Act following etiquette and change with time: analysis and discussion on the difference between the current guidelines and clinical practice of gastrointestinal stromal tumor / 中华胃肠外科杂志

ABSTRACT

Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is the most common mesenchymal tumor in the gastrointestinal tract. At present, many professional academic groups and associations at home and abroad have released guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of GIST. In 2020, Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor Expert Committee of China Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) issued the first "CSCO gastrointestinal stromal tumor diagnosis and treatment guidelines" in China. In the same year, NCCN also released the first "NCCN guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (first edition in 2021)" by separating GIST-related content from the guideline for soft tissue sarcoma. However, there are many inconsistencies between the guidelines' recommendation and clinical practice in China. For example, in the aspect of diagnosis, the emphasis on and implementation of molecular detection are variable, the format of molecular detection report is not unified or standardized, the selection of detection methods is inappropriate, the diagnosis of wild-type GIST is not standardized, the risk assessment is improper, and the use of EUS-FNA is relatively seldom; in the aspect of drug therapy, there are some problems, such as the lack of standardization in dose and course of targeted drugs, and off-label medication such as cross line therapy; in terms of surgical treatment, there are also some problems, such as the clinical application scenarios of laparoscopic surgery exceed the recommendations of the guidelines, and the general description of surgical intervention of advanced GIST in the guidelines cannot well guide specific clinical practice. In this context, on the one hand, clinicians need to understand the academic frontier and standardize their medical behavior with the latest guidelines; on the other hand, clinicians need to consider the scientific rationale and accessibility of treatment on some clinical problems that are not clear in the guidelines, and take whether patients can benefit the most as the criteria.