Search

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), tumors characterized by c-KIT mutations, are the most frequent mesenchymal tumors of the digestive tract. The stomach is the most commonly involved site. Localization, size and mitotic rate are reliable predictors of survival and the two milestones of GISTs treatment are surgery and imatinib. This article is aimed to report the data of an audit, carried out on the morphological and clinical aspects of the disease and to review the present knowledge on GISTs. A total of 172 patients with GISTs (M : F=1 : 1; mean age 65 years) were recruited. The stomach was the most frequently involved site. In 50% of the cases the tumor was smaller than 5 cm, whereas major symptoms were observed in 43% of the cases. Predictors of progressive disease were present only in a small percentage of cases but the disease was in the metastatic phase in over 25% of the cases at diagnosis. Familial aggregation was rare but a consistent share of the patients (21%) had other synchronous or metachronous cancers. The most frequent mutations were in-frame deletions and point mutations of c-KIT exon 11. This report confirms in part the available data on GIST in a consecutive series of patients recruited in Italy and shows that only large collaborative multicenter studies provide data sound enough to enable making reasonable clinical and therapeutic choices, and suggests that, as a measure of secondary prevention, a diagnostic definition should be obtained in all submucosal lesions of the GI tract and that GIST patients should be screened for second tumors.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess whether hepatocellular carcinoma occurring in the setting of hepatitis B or C virus infection has different prognosis. METHODS: We performed a multicentric case-control study comparing 102 pairs of patients affected by hepatitis B virus- or hepatitis C virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma. Patients were matched for sex (male/female: 84/18 pairs), age, center, and period of enrollment, underlying chronic liver disease (cirrhosis/chronic hepatitis: 97/5 pairs), Child-Pugh class (A/B/C: 70/25/7 pairs), hepatocellular carcinoma stage (nonadvanced/advanced: 50/52 pairs) and, when possible, modality of cancer diagnosis (75 pairs: 47 during and 28 outside surveillance). RESULTS: In the whole population, patients with hepatitis B tended to have a poor prognosis than those with hepatitis C (P = 0.160), and this difference became statistically significant among the patients with an advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (P = 0.025). Etiology, Child-Pugh class, gross pathology, and alpha-fetoprotein were the significant independent prognostic factors in the whole population. The distribution of these prognostic factors did not differ between patients with hepatitis B or hepatitis C, both in the whole population and in the subgroup of advanced hepatocellular carcinomas. CONCLUSION: Hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinomas have a greater aggressiveness than hepatitis C virus-related tumors, which becomes clinically manifest once they have reached an advanced stage.

Treatment allocation is extremely complex in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) because this neoplasm arises, in most cases, in patients with cirrhosis and additional comorbidities. The “stage hierarchy” approach, which involves linking each stage (or substage) of the disease to a specific treatment, has become the main proposed treatment strategy for the clinical management of HCC, particularly in the West. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) scheme serves as the main example of the application of this strategy. In an attempt to increase the plasticity of the “stage hierarchy” approach as well as its adaptability to the requirements of real-world clinical practice, the latest versions of European and American guidelines have introduced certain relevant elements of flexibility, which were not intrinsic to the original BCLC scheme. These elements are as follows: the “treatment stage migration” strategy, which allows moving to another treatment (generally the one that is associated with the subsequent stage) if the approach linked with the current stage proves to be unfeasible, and the “treatment stage alternative” approach, which proposes further therapeutic options for each BCLC-defined stage. In regard to most of the solid cancers, another potential strategy is to consider the treatment decision to be hierarchically dictated by the efficacy of each therapy with complete or partial independence from the tumor stage. This concept of “therapeutic hierarchy” has been historically endorsed by the Asia-Pacific treatment algorithm as well as by the recent Italian multisociety guidelines. The present review provides a critical analysis of the different conceptual approaches to HCC management, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages and focusing on the remarkable differences between the stage-guided and the hierarchical strategies.