↓ Skip to main content

The standard diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of gastrointestinal stromal tumors based on guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in Gastric Cancer, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#33 of 605)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
patent
2 patents
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
356 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
223 Mendeley
Title
The standard diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of gastrointestinal stromal tumors based on guidelines
Published in
Gastric Cancer, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10120-015-0526-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Toshirou Nishida, Jean-Yves Blay, Seiichi Hirota, Yuko Kitagawa, Yoon-Koo Kang

Abstract

Although gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) are a rare type of cancer, they are the commonest sarcoma in the gastrointestinal tract. Molecularly targeted therapy, such as imatinib therapy, has revolutionized the treatment of advanced GIST and facilitates scientific research on GIST. Nevertheless, surgery remains a mainstay of treatment to obtain a permanent cure for GIST even in the era of targeted therapy. Many GIST guidelines have been published to guide the diagnosis and treatment of the disease. We review current versions of GIST guidelines published by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, by the European Society for Medical Oncology, and in Japan. All clinical practice guidelines for GIST include recommendations based on evidence as well as on expert consensus. Most of the content is very similar, as represented by the following examples: GIST is a heterogeneous disease that may have mutations in KIT, PDGFRA, HRAS, NRAS, BRAF, NF1, or the succinate dehydrogenase complex, and these subsets of tumors have several distinctive features. Although there are some minor differences among the guidelines-for example, in the dose of imatinib recommended for exon 9-mutated GIST or the efficacy of antigen retrieval via immunohistochemistry-their common objectives regarding diagnosis and treatment are not only to improve the diagnosis of GIST and the prognosis of patients but also to control medical costs. This review describes the current standard diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of GISTs based on the recommendations of several guidelines and expert consensus.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 223 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 222 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 13%
Student > Bachelor 23 10%
Student > Master 20 9%
Other 19 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 9%
Other 52 23%
Unknown 60 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 101 45%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 13 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 2%
Other 25 11%
Unknown 64 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 April 2024.
All research outputs
#3,317,780
of 23,275,636 outputs
Outputs from Gastric Cancer
#33
of 605 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,865
of 264,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gastric Cancer
#3
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,275,636 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 605 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,342 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.