Analysis reveals risk stratification and prognosis for hypermetabolic GISTs using 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters, suggesting improved predictive capabilities.
Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the value of various PET parameters derived from 18F- FDG PET/CT for risk stratification and prognosis of hypermetabolic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Methods: This study included 43 patients who underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging with hypermetabolic (SUVmax > 2.5) GIST and underwent surgical treatment. Clinicopathological characteristics, risk stratification, PET parameters including standard uptake values (SUVs), metabolic tumor volume (MTV), total lesion glycolysis (TLG), and heterogeneity index (HI), and follow-up data were reviewed. The relationship between PET parameters and risk stratification based on the modified National Institutes of Health (NIH) criteria was analyzed. PET parameters were assessed to predict relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS), based on Cox regression analysis and Kaplan–Meier analysis. Results: The median follow-up duration was 50 months. During follow-up, 11 patients (25.58%) experienced recurrence and 8 (18.60%) died. In risk stratification, the high-risk group exhibited more frequent extragastric location, larger tumor size, higher mitotic count, and elevated PET parameters except SUVmax. MTV (≤32.68 vs. >32.68, 95% CI: 1.358–72.048, p = 0.024) emerged as an independent PET parameter of risk stratification. In univariate analysis, tumor location (gastric vs. extragastric), SUVmax (≤10.25 vs. >10.25), and HI (≤2.44 vs. >2.44) were significant prognostic factors for RFS. Tumor location and SUVmax were significant to OS on univariate analysis. However, in multivariate analysis, only SUVmax (95% CI: 1.549–46.071, p = 0.014) was an independent prognostic factor for both RFS and OS. Conclusions: 18F-FDG PET/CT demonstrates predictive value for hypermetabolic GIST patients. MTV derived from 18F-FDG PET/CT improves the ability of predicting risk stratification. SUVmax is an effective predictor of both RFS and OS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: