three-year treatment resulted in a 54% 
reduction in recurrence and a 55% reduction in risk 
of death compared to one-year treatment.27 Almost all 
patients with metastatic disease in the present cohort 
were treated with imatinib; however, patients with 
completely resected GISTs did not receive imatinib in 
an adjuvant setting until 2008. One patient received 
treatment for 12 months according to available data at 
the time, with the rest treated for three years according 
to more recent clinical practice guidelines.28

In the current study, all patients initially received 
400 mg of imatinib. According to previous research, 
there is no difference in survival between patients 
treated with 400 mg of imatinib compared to 800 mg, 
except in a subset of patients with exon 9 mutations on 
the c-Kit gene.29 According to recent clinical practice 
guidelines, 800 mg of imatinib is recommended 
for patients with metastatic and inoperable disease 
including those with exon 9 mutations.28 In the present 
cohort, exon 9 mutations were only identified in a 
single case. This patient was subsequently treated with 
800 mg of imatinib, tolerated the escalated dose and 
has been in stable remission for the last five years as 
of the time of writing. Following mutational analysis, 
all four patients with exon 11 mutations were treated 
with sunitinib and regorafenib as second- and third-
line treatments, respectively. 

In the current study, the 100-month PFS rate was 
77.4%, whereas the OS rate was 80.4%, signifying that 
>80% of patients were alive and free of disease after 
eight years. Overall, 89.9% of those with localised 
disease survived, as did 80.2% of those who presented 
with metastatic disease. In terms of risk of relapse, 
100-month OS rates were 100% for very low to low 
risk of relapse patients’ group and 81% for those at 
intermediate to high risk, 100% and 80% for patients in 
low, intermediate or high-risk categories, respectively. 
In a cohort of 124 GIST patients, of which 47% were 
high-risk cases, Mucciarini et al. reported five-year 
disease-free survival rates of 94%, 92%, 100% and 40% 



Clinicopathological Features and Outcomes of Gastrointestinal Tumours in Oman 
A 15-year multi-centre study

e242 | SQU Medical Journal, May 2021, Volume 21, Issue 2

for patients at very low, low, intermediate and high 
risk, respectively.30 According to findings from a large 
intergroup trial, Casali et al. reported a median PFS 
and OS duration of 1.7 and 3.9 years, respectively, 
among 472 patients treated with 400 mg of imatinib 
daily for metastatic or locally advanced disease.12

Although the current study had multiple 
strengths—such as the involvement of multiple tertiary 
cancer referral centres, a lengthy follow-up duration of 
15 years and the inclusion of almost all GIST patients 
in Oman—it was also subject to several limitations. 
Due to the retrospective nature of the study, certain 
information was not available including the incidence 
of tumour rupture or bleeding. However, international 
risk stratification criteria were used, incorporating 
recognised prognostic factors such as tumour site, 
size and mitotic count. Furthermore, mutational 
analysis was only performed for those in whom the 
disease progressed in order to guide subsequent 
treatment; nevertheless, this is not currently indicated 
for patients receiving adjuvant imatinib, as it does not 
affect survival.31 

Conclusion

This study reported the outcomes of localised and 
metastatic GIST cases presenting to three tertiary 
referral centres in Oman over a 15-year period, as 
well as clinical presentations, risk categories for 
relapse and PFS and OS rates. The presenting features 
and outcomes of patients with GISTs in Oman were 
comparable to those reported in the regional and 
international literature. To the best of the authors’ 
knowledge, this is the first study to report the long-
term outcomes of patients with GISTs from the Middle 
East and may serve as a benchmark for future studies.

c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

f u n d i n g

No funding was received for this study.

References
1. Miettinen M, Sarlomo-Rikala M, Lasota J. Gastrointestinal 

stromal tumors: Recent advances in understanding of their 
biology. Hum Pathol 1999; 30:1213–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/
s0046-8177(99)90040-0.

2. Miettinen M, Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Pathology 
and prognosis at different sites. Semin Diagn Pathol 2006; 
23:70–83. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semdp.2006.09.001.

3. Miettinen M, Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: Review 
on morphology, molecular pathology, prognosis, and differential 
diagnosis. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006; 130:1466–78. https://
doi.org/10.5858/2006-130-1466-GSTROM.

4. Fletcher CD, Berman JJ, Corless C, Gorstein F, Lasota J, 
Longley BJ, et al. Diagnosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumors: 
A consensus approach. Hum Pathol 2002; 33:459–65. https://
doi.org/10.1053/hupa.2002.123545.

