G1, Kit, and PDGFRAmutation. Dog1 is urgent not only in typical GISTs but also in GIST-kit mutation-negative terms. Another study Tandutinib MLN518 by Espinosa et al. on dog1 Antique body, showed a sensitivity of t and specificity t immunoreactive with 87% GIST. In contrast, only 74% responded to immunostaining CD117/KIT staining. Since 5-7% of GISTs and PDGFRA Mutation Kit 5% of GISTs do not respond CD117/KIT mutated, F dyeing A dog w Re an important tool for more accurate diagnosis of GIST be. In addition, GIST PDGFRA mutation still benefit from treatment with imatinib, so that a dog is an important tool in these conditions. Dog1 immunohistochemical F Staining is commercially available in some countries too including normal of the United States under the brand name of Thermo Scientific, Genway Biotech LSBio and Leica.
The tumor size E, location, and mitotic index initially remain the most important variables in risk stratification systems Highest by the National Institutes of Health, known as Fletcher’s criteria to be developed. revised system for the risk stratification of NIH inclusion of other prognostic MLN8054 factors that influence such as non-radical resection of tumor rupture and negative consequences has been proposed by several researchers and was sp ter called the NIH criteria modified. Location of the tumor was subsequently shown that independent Independent prognostic value and have been subsequently endorsed in the Lasota Miettinen / Armed Forces Institute of Pathology for risk stratification system.
The AFIP system has the advantage of providing digitally calculated risk of tumor recurrence and / or progression, which make an essential tool to help clinicians make treatment decisions is sound. The guidelines were also recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the College of American Pathologists. The same guidelines were used by the majority of case reports will be evaluated. The main disadvantage is the complexity of the AFIP t as eight sub-groups and further divided into different prognostic subgroups. This reduces the sensitivity and specificity of t prediction of recurrence. Moreover, the system tends to NIH over grade gastric tumors and closure of a subset of tumors compared with nongastric AFIP system. The complexity t of the AFIP risk stratification has led to the proposal of a TNM system for GIST.
The seventh edition of the International Union Against Cancer in 2010 included Ver Published for the first time, a classification system for collection and GIST with the TNM system. The main objective of the TNM system is a unified and standardized analysis of malignant tumors according to their level of development and the degree to facilitate the spread. Other researchers have argued that is not how to rename the existing risk-group, which was developed by the AFIP with the TNM system. The TNM system is better than the current risk stratification AFIP systemin still needs to approve. There were no F Lle reported, we examined the TNM system is used as a method of layering. A recent bev Lkerungsbezogene observational cohort study with 2560 patients by Joensuu et al. compared the NIH criteria, the GE survive nderten criteria of the NIH and AFIP system for risk stratification for disease-free with imatinib na fs ready for GIST. The study data suggested