↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

A meta-analysis of prognostic value of KIT mutation status in gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Overview of attention for article published in OncoTargets and therapy, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
A meta-analysis of prognostic value of KIT mutation status in gastrointestinal stromal tumors
Published in
OncoTargets and therapy, June 2016
DOI 10.2147/ott.s101858
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zhiqiang Jiang, Jian Zhang, Zhi Li, Yingjun Liu, Daohai Wang, Guangsen Han

Abstract

Numerous types of KIT mutations have been reported in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs); however, controversy still exists regarding their clinicopathological significance. In this study, we reviewed the publicly available literature to assess the data by a meta-analysis to characterize KIT mutations and different types of KIT mutations in prognostic prediction in patients with GISTs. Twenty-eight studies that included 4,449 patients were identified and analyzed. We found that KIT mutation status was closely correlated with size of tumors and different mitosis indexes, but not with tumor location. KIT mutation was also observed to be significantly correlated with tumor recurrence, metastasis, as well as the overall survival of patients. Interestingly, there was higher risk of progression in KIT exon 9-mutated patients than in exon 11-mutated patients. Five-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate was significantly higher in KIT exon 11-deleted patients than in those with other types of KIT exon 11 mutations. In addition, RFS for 5 years was significantly worse in patients bearing KIT codon 557-558 deletions than in those bearing other KIT exon 11 deletions. Our results strongly support the hypothesis that KIT mutation status is another evaluable factor for prognosis prediction in GISTs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 22%
Researcher 2 22%
Lecturer 1 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 11%
Other 2 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 11%
Philosophy 1 11%
Computer Science 1 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 29 June 2016.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from OncoTargets and therapy
#2,078
of 3,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#309,346
of 353,651 outputs
Outputs of similar age from OncoTargets and therapy
#77
of 124 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 353,651 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 124 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.