5. West RB, Corless CL, Chen X, Rubin BP, Subramanian S, 
Montgomery K, et al. The novel marker, DOG1, is expressed 
ubiquitously in gastrointestinal stromal tumors irrespective of 
KIT or PDGFRA mutation status. Am J Pathol 2004; 165:107–13. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9440(10)63279-8.

6. Janeway KA, Kim SY, Lodish M, Nosé V, Rustin P, Gaal J, et al. 
Defects in succinate dehydrogenase in gastrointestinal stromal 
tumors lacking KIT and PDGFRA mutations. Proc Natl Acad 
Sci U S A 2011; 108:314–18. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.10 
09199108.

7. Miettinen M, Sobin LH, Lasota J. Gastrointestinal stromal 
tumors of the stomach: A clinicopathologic, immunohisto- 
chemical, and molecular genetic study of 1765 cases with long-
term follow-up. Am J Surg Pathol 2005; 29:52–68. https://doi.
org/10.1097/01.pas.0000146010.92933.de.

8. Joensuu H. Risk stratification of patients diagnosed with 
gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Hum Pathol 2008; 39:1411–19. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2008.06.025.

9. Dematteo RP, Gold JS, Saran L, Gönen M, Liau KH, Maki RG, 
et al. Tumor mitotic rate, size, and location independently 
predict recurrence after resection of primary gastrointestinal 
stromal tumor (GIST). Cancer 2008; 112:608–15. https://doi.
org/10.1002/cncr.23199.

10. Rutkowski P, Nowecki ZI, Michej W, Debiec-Rychter M, Woźniak A, 
Limon J, et al. Risk criteria and prognostic factors for predicting 
recurrences after resection of primary gastrointestinal stromal 
tumor. Ann Surg Oncol 2007; 14:2018–27. https://doi.org/10.1 
245/s10434-007-9377-9.

11. Joensuu H, Fletcher C, Dimitrijevic S, Silberman S, Roberts P, 
Demetri G. Management of malignant gastrointestinal stromal 
tumours. Lancet Oncol 2002; 3:655–64. https://doi.org/https://
doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(02)00899-9.

12. Casali PG, Zalcberg J, Le Cesne A, Reichardt P, Blay JY, 
Lindner LH, et al. Ten-year progression-free and overall 
survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic GI stromal 
tumors: Long-term analysis of the European Organisation for 
Research and Treatment of Cancer, Italian Sarcoma Group, and 
Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group intergroup phase III 
randomized trial on imatinib at two dose levels. J Clin Oncol 
2017; 35:1713–20. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.71.0228.

13. Makar RR, al-Waheeb S, John B, Junaid TA. Gastrointestinal 
stromal tumors: Clinicopathological and immunohistochemical 
features. Med Princ Pract 2002; 11:93–9. https://doi.org/10.11 
59/000058014.

14. Barakat FH, Haddad HA, Matalka II, Al-Orjani MS, Al-Masri MM, 
Sughayer MA. Characteristics of gastrointestinal stromal tumors 
in a Middle Eastern population. Saudi Med J 2010; 31:797–802.

15. Al Hussaini HF. GIST in Saudi Arabia: Multicentric histopath- 
ological genetic study of 75 surgically excised cases. Gulf J 
Oncolog 2012; 11:31–7.

16. Al-Thani H, El-Menyar A, Rasul KI, Al-Sulaiti M, El-Mabrok J, 
Hajaji K, et al. Clinical presentation, management and outcomes 
of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Int J Surg 2014; 12:1127–33. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.08.351.

17. Oken MM, Creech RH, Tormey DC, Horton J, Davis TE, 
McFadden ET, et al. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern 
Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol 1982; 5:649–55. 
https://doi.org/10.1097/00000421-198212000-00014. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0046-8177%2899%2990040-0
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0046-8177%2899%2990040-0
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semdp.2006.09.001
https://doi.org/10.5858/2006-130-1466-GSTROM
https://doi.org/10.5858/2006-130-1466-GSTROM
https://doi.org/10.1053/hupa.2002.123545
https://doi.org/10.1053/hupa.2002.123545
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9440%2810%2963279-8
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1009199108
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1009199108
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000146010.92933.de
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000146010.92933.de
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2008.06.025
https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23199
https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23199
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9377-9
https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-007-9377-9
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045%2802%2900899-9
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045%2802%2900899-9
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.71.0228
https://doi.org/10.1159/000058014
https://doi.org/10.1159/000058014
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.08.351
https://doi.org/10.1097/00000421-198212000-00014


Zainab Al-Maqrashi, Ikram Burney, Kadhim M. Taqi, Yaqoob Al-Sawafi, Asim Qureshi, Ritu Lakhtakia, Itrat Mehdi, Bassim Al-Bahrani, 
Shiyam Kumar and Mansour Al-Moundhri

Clinical and Basic Research | e243

18. Yacob M, Inian S, Sudhakar CB. Gastrointestinal stromal 
tumours: Review of 150 cases from a single centre. Indian J Surg 
2015; 77:505–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-013-0899-z.

19. Ud Din N, Ahmad Z, Arshad H, Idrees R, Kayani N. 
Gastrointestinal stromal tumors: A clinicopathologic and risk 
stratification study of 255 cases from Pakistan and review of 
literature. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2015; 16:4873–80. https://
doi.org/10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.12.4873.

20. Salem AAS, Elshoieby MH, Maximos DW, El-Saba TM. 
Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), surgical management 
and clinical outcome. J Cancer Ther 2016; 7:319–28. https://
doi.org/10.4236/jct.2016.74034.

21. McDonnell MJ, Punnoose S, Viswanath YKS, Wadd NJ, Dhar A. 
Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs): An insight into 
clinical practice with review of literature. Frontline Gastroenterol 
2017; 8:19–25. https://doi.org/10.1136/flgastro-2015-100670.

22. Cavaliere D, Griseri G, Venturino E, Schirru A, Cosce U, Caristo I, 
et al. Management of patients with gastrointestinal stromal 
tumors: Experience from an Italian hospital. Tumori 2005; 
91:467–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/030089160509100604.

23. Takahashi T, Nakajima K, Nishitani A, Souma Y, Hirota S, Sawa Y, 
et al. An enhanced risk-group stratification system for more 
practical prognostication of clinically malignant gastrointestinal 
stromal tumors. Int J Clin Oncol 2007; 12:369–74. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10147-007-0705-7.

24. Gold JS, Gönen M, Gutiérrez A, Broto JM, García-del-Muro X, 
Smyrk TC, 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; 10:1045–52. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70242-6.

25. Rossi S, Miceli R, Messerini L, Bearzi I, Mazzoleni G, Capella C, 
et al. Natural history of imatinib-naive GISTs: A retrospective 
analysis of 929 cases with long-term follow-up and development 
of a survival nomogram based on mitotic index and size as 
continuous variables. Am J Surg Pathol 2011; 35:1646–56. 
https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e31822d63a7.

26. Demetri GD, von Mehren M, Blanke CD, Van den Abbeele AD, 
Eisenberg B, Roberts PJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of imatinib 
mesylate in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors. N Engl 
J Med 2002; 347:472–80. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa020461.

27. Joensuu H, Eriksson M, Sundby Hall K, Hartmann JT, Pink D, 
Schütte J, et al. One vs three years of adjuvant imatinib for 
operable gastrointestinal stromal tumor: A randomized trial. 
JAMA 2012; 307:1265–72. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.347.

28. 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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13569-017-0072-8.

29. Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Meta-Analysis Group 
(MetaGIST). Comparison of two doses of imatinib for the 
treatment of unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal 
stromal tumors: A meta-analysis of 1,640 patients. J Clin Oncol 
2010; 28:1247–53. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.24.2099.

30. Mucciarini C, Rossi G, Bertolini F, Valli R, Cirilli C, Rashid I, et al. 
Incidence and clinicopathologic features of gastrointestinal 
stromal tumors: A population-based study. BMC Cancer 2007; 
7:230. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-7-230.

31. Corless CL, Ballman KV, Antonescu CR, Kolesnikova V, 
Maki RG, Pisters PW, et al. Pathologic and molecular features 
correlate with long-term outcome after adjuvant therapy of 
resected primary GI stromal tumor: The ACOSOG Z9001 
trial. J Clin Oncol 2014; 32:1563–70. https://doi.org/10.1200/
JCO.2013.51.2046.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-013-0899-z
https://doi.org/10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.12.4873
https://doi.org/10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.12.4873
https://doi.org/10.4236/jct.2016.74034
https://doi.org/10.4236/jct.2016.74034
https://doi.org/10.1136/flgastro-2015-100670
https://doi.org/10.1177/030089160509100604
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-007-0705-7
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10147-007-0705-7
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045%2809%2970242-6
https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e31822d63a7
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa020461
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.347
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13569-017-0072-8
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.24.2099
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-7-230
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.51.2046
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.51.2046